Pennsbury Falcon Invitational
2022 — NSDA Campus, PA/US
Varsity Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I was a policy and congressional debater with a bit of speech experience.
I'm open to anything and everything. I treat everything the same. Go for anything and as long as you lay everything out for me, you should be fine. Don't make me do the work that you should be doing in the round.
Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.
Please include content warnings/trigger warnings if the case discusses topics that require it. I will drop your speaks if you don't have one.
Keep your own time please :)
I don’t know anything about any of the topics, I probably won’t even know what the resolution is till the 1ac.
TLDR: Go for anything; I have no preference. Weigh your args. Be nice.
LD: I was a policy/congressional debater. I never did LD but I have judged quite a few rounds. With that, I don’t prefer a specific style but know I am not well-versed with all of the phil, tricks, theory, etc.
PF: I never did PF nor do I judge PF that often. I understand PF cares a bit more about speaking style, I don’t. You could spread and I wouldn’t dock your speaks (as long as your opponents are cool with this and have the case etc). Just give me clear, concise overviews and thoroughly explain why you win my ballot. I really enjoy it when teams make it easy for me, especially in PF. Strike me if you disagree with this
Congress: Kinesics and presentation are important to a certain extent, but if your content is subpar then it won’t matter as much to me. I love good clash in congress and hate rehash with a burning passion. I don’t wanna hear three aff speeches back to back about xyz issue because then, instead of being a debate event, it becomes a speech event. I encourage you to be aggressive (yet respectful) during cx!
Flow: I will flow everything in the round and base my ballot off of what I see on my flow. I don't flow cx unless you tell me to. Tag team cx is cool with me.
Quality > Quantity
Tech > Truth
I flow tags usually and don't really worry about the author. Because of this, try not to rely on your extension being solely "extend smith '21" because I won't know which card you're referring to.
Kritiks: I have some experience with k's (biopolitics, necropolitics, set col) but not a ton. Treat me as a lay judge with your kritik. If you run a K, make sure you understand what you are talking about and you flesh out every link. Also, if you have any sort of narrative or poem or something along those lines, please don't spread that. It's pretty disrespectful and makes me feel icky.
DA: Explain your disad thoroughly. Fully explain how your opponents link and why it matters. If there's no impact then what's the point.
Speed: I'm decent with speed but add me to the email chain just in case. Slow down on analytics or I won’t catch everything. If I yell clear once or twice and you don’t comply, then I’ll just stop flowing.
Theory: If your opponent doesn't answer this then you win the round just give your voters and I'll flow it. I don’t buy disclosure theory because my jurisdiction begins with the 1ac and ends once I’ve submitted my ballot. I'm not super familiar with very extensive theory args. I am familiar with simple theory shells. Because of that, I probably won't understand a super, in-depth theory argument
Speaks: Speaks are incredibly arbitrary; I have no set measurement for speaks. I tend to usually give the highest speaks to individuals that I felt were genuinely respectful throughout the round. If you’re cocky and rude and just overall mean to your opponent, you may win the flow but you and your opponents speaks will prob be like .1 away from each other. Aside from just being like a decent person, if you give me organized rebuttals that make it easy to write my ballot, you’ll get high speaks. Literally just make it easy for me and you’ll do well
If you post-round, be nice about it. Once I’ve submitted my ballot, I can not change it. I can answer questions to justify my decision, but giving me another rebuttal after the round will do nothing but waste everyone’s time. If you start to get snappy or yell at me, I’ll turn off my computer or walk out of the room.
Basically just be precise, do all the work for me when explaining your argument, weigh your arguments, and be nice!!
Have fun and be open to learn :)
I've judged over 100 debate rounds in the last 2 years at this point. I will flow the round. The biggest caveat is that you should not spread. It does not enhance argumentation and just makes the debate less engaging and less educational. I am putting this at the top of my paradigm. If you decide to spread, and as a result get dropped, that is your fault for not reading the paradigm, not a judge screw.
Pref Cheat Sheet
Traditional Debate/Lay- 1
Slow, Policy-Style debate- 4
Complex Phil- 4
Friv Theory- Strike
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 would like there to be an email chain, especially for virtual debates. add me to it- email@example.com If you do not make an email chain that indicates you did not read the paradigm and will result in dropped speaks :)
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 am a Princeton High School parent volunteer judge and an elected public official well-versed in campaign speaking and real-life policy deliberation.
I have a low toleration for speed (do not like spreading) and value clear, concise and audible arguments, delivered with courtesy and respect for all participants. Look me in the eye and explain why your value is most important and make your case. Remember, I haven't been studying your topic for weeks -- bring me along with your arguments. Fewer, well-supported contentions preferred. Debate jargon is annoying.
Please give me a clear way to vote for you. I will not intervene in the round unless you give me a reason to. Other than that, have fun and convince me of your position.
As a judge, I look for my debaters to be firm but respectful. Use the time to prove why you're correct and why your opponent is not. I expect the round to get heated at times, but respect for your opponent and judge is crucial.
I will keep official time, but participants are welcome to keep time as well. The timer will begin ON YOUR FIRST WORD after I have instructed you to begin.
Feel free to ask me questions at any point and I will answer to the best of my ability. Good Luck!
Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to LD so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is LD not Policy.
Debate the resolution, not something you bought from a college student or topic you find enlightening - the resolutions are chosen , voted on , for a reason.
Repeat: Debate the resolution
One more time: Debate the resolution
So with this in mind, speed and flow, I can flow very quickly, however if it sounds like you are hyperventilating then well, breathe, breathe and slow down, you will need to since you just dropped those points or contentions - you may even see me put my pen or pencil down as an indicator. Have you ever wondered what those breathing exercises got you? Do they help with a college or job interview? If you ever do speak that quickly during an interview can you please tape and put on youtube so we can watch the other person's reaction. =)
For your K - well we all know some may try to use, not the biggest fan, especially when the debater does not fully understand what they arguing or at least the premise of their K and or using a generic K that could be used anywhere in the world!!! What would be fun to hear is that the impact and alternative brought about puppies and rainbows =)
So with that in mind, life is simple, right? Your Value should simply win out and and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since you slow downed so I can actually hear them. =) Yes I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it!
Oh wait, almost forgot, remember this is not policy !
I am a traditional Lincoln Douglas judge that prefers philosophical arguments. I love to see value clash and I always prefer a debater that gives clear and concise voting issues at the end of the round. Spreading is okay as long as I can understand you but my preference is to hear a few thoroughly explained arguments over a high quantity of half explained arguments. I am a judge that flows so please give me sign posts so I can keep track of where you are (i.e. "in my opponent's contention one..").
My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my recent retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD).
Speed: I prefer a moderate speed for debate. Enunciation is important! I was never a speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.
Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler.
The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech.
Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.
I prefer to not disclose my decisions in the rounds, but if it is the preferred method of the tournament I will do so.
I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!
Respect for one another is my primary requirement.
In debate, I value argument structure, clarity, cohesion, and evidence. The team that clearly provides a strong support of their resolution usually can win. Your closing and summary should provide a rounding of material and throw out what must be disregarded. This is not a place to introduce anything outside of scope or dare I say, "new information".
Do not throw away your opportunity at Cross. It is important that you tackle the opponent's position in any way. Tell me why your impact is greater, why is theirs not, use your framework to give priorities to those impacts. Use logical structure. You might even have the opponent strengthen your case with just the right question.
I treat every speech as an education. My primary role is to listen. I'm not a participant, but speech which brings me into the speaker's world, in with their words, into the construct, may have an advantage.
I value the usual mechanics - poise, quality and use of voice, bodily expressiveness, directness and sincerity.
Extemp is near and dear to me. Be organized, factually correct, and interesting.
I hate hyperbole. Avoid "always", "never", and other absolutes. An absolute opens your opponent to providing one instance or example that weakens your position. At that point, your "always" or "never" is rendered mute.
I am a relatively experienced judge and have competed in novice LD. I need to be able to hear and understand your case so please do not spread. I value a strong framework, relevant and well-used evidence, and good blocks.
Forensics Team coach for Dallastown since 2014
For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.
Speed and Decorum:
Send me your case. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org I cannot overemphasize the necessity of doing this – it will help keep me focused and generally just make me happier. Using the file share feature on online platforms is also OK. (Let me know that you've sent me your case.)
Spreading…fine if you've given me the speech DOC and follow it (or make it clear where you deviate). Probably also a good practice for virtual debates, too. .
If we ever go back to in-person debating, I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just vaguely remain in the room. If in person, I'm not a handshake person.
Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.
Some debaters have asked me for "time signals" (like in extemp?) - this will result in my not taking notes. If you want this, be aware that I won't be taking notes and you'll risk me forgetting the content of your speeches.
Arguments that are obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you run them.)
I do not prefer theory. I find it unnecessarily complicated and usually designed to make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.
You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.
Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!
Tricks = no. Thanks.
Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Similarly, there isn’t much that is “off limits” (other than that which is listed above…pay attention to that). Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you probably be sad at the end of the round.
I prefer traditional LD debate and do not like it when opponents spread. I am heavily interested in how your evidence proves your contentions. I also prefer hearing a good value clash, especially because it is a key driver of the round. Once your time is up, I will let you finish your sentence, but that's about it; don't abuse the system. I will be flowing and make sure to be respectful towards your opponent. I am fine with off-time road mapping as well.
Lincoln-Douglas debate is a clash of values, in which the values represent means to an idealistic, just world. Aff's and Neg's criteria are the lenses through which I understand and measure those values. I do not subscribe to the formulaic "My value is [...] and my value criterion is [...]" but you must clearly state your value, criterion, and contentions — please don't let me depend on your opponent's Cross-X to discover them.
In an ideal round, the winning debater will do the better job of tightly upholding their criterion with succinctly argued contentions that enable me to understand why their value creates a better world. In other words, for me to award you the round, I appreciate a cohesive narrative that persuades me your case's worldview is the better of the two in the round (and, of course, that would include a capable attack on your opponent's narrative and counter-attacks on their rebuttals). Nothing surprising.
In a less-than-perfect round, the loss goes to the debater who fails to present a well-structured case and doesn't effectively undermine their opponent's case and attacks. By the way, I highly respect a Neg case that is FOR something rather than just AGAINST.
Be aware that I don't judge Policy, so I'm not experienced in speed/spreading. If I can't "understand" how you're saying your contentions, I'm unlikely to understand what they are; a fast-paced conversational style is fine, just don't go auctioneer on me. There will not be any overt signal coming from me if you are speaking too quickly or otherwise unintelligibly; the burden of communication is on your shoulders, not mine.
Yes, I am knowledgeable of philosophical, historical, political, and socio/economic issues and hold opinions on them, but each round is tabula-rasa for me: you need not change my opinions to win — just demonstrate you're the better debater in the room. Presume as little as possible about your audience — I will base my decision entirely on whatever arguments and evidence I hear and understand during the round.
Most everything said above for LD applies to PF, except that PF is not values-based and is defined primarily by the concept of the Lay Judge. You must assume I know only what the average person-on-the-street knows. Consequently, in addition to concise, well-structured arguments that form a cohesive narrative that supports your case and effectively counters your opponent's, you must also demonstrate your ability to educate me in the topic and why it's important to the Real World (me).
True For All Rounds
âž Always be civil and respectful; respect is core to debate.
âž The best Cross-X/-Fire is the one that's a conversation and advances debate.
âž If you ask a question in Cross, I expect you're interested in an answer (don't interrupt or dismiss your opponent).
âž It's best you time yourself, but do not abuse the speech times; when the clock hits zero, find a place for a period quickly.
University of Central Florida Alumnus
Four years of LD for Fort Lauderdale HS and former policy debater for UCF.
***Avoid graphic explanations of gratuitous anti-black violence and refrain from reading radical Black positions if you are not Black.***
If you're rushing to do prefs here's a rough cheat sheet:
1- K and performance debates
2- framework debates, general topical debates
3- LARP debates and util debates
4- Theory/ Tricks debates
I will evaluate any argument so long as they are not morally repugnant, actively violent, or deeply rooted in foolishness. I can handle speed but due to the online setting, please go slower than you usually do. Also, be sure to properly extend and implicate your arguments in the debate as well, saying "extend X" and moving on doesn't really do much. In short, tell me why your arguments matter and why I should vote on/evaluate them. At the end of the day do what you do best—unless it's tricks and/or frivolous interps— and have fun doing it.
Quick update for online: I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I will say clear or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain or file share (and include your analytics!!) so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.
TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.
If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!
Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com
Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.
I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.
I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.
However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:
Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.
For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.
Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.
Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.
Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.
For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.
I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).
I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.
Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.
I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.
I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.
If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.
Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.
Final Approach to RFD:
I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!
Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:
- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.
- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.
I am a mathematician at The College of New Jersey who participated in Parliamentary Debate in college. Highlights included serving on the organizing committee for the World Universities Debate Championship when held in Princeton, NJ, and arguing in a debate that the New York Times should have a daily sports section (it didn't then, but does now!).
Fred Astaire did not have a great singing voice, but he was a good singer as he clearly enunciated the wonderful lyrics of Irving Berlin and Cole Porter. Similarly, arguments are most effective when they are clearly articulated and can be understood. Also, it is the quality of the argument, and not just having abundance of facts, that is most convincing.
I am mostly a traditional Flow Judge and will minimize my intervention in the round. Please give me a clear way to vote for you and remember that a persuasive argument succeeds on both the intellectual and emotional levels. Do not exceed your time limits and in the crossfire, do not talk over the other debaters and allow the other side enough time to ask their questions.
Case - Don't have any clear contradictions. I will vote off glaring flaws, though small flaws need to be pointed out by the other team. For example, don't have C1 be promoting X and C2 be getting rid of X. Put your strongest foot first. I don't approve of time sink arguments.
Cross - Please don't interrupt. Both teams need to share the time. Speaks will be deducted.
Rebuttal - Don't overuse jargon like "turns." Explain the logic. I care more about a clear and logical explanation of your warranting than 10 different responses on each contention.
Summary/Final Focus - Must extend in at least one of these speeches.
Eric He -
Debated for Grapevine '19
Now debating for Dartmouth '23
Better than most for cp theory
Slightly neg on condo when equally debated
Kritiks are ok
Affs should probably be topical but will still vote for affs that do not have a plan text - I belive fairness is an impact
Wipeout and/or spark is :(
for LD -
really quickly - CP/DA or DA or CP+some net benefit = good, K = good, T/Condo = good, phil = eh, tricks = bad
I am a policy debater. That means I am ok with speed, and I much prefer progressive debate over traditional LD. Bad theory arguments are :( - that means stuff like no neg fiat
Offense defense risk analysis will be used
solvency is necessary
T is not a rvi
yes zero risk is a thing
please be clear
please do line by line - this is not something i should have to put in my paradigm
For online debate, I am more inclined to give highest speaker points to both parties, since internet issues can result in some speech not coming through clearly. With that leeway being said, there's still some points in the speaker point section that would greatly benefit you chances of winning the round, so if you do read the entire paradigm, don't shy away from it.
During the constructive speeches, make sure you are clear. I cannot stress this enough. If you decide to spread, at the very least, be clear. Most people don't have a problem with being clear but actively annunciate. (doing this in all speeches is preferred)
I really like the 1st crossfire. There's a lot of good things that can come out of 1st crossfire that the other crossfires can't necessarily benefit from. 1st speakers start with 29 speaker points and 1st crossfire can really boost y'all up to 30. Make it productive and polite, yet still, be aggressive.
Rebuttals should have weighing, which is something most people don't do, but would help the round move more smoothly. Attack wise, I always prefer line-by-line, but going big picture won't cost you the round. 2nd speakers start with 28 speaker points. A good rebuttal with clear signposting and line-by-line gets y'all 29 speaker points. Weighing will add another .5 speaker points.
2nd crossfire should have a lot of hardball questions now that your opponent's strategy is more clear. Like the 1st crossfire, make it productive and polite, yet still, be aggressive.
Both summary speeches need to incorporate defense brought up in rebuttal. On top of that, establishing your path to the ballot is key here. Weighing is the best way to gain a speaker point if you didn't get it in the 1st crossfire. If you don't say it in summary, your partner can't say it in the final focus. That's pretty normal for most rounds, but I will actively listen for new arguments and actively not write them down.
Grand crossfire is a time to have fun. You can expand on summary arguments, so "new arguments" are sort of allowed. Establishing dominance is key in this crossfire because if you as the individual are dominant, you can make up for the speaker point you didn't get in the other speeches. That being said, being dominant doesn't mean being mean. There is a perfect middle ground that most people can get to. If you are being mean, you won't lose speaker points, but if you actively insult your opponents, expect you and your partner to lose speaker points.
Final Focus is my favorite speech. First, voters. If you don't have voters from the summary, you can't win. Making new arguments is bad. My summary speech paradigm explains this pretty well. This is where 2nd speakers can get their final speaker point for straight 30s. The way you do that is pretty easy: give me your voters and tell me why I should value your voters over your opponents. The 1st final focus will have a harder time on this, but it's not impossible especially considering that you heard your opponent's summary.
For reference, I did Public Forum for 4 years with Lincoln Douglas and a couple of speech activities sprinkled in around.
Something that does bother me for some reason is when an entire speech's time isn't filled up. Do try to fill it up as much as possible. If you don't, I'm hoping you only have at most 30 seconds left of the speech. If your speech is shorter than that, I am inclined to remove .5 speaker points. However, comma, if there really isn't anything left to talk about in your speech and there is more than 30 seconds left in your speech, DO NOT RAMBLE. I sometimes rambled on at the end of my speeches because I had nothing so say, and it didn't add to my argument. State the facts and be done with it.
Empirics is something that each team should have. Straight empirics are more important than philosophical arguments to me. If you do run theory, don't call it a theory. It's not terribly hard to adapt theory to PF, but if your opponents call you out for theory, I may just drop the whole theory from the debate. You be the judge of when it'll be appropriate. If you do use theory, I will tell you at the end of the round if I valued it or dropped it. If I dropped it, feel free to attempt to convince me that I should've valued it. If you slip up and get angry and yell at me, I'll call the cops. That's a joke. I won't get offended, I know what it's like to lose an argument that I spent a lot of time developing both outside and during the round. Please be nice and don't waste time.
Something I tend to hear in PF now is a colorful analogy. I really like analogies because it makes it more family friendly for lay judges and tired judges. What I like more than analogies are references. If you make a bad reference to pop culture, you lose .5 speaker points. So don't spend too much time on analogies. A good reference will follow nonnormative meme culture (if you don't know what that is, I would shy away from pop culture reference and stick to vanilla analogies).
If you have any specific questions, ask me. Most judges will be a little peeved if you just ask "What are your paradigms?" instead of specific questions, but I won't get mad. Ask.
If you have scrolled this far, welcome to the LD Paradigms.
I absolutely need clear roadmaps for each speech. It will help me be able to catch all the important details as well as your opponent in order to have a productive exchange of arguments.
I do not mind progressive debate. Progressive debate is a staple of LD and can be used very effectively. However, I will not value progressive aspects of the debate over physical evidence directly pertaining to the Resolution. Feel free to ask specific questions about certain strategies before the round starts in order to make sure that what you are utilizing isn't too farfetched and way out of left field.
The 1AC is simple. Feel free to spread, do what you need to do to get everything out on the table.
The 1NC is a little less simple. Anything not addressed by the Negating side is assumed to be conceded for the Affirmative side. This will make is easier for the round as a whole, but harder for the Negating side for obvious reason. Even if it is just mentioned briefly I will still let it fly as you addressing it and you can clarify further in CX or the NR.
CX as a whole should be respectful, but also definitely demanding. whichever side is questioning has a lot of power to drive the narrative, so use the full force of the examination. In PF, CX can get a little disrespectful and it can hurt speaker points, which is why I am most likely not going to deduct any speaker points based on CX performance. I will only add speaker points.
1AR's focus should be a rebuttal of course, but there also needs to be plenty of weighing. This will make it easier for me to find the path to the ballot for the Affirmative. Any weighing not done here cannot be brought over to the 2AR.
The NR has the hardest job. Not only do you have to rebut all terminal attacks, but you also have to weigh and give me the Negating side's path to the ballot. New arguments in the NR won't be written down by me, but like I said in the 1NC, if you at least mention your attack and give some brief understanding of where you're going, you can further extrapolate on that idea in this speech.
2AR should almost be a mirror of the 1AR in my opinion. No new arguments, only crowd control is allowed. If something truly diabolical is said in the NR, go ahead and address it, but make sure it has direct relevance to your speech content.
It's pretty easy to get 30 speaker points. I'm fairly nice about it. The way I give speaker points is the Affirmative side starts with 27 speaker points and the Negating side starts with 28. I will add speaker points with each speech you give. As long as you are clear when you spread you will probably get the point.
But let's assume you choke up in your 1AC and either don't finish your case reading or you skipped too far down and missed an important link. It's alright because if you perform well under the pressure of your opponent's questioning in your CX, I will give you .5 of a speaker point back to you. In order to get the other half of the speaker point, you must ask important and relevant questions in your CX of the Negating side, making sure you keep your opponent in check while still being somewhat respectful (but go ahead and be rude it's more fun that way). And of course, this works for the Negating side as well, these terms are not exclusive for the Affirmative side. For obvious reasons, I can't give more than 30 speaker points (I don't think).
Like my PF paradigm, ask any and all questions you have before the round starts. If you have any questions during the round you would like to ask me, feel free to do so. I can understand the stress of debating and now having technology as the middle man will jumble up your mental processes. It will disrupt the immersion and flow of the round, but if it's a necessary question then it's a necessary evil. Just make sure it doesn't happen more than once or twice.
If there are any questions or concerns after the round regarding either my paradigm or RFD, feel free to email me at email@example.com I might not get to it immediately, but if you make the subject line what round and flight you were for what tournament, I will be more likely to answer promptly
H.H. Dow High 2020 - Debated LD for 3 years and Policy fir 1
Hockemeyertyler@gmail.com - Please add me to the email chain
I am not a fan of spreading and mainly did trad debate. I'm perfectly fine to vote for theory and k's however you must explain it well.
About myself: I'm a biology and environmental science teacher, while also an assistant speech/debate coach.
Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I prefer a more traditional style of argumentation that is well supported with evidence. Please try to speak at a pace that allows me to understand you and take notes about your case (quality of cards over quantity). Please clarify arguments at the end and make evidence very clear on the flow.
Good luck and have fun!
I like coherent, well sttuctured arguments and rebuttals.
I'm not a fan of spreading. Don't waterboard me with a firehose of data.
"And therefore, as when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own accord, set up for right Reason, the Reason of some Arbitrator, or Judge, to whose sentence they will both stand, or their controversie must either come to blowes, or be undecided, for want of a right Reason constituted by Nature."
- Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Pt. 1, Ch. 5, para. 3
I did LD debate for four years in high school, so I understand the event's jargon and how arguments interact with each other in terms of the framework and contention level. This means that I also flow the debate and will make note if a debater extends a conceded argument (so don't expect to win me over with a flowery 2AR if your 1AR was a dropfest). I am definitely tabula rasa, so I'll accept any arguments made in the round as long as they are either uncontested or better upheld in terms of clash, even if I personally disagree or know a given statistic is misleading. However, I will not accept any arguments that are blatantly offensive or abusive (ex: racism and ridiculous "observations" that make it impossible for your opponent to win the round). I cast my ballot by picking the superior framework and weighing who has the most offense under that framework in terms of cards and contentions.
I'm alright with a faster than normal pace, but please don't go full blast. If you feel the need to send me your speech doc via e-mail, then you're definitely going past the line.
Counterplans/kritiks/other policy stuff
I'm alright with you running these in the right context (i.e. it's pretty unfair to run a policy-esque plantext at a traditional tournament in which your opponent almost certainly has no familiarity with such arguments). However, I'm probably less likely to vote on these arguments compared to a traditional 1AC or 1NC, so run them at your own discretion. I'm most open to counterplans, as those are pretty intuitive and they already get run all the time in oblique fashion anyway.
Unfortunately, I am sometimes dragged into judging this event. I did policy a handful of times in high school, but I don't have the same level of familiarity with the event that I do with LD. Most of the stuff from above applies (i.e. no new arguments in your rebuttal speeches, an argument that's dropped and extended is considered true within the round).
I understand that you generally have to spread in order to read your 1AC or 1NC in time, so I simply ask you to slow down (relatively speaking) in your rebuttals and speak clearly when you spread.
Don't run ultra-esoteric kritiks. If your K asks me to do something like "embrace the queer suicide bomber," "embrace the death drive," or embrace whatever form of ______ futurism, I will probably be less likely to vote for it (to put it lightly). My paradigm is generally tabula rasa, but I'd rather be upfront about arguments I'm skeptical of and often don't follow. If you run these arguments, you will probably get killed by utopian fiat, or your opponent will respond at the level of the K and the round will essentially become a coin flip because I won't follow a lot of the clash.
Collapse and focus on a few key arguments if you're arguing over theory. The last thing I want is to have to vote based on some three second blip you made in one of your rebuttals and I didn't even have time to flow properly.
TL;DR FOR PREFS usually a trad judge BUT LARP=K>phil>t/theory>tricks
*Sorry I know this is super long, but I figured it’s better to be comprehensive than not. Control F if you’re looking for something specific.
I’m Eva, any pronouns are fine (they/she/he). I did traditional LD back in the day; made r12 at NSDAs in 2017&18 and won NCFLs in 2018. I’ve coached some people to do pretty well at big trad tourneys since then. I’m currently the LD coach at Hawken School and have done some work for camps (in order of recency: Triumph, VBI, CDC)
Email: email@example.com put me on the chain thx i flow off the doc if ur spreading esp online
Email me or message me on Facebook if you have questions before the round or after. I’ll pretty much always answer.
Affiliations: Hawken, Triumph Teams
Other Conflicts: Liberty HS (OH), University School DP
Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 300+ local rounds
I try to be tab, I try to be tech>truth, I try not to intervene, but nobody is perfect. Make this easier for me by not reading arguments that are blatantly untrue or offensive and by making your paths to the ballot very clear.
- I strive to intervene the least amount possible, both because I think it's a good way to judge and because I'm really lazy. I do not want to do any work for you. If by the end of the round I'm unclear on what framing you're operating under, what your biggest pieces of offense are and their warrants, the weighing in the round, etc. and I have to do all that for you, I may cry.
One of my biggest priorities as a judge is round safety. I have made interventionist decisions based on conduct in round and I’ll do it again if I have to, so don’t be offensive or a jerk. My threshold for this is mostly a gut feeling, so just be nice and avoid it entirely :) If you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.
Rounds should be accessible to your opponent. This means that you should, of course, use inclusionary language, correct pronouns, content warnings if necessary, etc. but also means that you should not spread complex Ks or tricks or anything otherwise unnecessarily high level against novices, lay debaters, etc. If you do this I will be supremely annoyed and you will be very unhappy with your speaks. What is the point of winning a debate round if your opponent never has a chance to compete? (more on this in the trad v. circuit section)
Random Thoughts on Online Competition
I think you should send docs even if you’re not spreading. I don’t want you to have to restart a card if you cut out for like five words, so just send docs and things will be much easier.
Don’t get stressed if I’m not looking at my screen. I flow on paper, so I’m usually looking away.
PLEASE CEASE WITH YOUR BEEPING TIMERS AND SHUFFLING PAPERS AND CLICKING PENS OML. It is annoying and puts my brain out of commission for several seconds. If you need to use a timer with audio pls just do one of the fun ones, the beeping ones are so atrocious
Read whatever you want but I don’t judge or coach circuit enough to know the ins and outs of a lot of tech arguments. This means maybe you should give me slower overviews or not go for super complex tech stuff. Speed is generally ok but probably go like 75% speed max if you're spreading in front of me esp if it's something particularly complex cuz otherwise I will miss a lot and that's bad for everyone involved. At least slow way down on tags or if you're transitioning to a diff off or something thx. Idc much about adaptation argument wise but I’ll only be able to understand what you’re saying if it’s slow enough to flow
(these are loosely listed in order of my combined preference and understanding of them)
Policy/LARP: I think of all circuit arguments policy stuff is both what I understand the most. I will have a pretty high expectation for evidence, warrants, weighing, all of those things if you’re running policy stuff. Please don’t just card dump. I want actual analysis and explanations of warrants, impacts, etc. I don’t really think this is too much to ask.
Kritiks: In general, I’m fine for this, I might even like them. I at least find myself voting for them a lot. I find a lot of Ks to be underdeveloped and would really prefer if the position was like actually explained and contextualized. I probably haven’t read your lit, so if you’re reading something super obscure or complex pls slow down and actually explain what you’re on about. I’ve read cap, fem, and queer lit but just the basics and just for school. I’ll vote for a non-t aff but you gotta tell me why whatever you're doing is more important than violating topicality / accepted rules of debate. I'll also vote off performance but it needs to be clear how exactly i'm meant to evaluate the performance. I also think a lot of k debaters need to get better at extending/explaining the substantive content in the k as opposed to just blippy extensions. high theory is fine i guess but please for the love of god actually explain what you are saying. i already need to decode heidegger for school i do not want to have to do it during a debate round thx
Phil: I’m a philosophy major so I generally will be able to pick up what you’re putting down. Like anything, though, it needs to be well explained, warranted, and clearly framed, especially if you’re running something more obscure. Circuit debaters sometimes annoy me by assuming everyone knows what their framework is and thus do not tell me how to weigh under it. I need to know. Also pls go slower on your phil cases oml i can only write so fast and I can comprehend even slower than that. My philosophy knowledge is primarily in modern analytic moral/political theory but I've read some continental stuff. I’d rather see a well fleshed out theory from your fw as opposed to a million tricks
Theory/T: I like T better than theory. I'm sort of changing my philosophy here but it's a work in progress. Theory is okay for me. BUT I have very little experience with theory so you can't just use the buzzword shells and hope I get it, because I probably won't. So re: theory, treat the shell like an ELI5 post. If the round comes down to theory in front of me I won't even feel bad about not knowing what's happening because that's just bad adaptation on your part. I'll probably vote off friv if it's clear why I should. I am tired of hearing timesuck disclosure and T shells tbqh - tho, tbf, i'll probably be more lenient here (esp on disclosure good) at toc.
Tricks: I'll vote off them but I'm not very smart so idk if I'm an optimal tricks judge
In terms of traditional judges, I’m super flow. I like the big picture debate, but it is often meaningless to me if you have not done a good job with the technical aspects of the round. Make sure that you are interacting on that level.
Traditional debaters should weigh more pls weigh.
I like the framework debate! I’m very familiar with most of the philosophy/frameworks in trad, so I’ll be able to pick up whatever you put down. But I am also really tired of seeing bad framework debates in traditional. For example:
The value debate does not matter. I cannot think of a single round in my time in debate where this has not been true.
If what you really want is the util debate, then just run util. Traditional debaters do this thing where they’re like “my framework is rights” but it’s clearly just util.
Make sure you are explicitly weighing under your framing/whatever framing is being used in the round.
“They do not achieve their fw” is not a response to the fw. “My fw is a prerequisite” is almost never explained and I usually cannot figure out a single reason why it matters or is true.
Traditional debaters too often get away with making arguments that are racist, sexist, etc. Do not make offensive arguments or use offensive language. You’ll be unhappy with your speaks and maybe with the outcome of the round.
Trad v. Circuit
With the online format, tournaments are becoming more of a mixed bag of circuit and trad kids. I’m noticing some things about these rounds so I thought I’d throw this in here.
I think circuit debaters should make more of an effort to make rounds more accessible to trad debaters. Yes, I understand they chose to come to this tournament. I understand they can just read the speech docs. I understand all of your excuses for still spreading multiple offs against trad kids. But that doesn’t really mean I’m sympathetic to those excuses. I won’t drop circuit debaters for this unless it is egregiously bad (like if you make a lay novice cry or something) but I will be really annoyed and maybe tank your speaks. If you have an especially good/nice adaptation practice for a trad debater, I might bump your speaks a bit.
On the other hand, (experienced-ish) trad kids who still read anti-spreading against LARP debaters going at like 50-60% speed should probably just spend their time actually engaging with the args.
Random Things/Answers to FAQs
Don’t call me “judge” that’s weird. Pls just call me by my first name. If you use my name in round I’ll bump you up .1 speaks, because it makes sure I'm paying attention. It’s pronounced with a long E (think wall-e), not “Ava”
I don’t disclose speaks sorry. also, if my speaks confuse you, sorry, the speaks conventions on the circuit perplex me and for some reason i can't internalize them. my speaks will be consistent across a tournament, but maybe not across multiple tournament or when compared to other judges
Unwarranted arguments aren’t arguments and I think it is your obligation to not miscut your evidence or powertag it. if something sounds sus to me when u read it and i look at the doc and it is indeed really sus i probably will not evaluate it
I like when rounds are relaxed/informal/funny. If you really make me laugh I will bump your speaks.
I don’t care if you stand, I don’t care what you wear, I don’t care if you swear, etc.
- pls give me a heads up if you're gonna read explicit discussions of self harm or suicide, you can still read them in front of me but i would like a warning as early as possible
- (whenever in person tournaments return) pls do not try to shake my hand under any circumstance thx
Last Updated: 11/14/21
Performance = K = Phil = Trad > LARP > Theory > Tricks = Friv Theory
I am hybrid, trad/prog.
I can't flow top circuit speed. I only flow what I hear. If you are reading that fast please slow down.
I am most familiar with performance/K and traditional (mostly queer theory for Ks). Anything else is fine as long as it is well explained. Prioritize framing issues and good coverage. Slow down 25% for prewritten analytics and theory. Warranted/explained args > blippy dumps. Surprise me! Novel strats are great if explained and weighed well.
I expect good evidence ethics and courtesy.
***NOTES ON CIRCUIT DEBATE***
I am able to and enjoy judging circuit debate.
However, I may not be the most up to date on circuit practice or norms.
I frequently judge for local lay tournaments.
For safety slow down about 20-30%.
I am still learning right alongside y'all. Do not be afraid to ask questions!
Stay limber! Always remember to stretch - yoga's really good . Drink some water, take some deep breaths, and remember that while this is a competitive activity that is very stressful, it is something we do because we enjoy doing it.
And maybe it's not enjoyable for you, that's okay! I hope you can learn to love this activity.
Pronouns: they/them/no pronouns
Brookfield East '19, UMBC '23
Conflicts: Brookfield East
I debated for Brookfield East (Brookfield, Wisconsin) in LD for 4 years, competing in traditional locals and at a couple of midwest national circuit tourneys annually (Blake, Glenbrooks). I went to VBI Swarthmore in 2016, and I did well at NCFLs and State my junior year.
In WI I usually ran traditional phil heavy cases, and on the circuit I read a lot of Queer Rage and Pess. I went for EcoPess a lot my junior year.
Respect first, we should be inclusive in this activity. Violations affect speaks
a. No racism, sexism, , ableism, queerphobia, etc.
b. Don't be rude, obnoxious, and/or ad hominem.
c. Use everyone's preferred pronouns. It's not hard.
d. If reading something potentially triggering, please communicate that before the round to me and your opponent.
- Tell me what to believe, don't assume I know anything. If I am defaulting that's bad
- Don't power tag, I listen and look for actual warrants in cards, especially for high magnitude claims
- Citations are a minimum, author quals are good. Bad/nonexistent warrants granted less offense and lower threshold against defense
- I enjoy post rounding and giving advice if you remain respectful. Feel free to ask or email with any questions/concerns
- Speaks are inflated. You start at 27.5 and change from there. Points are given based on strategic choices, including coverage, prioritization, and clarity. Novelty in argumentation might bump you. For most of my career I was at about a 27.7-28.5.
30s are rare. Try for 28.5 or more.
<27 Offensive/bad evidence ethics
27-27.5 Okay. Strat/prep and execution/decisions need significant change and work. Possibly wrong strat chosen, subpar prep, or unfamiliarity with own strat/prep.
27.5-28 Average. Strat/prep and execution/decisions need improvement. Possibly should change direction in strat or decisions.
28-28.5 Good. Good strat/prep, execution/decisions are average and need better prioritization or efficiency.
28.5-29 Great. Great strat/prep, execution/decisions are good but could use some specific work.
29-29.5 Excellent. Top quality strat/prep, just have to fine tune execution/decisions.
29.5-30 Perfect. Tiny adjustments needed, if at all. Differences in strat/decision may be simply differences in preference or opinion.
Performance = K > Phil = Trad > LARP > Theory > Tricks = Friv Theory
- Run what you are comfortable with. These are only personal preferences - the round alone influences my decision.
- Debate and contest framework, and always weigh/contextualize offense with framing
- Extend explicitly, I don't assume anything about your advocacy. I prefer "Extend Li [explanation]"
- Structure well
- High-quality warrants are more convincing than anecdotes/blippy analytics
- Overviews great for establishing framing and sequencing issues
- Spreading is fine
- Spreading as a cheap shot isn't. Be inclusive otherwise speaks will suffer
- Clarity > Speed, I still listen to you. I do not write what I cannot understand.
- Slow down at least 20%, especially for analytics and tags
- Slow down for theory, includes shells, standards, underview. I have trouble flowing extremely fast theory analytics.
- Be assertive, do not be overbearing
- Not prep time, don't use it as prep. If you want to use it as prep just ask questions while you write
- Flex prep fine
- Flash everything not extemporaneous
- Flash shells. Minimum Interp, preferably whole shell
- If your opponent asks you to flash something and you do not, I feel no qualms disregarding the warrant entirely. There is no reason why you should not be able to produce evidence you are asked for
- Disclosure seems good for clash/edu
- Don't run a bad disclosure shell, I already do not like the arg that much
- Small schools args are convincing, I used to be in one
Tech > Truth
- No go for anything racist, queerphobic, ableist, etc.
1. Threshold extremely low for voting against args with bad implications
2. Despise friv theory, don't read
- On points 1. and 2., I still expect sufficient offense/defense in response, threshold low for granting defense
- Justify uplayering, not automatic. Includes any type of preclusion or prior question args, willing to drop you a layer b/c of bad explanations
- 3+ condo seems illegit and shifty, threshold probably low for condo shells
- Explicit extensions, I don't assume anything about your advocacy
- I don't assume status of offs, uncondo still needs to be extended
- Would prefer explicit kicks
- Judgekick is new to me, justify why I should
- Won't vote on "Eval/Vote after x speech." Why have the rest of the round then?
- Explain perms. The more depth you give the arg the more convincing it is
- Severance perms seem bad
- Familiar with queer theory (Stanley, Edelman, Butler), generic Ks, IdPol Ks, and some critical race theory. Less familiar with Pomo and some high theory
- Be genuine, especially if running performance
- Prioritize top-level framing and sequencing: ROB and/or ROJ debate
- Develop your thesis and link story
- Know what you are running
- Err on the side of overexplaining
- Analysis/K bombs > blippy generalizations
- Independent Voters need to be implicated and contextualized. Explain how and why it is both independent and a voting issue
- UQ clash more interesting than repeating the link story
- K vs. K only interesting through clash/method comparison
- K > T/Theory convincing if justified well
- Clear sequencing and defense will save you
- Text is explicit and specific
- Solvency advocate, otherwise I am skeptical
- Explicitly extend advantages and solvency
- No "ought", it doesn't make sense. Existence of obligation does not mean action will happen
- Full res is not a Plan. Should be a distinct implementation
- Same as first three points on Plans, although requirement for solvency advocate depends on nature of CP
- Prove competitiveness
- Lazy PICs are boring. Just don't read them
- Do not power tag, threshold low to be skeptical/disregard bad warrants
- Functional warrants throughout link chain
- CI, DTA, No RVI
- Dislike friv shells, threshold low for granting more defense
- Will vote for shell if you win it, even if I hate it
- Slow down for analytics
- Reasonability vague and confusing, seems like intervention
- Independent Voters: same as found in K section
- Won't vote on it if not given clear voters
- Zero experience with this stuff
- Won't vote off of hidden text
- Implicate and justify well
TL;DR: don't speak quickly; read fewer, better-explained positions; I am a non-intervenant till you complete your arguments.
I aim to be as tab as possible as long as the round remains safe for the debaters. I'll try to assume whatever the debaters assume so that I minimize intervention. If both debaters assume fairness is a voter, then I'll assume that it's a voter, even if it's not explicitly justified.
Please speak relatively slowly and place emphasis on your words! I do not flow off speech docs. I think that slowing down improves people's efficiency greatly, so there's little tradeoff between speed and number of arguments. This does not mean I would penalise you for speaking faster, I would still credit you similarly for all the arguments I can understand. Given all this, if you're going fast, don't get upset at me for missing some of your arguments.
I will try to average 28 speaks, but who knows if that'll happen -- I bet I'll inflate. You can get higher speaks by being persuasive, clear, efficient, creative, and strategic. You can get lower speaks by doing the opposite.
If you are debating against someone with clearly less knowledge about debate than you have (e.g., you're an experienced debater debating an inexperienced one), please make the round as accessible to both debaters as possible. If you can only win with obscure positions and debate jargon, then debate has failed you; you're not good at debating, you're just good at playing inside baseball. (For the same reason, I would prefer that debaters read arguments that I can understand without being an expert in the relevant area of academia/public policy/whatever the current debate trend is. My role is not to be an educator, but nonetheless I would prefer that debaters have rounds that are fun to judge and educational.)
That concludes the important part of my paradigm. Here are some random paradigmatic thoughts (although this list is tentative and incomplete):
- I don't need voters on a theory shell to be extended unless contested.
- I default truth testing.
- I default epistemic/ethical confidence rather than epistemic/ethical modesty.
- I don't evaluate arguments that tell me to change speaks (e.g., "give me a 30").
· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.
With More Words:
I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.
If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.
Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, debate is an educational activity and rounds should be inclusive. Will vote down arguments that aren't.
I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.
Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". Don't oversimplify responses and, in the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.
Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.
Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.
For PF: I don't require 1st summary to extend defense, but link/impact extensions should be in summary for me to evaluate them in final focus.
Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.
Why yes, I would like to be added to the email chain:
AMurphy4n6@gmail.com (Side note: As Gen Zers, I have faith in you to successfully hit "reply all" when continuing an email chain. Don't let me down.)
A Final Note:
This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.
** Updated in 2021**
I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged both policy and LD since 2016.
TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive or exclusionary. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.
ONLINE DEBATE UPDATES
In an online world, you should reduce your speed to about 75%-80%. It’s difficult for me to say clear in a way that doesn’t totally disrupt your speech, so focusing on clarity and efficiency are especially important. I will try to resolve tech issues in the round to the best of my ability.
I use two monitors, with my flow on the second monitor, so when I’m looking to the side, I’m looking at the flow or my ballot.
If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Because of this, keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I flow by ear and have your speech doc primarily for author names, so make sure your tags/arguments/analytics are clear. I default to tech over truth and debate being a competitive and educational activity. That being said, how I evaluate a debate is up for debate. The threshold for answering arguments without warrants is low, and I don’t find blippy arguments to be particularly persuasive.
In general: I take my flow seriously but am really not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates but am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well-articulated and impacted. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and err on over-explaining your lit.
On Framework: In LD, I default to framework as a lens to evaluate impacts in the round. However, I am willing to (and will) evaluate framework as the only impact to the round. Framework debates tend to get really messy, so I ask that you try to go top-down when possible. Please try to collapse arguments when you can and get as much clash on the flow as possible.
A note on fairness as a voter: I am willing to vote on fairness, but I tend to think of fairness as more of an internal link to an impact.
On T: I default to competing interpretations. If you’re going for T, please make sure that you’re weighing your standards against your opponent’s. In evaluating debates, I default to T before theory.
On Theory: I lean towards granting 1AR theory for abusive strats. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and would prefer clash on substantive areas of the debate.
On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. Further, please make sure that if you’re going for an RVI that you spend sufficient time on it.
In general: I rely on my flow to decide the round. Keeping my flow clean is the best path to my ballot, so please make sure that your speeches are organized and weigh your arguments against your opponents. Please take care to not misrepresent your evidence. Along those lines, I would also prefer that you do not paraphrase evidence.
On LD/Policy Arguments: While I will evaluate the round based on my flow, I want PF to be PF. Please do not feel that you need to adapt to my LD/Policy background when I’m in the back of the room.
On Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round. Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. Please weigh your standards against your opponent’s and tell me why your model of debate works best. While I will vote on fairness as a voter, I tend to default to it as an internal link to another impact, i.e. education.
One off FW: These rounds tend to get messy. Please slow down for the analytics. The best path to my ballot is creating fewer, well-articulated arguments that directly clash with your opponent’s.
On Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority of your 2NR. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you clearly articulate why your interpretation is best for debate.
On DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please use impact calc.
On K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates. Coming from the 1AC, I need a clear articulation of your solvency mechanism and the role of ballot / judge.
Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow
On Ks: Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I have some experience with most authors you will read in most cases and should be able to hold my own if it’s well articulated. I need to understand the world of the alt, how it outweighs case impacts, and what the ballot resolves.
One off Ks: These rounds tend to get very nuanced, especially if it’s a K v K debate. Please have me put framework on another flow and go line by line.
Please feel free to debate at your own pace. I only ask two things of the Public Forum competitors that I'm judging. First, that they don't spread (talk at an incomprehensibly fast rate), and second that they remain respectful and cordial to their fellow competitors and judge at all times. A spirited debate is awesome, but a shouting match is decidedly not. Rules for other formats that I may judge are listed below.
Lincoln-Douglas (LD) Debate:
-My four years of debating were spent entirely in Public Forum, and resultingly I'm more experienced with arguments backed by hard evidence as opposed to wholly tech-based or framework-based ones. However, this doesn't mean I consider the latter two to be any less legitimate—as long as you argue your case well, I will evaluate you based on the merit of the argument provided.
-I understand that spreading is more common in this format—if you have to do it, I won't hold it against you. However, I ask that you try your best to keep your speeches comprehensible to the average listener, even if they're at a faster pace than one is accustomed to listen to.
-Frameworks are bound to be argued over—if neither side can agree on a framework to use for the debate, I will choose to evaluate which one held more weight.
-I do not evaluate disclosure theory, and I advise any competitor who plans on using it in a round I'm judging to rethink their strategy going ahead.
-I allow off-time roadmaps.
-Keep it civil always.
-Like with LD, I understand that spreading/fast-paced speeches are the norm, or at the very least accepted. While I understand the constraints of time may necessitate such behavior, I will once again request that you keep your speeches comprehensible to the average listener so I can fully appreciate your argument.
-Frameworks are bound to be argued over—if neither side can agree on a framework to use for the debate, I will choose to evaluate which one held more weight.
Hi, I'm Peyton and I am a trained lay judge, this paradigm was written by a fellow debater. Please take care to enunciate, slow down on taglines of evidence/any statistics or implications/impacts, and try to talk at a conversational speed so I can keep up with the arguments you make. Especially with the current JanFeb topic for LD, please explain abbreviations and emphasize heavily how your argument connects together. No usage of debate jargon would be preferable. Doing weighing/comparison will also make your arguments more favorable to vote on.
tldr: I will evaluate every argument and attempt to be as impartial as possible. I am fine with speed, theory, Kritiks(although I haven't read much lit other than antiblackness/afropess), and virtually any other argument. I am a firm believer that debate is a game so if an argument brought by your opponent is morally repugnant you will have to prove why this is the case as I will not intervene.
T: I love good T debates, don't go for blip T args please. If your gonna read T explain why the definitions are important to the context of the round and give me reasons to prefer. I also evaluate T before K but can change if you tell me why.
Util: read a lot of this in high school. am cool with util and LARP args, will default to extinction outweighs unless told otherwise.
Theory: went for this a lot in high school. I will vote on pretty much any theory arg as long as it is well warranted. I am a firm believer in disclosure, but will vote against disclosure theory if provided with reason to do so.
RVIs - default to RVIs
Default to CIs, can do reasonability if convinced otherwise.
Ks - am fine with them, although the only Ks I'm really familiar with are cap and antiblackness/afropess. Please explain what the alt means and how it solves the aff if it does, often times debaters through buzzwords and hope that I know what the alt means. I am fine with alts that require a rejection of the aff as long as there is a pedagogical reason to do so.
I appreciate that there is a certain speed to PFD, but that being said, there is some element of communication that gets lost with a mile a minute spreading, especially if your opponent can't handle the same pace. If you go too fast and I cannot flow then you drop those contentions and evidence.
Tabula Rosa - I am a blank slate. Inform me with your speech and arguments that your side should win.
Speed is fine
Hey there! My name is Noah Rantilla, a college freshman at the University of Iowa. I used to do debate, 1 year of policy and 3 years of LD, at Bettendorf High School; I also dabbled in Congress and speech events. This here is my paradigm! I used to have a really long list, with tons of intricate details, but now... I have an even longer list. Despite my best efforts, this paradigm just keeps getting longer. I sometimes wonder if competitors just look at how long this page is and just think to themselves, "oh god." Foreword though, and this is really important: I JUDGE YOU ASSUMING YOU READ THIS AND REACT. What I'm writing here is actually how I plan to judge; it's a pretty contentious belief, but I think one of the skills speech and debate should value is adaptability. What that means is, even if your perfect speech/case "would win with any other judge," sorry, but I'm not them. And I don't think my guidelines are (too) dictator-like; don't be rude, don't do anything immoral (use your own judgement, or better yet, mine), and don't do things against the spirit of the event. Cool? Cool.
Preface: Why such a long paradigm? [feel free to skip this]
Hey Noah, I can easily imagine judges and competitors alike complaining, why do you have such a long and convoluted paradigm? The thing's 50 yards long and takes up a metric terabyte of space on my computer just to load; don't you think it's unfair to impose all these restriction on debaters? Why not just be tabula rasa, a blank slate for the debaters to argue as they see fit? Well, I have a big problem with the idea of tabula rasa judges, and I'll explain it with two concepts: mechanical knowledge and implicit biases. Basically, I don't believe there is such thing as a tabula rasa judge; that's not meant to be offensive either, I'm sure a lot of judges do their absolute best to not let anything outside the debate round influence their decision... I just believe that's a literally impossible task. First, let me talk about mechanical knowledge: even if a judge claims to be tabula rasa, the fact remains certain knowledge regarding the mechanics of debate is assumed. For example, consider the value and criterion; even for a tabula rasa judge, debaters never explain what a value/criterion is, nor necessarily how it works in the round. Judges are assumed to know this. And that's not a problem, typically, unless the debaters disagree on this mechanic: for example, one debater uses a "util" criterion, arguing the government should try to make decisions to cause the least harm, whereas another debater uses "social prosperity" as their criterion, arguing the government should make decisions assuming they had unlimited resources. With the former, the criterion serves as a sort of measuring stick or goal, whereas with the latter, the criterion now actually influences how we would imagine the actions/world of the resolution occur. Is the former clearly right, while the latter is clearly wrong? Personally, I would agree, but I'm sure at least one judge out there doesn't. And that's the problem; because judges still have these inherent views on how certain mechanics function in the round, one of these debaters is going to be wrong and lose not because their view of the criterion was inherently flawed, but because it went against how the judge viewed it to be. It's (pardon the pun) debatable whether or not judges applying this sort of assumption to the round is good or bad, but it can cause debaters to lose through no fault of their own. That's a problem to me because that means the debater lost because the judge expected one thing, but never explicitly outlined it; believe me, that is not a problem with my paradigm. The second thing, which I would wager is far easier to understand, is implicit biases. The key word here is "implicit;" these biases cloud a judge's objectivity without their conscious notice. Of course all these tabula rasa judges think they're free of bias; it wouldn't be an implicit bias if they were aware of it ahead of time. To contextualize this, imagine two judges; for sake of ease, I'll call them Boomer and Zoomer. Boomer is an angry, 70+ year old white cis-male who strongly aligns with the Republican party and the Catholic church. Blue hair and African American people make him unhappy. Contrast with Zoomer, one of said African Americans (and with blue hair too, if you'd like). Millennial is 20 years old, lesbian cis-female who strongly aligns with the Democratic party and is a graduate student at University of Berkeley, California. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Good. Pretend a debater runs a Feminism K; even if Boomer and Zoomer both claim to be tabula rasa judges, their implicit attitudes towards this issue may skew the round. Boomer is far more likely to not vote on the K ("well, I didn't find it persuasive" or "your opponent shut it down pretty well") whereas Zoomer is far more likely to vote on the K ("I think it was a very strong argument" or "the response just didn't directly connect/wasn't strong enough to convince me") even if they both experience an identical debate round. Now obviously this is an absurd, over-exaggerated example, but the fundamental logic rings true; judges have preferences, and it's entirely possible debaters will run cases said preferences will end up playing a role in. I'm 100% certain I'm guilty of this as well; much as I wish I could say I was above all these silly little biases, I'm really not. But at the very least I try to be open about them, hence why my paradigm is starting to look like the Code of Hammurabi. You'll know ahead of time if I'm biased against your argument, as opposed to having to guess, cold comfort though that may be.
Section 1: Lincoln Douglas Debate
This is what I have the most experience with. I could ramble on, but I'll keep it short... oh who am I kidding, this is long as hell. If you want the synopsis: I'm a traditional judge, I prefer slow speaking but don't struggle much with speed, truth > tech but only barely, and don't be rude or unpleasant. If you want my 47-paragraph essay, complete with MLA citation and submitted for my honors thesis (not really), go right ahead.
1. I'm an extremely traditional judge. I'll listen to your Counter Plan, but know you're at a disadvantage; same with legitimate, serious violation theory. Frivolous theory (and yes that includes "spec" and "disclosure," not just "shoes") is pretty much an instant no. A PIC, a prioris, 99% of K's (you're not really solving anything and you know it), and anything I didn't even think to write here? No. Pick a different judge or pick a different case. (But Noah, I've been asked, what about students with cases 100% a PIC, for example? I'll listen, but don't get your hopes up; these are "pretty much an instant no" because I don't like them and/or don't understand them. For the November/December topic of 2021, about "unconditional rights to strike," I was told "well, if I prove one condition we should have, isn't that a PIC?" My response was, honestly, I never even considered that a PIC, that's just an argument to me, and I voted for them on it; so, all I'm saying is, watch what you're running. Keep it with the resolution please). That can honestly sum up how I want debate rounds to go, actually; keep it with the resolution, and there will be no problems.
1.1. So, I'm making these subpoints just because I want to expand on certain specific types of arguments I've dealt with. IF YOU ARE NOT RUNNING THESE TYPES OF ARGUMENTS, SKIP TO POINT #2 BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME TO READ THESE. Metaphorical heaven knows you'd need a team of scholars and 3-5 business days to read this crap I'm writing. The first thing I want to talk about is the K: Communism. Wonderful in theory, but fails in practice. That's kind of how I think about K's: sure, they sound like a pretty good idea, but the way they're implemented always flops. If you, o brave soul you are, really want to run a K while I'm judging, you'll have to prove one extremely easy thing, and one next to impossible thing. Fail to prove both? I won't vote on the K. First of all, you need to prove that there's a problem; this is extremely easy. Racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, other forms of discrimination and more? Those are problems. If you want to argue something less intuitive, like capitalism is horrible or that we should give dogs the right to vote, you might struggle here, but yeah, I agree discrimination and other problems exist within the debate sphere. This brings us to step 2, where everybody fails: prove that voting for you in this specific case will actually do something to resolve the problem. And honestly, don't even try that "establishing a norm" with me: I've seen people vote on K's back in 2018, but guess what? Absolutely none of those problems got solved. My thing with the K is, the reason it takes priority over any resolution-based arguments, is because it solves real world impacts instead of theoretical ones, right? But in that case, you need to prove the K will solve such an impact, not just theoretically; in other words, even if I agree establishing such and such norm would theoretically solve this problem in debate, that means nothing if you don't prove voting for you actually establishes that norm. That's the burden of proof you take on when you run a K; if you don't prove these two things to me, your opponent could literally drop it entirely and I wouldn't vote on your K, because you just haven't met the burden inherent in your argument. And I feel really bad about this, because I know K's are supposed to be resolving these real world problems! It just sucks for you if you're genuinely trying to improve the world but have to deal with all my cynicism and skepticism, because so many debaters have started using K's not as a way to solve problems but win debate rounds. But as the saying goes, one bad apple spoils the bunch; or, more applicable here, a few good apples don't salvage a rotten barrel.
1.2. Topicality: I'm very receptive to these arguments. As I understand it, topicality is the question of whether what is being discussed actually connects to the resolution; as you may have gathered, that is very important to me in debate. Even if your AFF case has flawless logic and evidence, if it doesn't actually connect to the resolution, you haven't given me any reason to affirm, now have you? I don't think the AFF necessarily has to prove they are topical, I generally give them a little wiggle room and can put in an iota of effort to connect what they're saying to the resolution, but if the NEG challenges that, it can be quite damning if mishandled. (You know, something specific I've been wondering about this one topic, the "private appropriation" of outer space one; I constantly hear about how commercial airlines are gonna destroy the ozone... but do those even count as "private appropriation?" Like, if my airplane happens to go over the North Pole, nobody's gonna claim Delta is "appropriating" the arctic, right?)
1.3. Theory: Mmmm... cross apply basically everything I said on K's. For a theory, you need to prove the violation (which is really easy), then you need to prove whatever rule you're establishing is a good one (which is really hard). Here's the main question I ask when judging if a rule is a good one or not; is the inverse a legitimate complaint as well? Because if so, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't, and I'll probably disapprove of the theory. For example, "the AFF has to specify an actor, because otherwise they have shifting ground and the NEG can't compete." Well, consider the opposite: "the AFF cannot specify an actor, because that narrows the debate on their terms, excluding NEG evidence and ground, so the NEG can't compete." At that point, the whole thing is moot... now consider this example: "debaters should not call their opponents slurs, prima facia because discrimination is inherently bad, as well as because it creates a hostile environment which is harmful to education and the wellness of the individuals involved." If someone wants to try and convince me of their theory shell, "debaters must call their opponents slurs..." well, in addition to reporting you to whatever tournament I unfortunately happen to encounter you at, we will exchange words. This connects back to what I, at least, was taught the purpose of theory is; to check abuse within debate. If your opponent does something bad they could have not done (and I mean, come on, what can be easier than not calling someone a slur?), then they should be punished for it; I agree. However, more often than not theory ends up being a cacth-22: the only way to avoid a violation is to commit a different one (the AFF has to specify an actor, or not, but both seem to be wrong choices). In other words, when I evaluate if a theory rule is legitimate or not, I basically ask myself, could the debater have avoided this at all? (Excluding arguments, of course, like "the AFF has to automatically concede to the NEG." Yes, they could avoid that violation, but doing so would of course lose them the round automatically...)
1.4. Counterplans and PICs: To be perfectly frank, while I've given some great (at least, I think they're great) logical points behind my other three views, how I deal with counterplans and PICs boils down to two fundamental concepts: fiat and point of comparison. First of all, fiat: the automatic assumption that the AFF is able to assume the resolution, rather than debating if the resolution will happen at all. For example, if the resolution is "it would be just for the US to nuke China," we're not talking about whether the US will nuke China at all, but if it would be just or not if they did. Now I need to talk about the second concept, point of comparison: what am I judging the AFF relative to? I personally believe that the AFF does have fiat, and I judge the AFF compared to the status quo. What this means is, unlike a lot of judges evidently, I don't assume the NEG has fiat and I don't inherently let their counterplan be my point of comparison. So sure, run your counterplan "we should eliminate all racism and establish a utopia." That is better than whatever the AFF comes up with, but I don't care, because for one, that's not going to happen, and for two, that's not what I'm comparing the AFF to. There is a way out for this, though I don't see this executed well very often; if the NEG proves that the CP is going to happen if not for the AFF, and they prove the CP is better than the AFF, I will vote for the NEG. That first part is where people often struggle; the NEG too often assumes they just get fiat as well. That is especially true for PICs; they take for granted they are able to assume their plan is true. I disagree. Now wait a minute, some may protest, that doesn't seem fair; why does the AFF get fiat but the NEG doesn't? Because the AFF is required to defend a specific position. There will always be a better stance to take, sure as there is always a greater number; in other words, my real problem with allowing PICs is that means the NEG will always, and I mean always, win. Because it's impossible to compete at that point, right? I vividly remember an argument on the "federal jobs guarantee" topic, where it was literally "we should have a federal jobs guarantee... but we shouldn't let pedophiles work at elementary schools." Well... yeah. That's not even an argument at that point? There is no possible way for the AFF to recover at that point (and, as I recall, they didn't). It's the same logic as "we should save X lives" versus "we should save X + 1 lives." It undermines the fairness of the event. Now, I do have to acknowledge, largely because I was questioned on it, there are some instances where a PIC is just inherent to the topic; for example, the "unconditional right to strike." In that case, I really don't have a problem with the NEG pointing out "just one condition we should have." I will say though, like I mentioned above, the NEG doesn't decide the point of comparison, I do. So even if "the absence of this one condition causes X harm," the NEG needs to prove such harm is greater than all the benefits of an unconditional right to strike; in other words, it's not "AFF unconditional right to strike" vs "NEG conditional right to strike," but "benefits of AFF unconditional right to strike" vs "NEG cost of not having a certain restriction." Suddenly we have an argument! This is not to say the AFF will win, and often they don't, but at the very least it's possible, and that's what's important to me; I want to go into the round without preemptively filling out my ballot for the NEG.
2. Don't be rude. Interrupting your opponent during cross ex? I'm okay with it to a point, if they (frankly) won't shut up in a time-wasting answer, you can talk over them. Calling them (or their arguments) stupid or anything of the like? Rude. Making the "can you believe this guy" face at me while your opponent talks? Rude. Discrimination of any sort? Especially (but even more than just) rude. Don't be rude.
3. Evidence or logic. Truth or tech. I consider myself much more of a truth over tech judge; just because your opponent didn't respond doesn't mean your argument is "true," I say (politely) that is the dumbest rule I've ever heard of and why I'm disillusioned with debate. Lucky for you, however, I have very little preset thoughts on what is "true." You're telling me oil subsidies actually encourage carbon capture, reducing the overall emission of CO2 gasses? Sure, I buy that, and it's true in the round if your opponent doesn't respond. The Holocaust never happened and China has absolutely 0 relationship to COVID? Sorry, gotta disagree. Just because you quote Garysweedblog.com saying marijuana cures all cancer doesn't mean I'm gonna believe you over sound logic from your opponent. In other words, good evidence + good logic > good logic + no/bad evidence > bad logic + good evidence > bad logic + no/bad evidence. I'll also note, my beliefs generally don't carry over between rounds; one round I voted that asteroid mining will solve global warming, and the next round I voted it will accelerate climate change and kill us all faster. I say I'm truth over tech... but really I'm more tech over truth with an *.
4. Speed. Oh people do love their speed, don't they? I'll put it like this; the slower the better. I love a good, slow, sound argument, though that's basically a unicorn at this point. If your speed is a 5/9 or below, that's good. 6 or 7? Make sure you send me your case first, or I might miss stuff. 8, 9, or spreading? I flow based on what I'm pretty sure I hear you say, if I straight up cannot understand you then, well, I'm not gonna flow that (because, you know, I can't). I think sending cases has unfortunately encouraged and enabled debaters to no longer practice speaking persuasively, but just fast. Why actually be good at speaking when I can just scream at an incomprehensible rate? Or, actually, mumble at an incomprehensible rate. If you aren't picking up what I'm putting down, let me be clear: I hate spreading. Will I drop you for it automatically? No. Will it tank (and I mean tank) your speaks and make me significantly less inclined to vote for you? Oh yeah.
Section 2: Non-Lincoln Douglas Debate
Apply everything from Lincoln Douglas Debate right here. The only difference is, I don't know if you do "plans," I don't know the times of events, and because you certainly have a partner, I have no clue what they are and aren't allowed to do at certain times. I'll try my best.
Section 3: Speech Events
Not really much of a speech kid; don't get me wrong, I qualified to Nats and got 1st in state for extemp, but I'm not sure how to judge it. Stay on time, don't step out of the camera view (or room I guess, if in person), and try to make me feel whatever I should be feeling? Or, in the case of informative, try to NOT make me feel boredom and despair. You're free to time yourself, but I have a clock too and mine overrules yours. Happy to do hand signals though, if you ask.
Section 4: Congress
Honestly, I really liked congress and wish I had done it more. Basically, ask questions and give speeches enough that I bother to remember who you are. Talk persuasively, actually respond to people, you can use evidence but don't have to, I don't really grade questions but I'll take note if you do something good with them, I actually approve of "soft" questions but find it really funny when the speaker doesn't realize what you're doing and gets defensive, and I pretty much guarantee I'll put the PO in the top half or so (unless there's like 4 people for example), though you've got almost 0 chance of being top 3 while you PO. Sorry.
I debated policy in high school and college (Pitt), and coached college policy for ten years, but haven’t coached college level in a long time. Started coaching again for my kids in middle and high school. I also teach in a comm program (UMW). I have been working with my son's team for the past few years.
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I am most comfortable with a traditional policy-like strategy. The biggest problem I have seen in LD debates is not properly weighing and explaining how positions interact. I am not a fan of most K affs. As long as you are able to explain it with clear links to the resolution then I am open to it. On the neg make it clear.
I really do not like frivolous theory, and never enjoy when a debate ends with messy theory.
Make sure you are actually flowing, and not just relying on a speech doc. I am fine with speed- just make sure you are clear. For in person rounds, I do prefer mask wearing during the debate.
Finally, rude people are not fun to listen to, and I have little tolerance for a more experienced debater bullying or beating up on someone who is learning how to enjoy the activity. Make good arguments, test ideas, and have fun.
I debated for four years at William Tennent High School, mostly LD (but I did a good amount of Policy as well). I am now an Assistant Coach at Pennsbury High School and a student of philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh. The details of my personal life may bore you, but I only include them so you can know that I am not completely clueless in the realm of debate.
To save your time and mine, I have attempted to reduce my judging philosophy to a handful of bullet-points:
>I keep a detailed flow and value line-by-line debate. I will probably notice if you drop something.
>I am fine with speed. Just be sure to say taglines/author names clearly. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.
>I love good framework debate. It's easier for me to pick a winner when I have a clear lens through which I can evaluate the round.
>I am simply here to evaluate the arguments made, so say whatever you want to say, granted that it is not tasteless.
>I guess evidence is nice and a good thing to have. Extending that evidence throughout the round is also nice.
Feel free to ask me any questions that you might have. I will answer them to the best of my ability.
"As the biggest library if it is in disorder is not as useful as a small but well-arranged one, so you may accumulate a vast amount of knowledge but it will be of far less value to you than a much smaller amount if you have not thought it over for yourself..." - Arthur Schopenhauer
I am a traditional/quasi-progressive judge. I enjoy creative arguments of any sort as long as they are argued well. However, if you chose to run more policy-oriented arguments, do not drop the value debate. That is always a key element when deciding the round. Also, do not drop any arguments. I am less focused on whether someone followed the correct format of addressing a specific type of argument but rather the analysis and thought behind it.
If an argument is dropped, do not simply tell me that it was dropped; explain the impact of dropping the argument. On the same note, do not just extend all your cards during your rebuttal. That does nothing to help you win the round. Focus on the arguments and provide clear impacts of why specific arguments were dropped.
Use all the allotted time for both cross-ex and rebuttals. Extra time at the end of your speeches hurts your speaker points. Also, provide clear voting issues.
Please road map before your rebuttals and clearly signpost throughout.
I can handle speed but do not spread. The goal is to be comprehensible.
I was a LD debater when I was in high school and have judged for the past 7 years. Additionally, I research all the LD topics. As a result, I am very familiar with the LD format and the arguments for the given topic.
Hello all, I am a parent judge and I have been judging LD, PF, and other individual events for the last 6 years.
My email is email@example.com please use it for pre-round questions and for the email chain. Sending me your cases will help me flow and adjudicate your round better.
FLOWING: I will flow a line-by-line analysis. Please start out with specific arguments and then summarize at the end. I am tolerant of going slightly over time limits. I am fine with moderate spreading and persuasive speeds. in the case of persuasive debate, I will weigh the argumentation, and will consider intonation, inflection, diction, clarity, and truth of the arguments in question.
DECISION: I evaluate framework, arguments, reasoning and evidence. Please have a clear framework that's well explained, I default to Util but explain how your impacts function under that FW.
OTHER PREFERENCES: For speaking, please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do NOT SPREAD. Speaking marginally fast is okay as long as you slow down at the impactful parts, tags, numbers you want me to flow, etc. Do NOT RUN THEORY . If I do flow part of your theory argument , it will not be a major evaluation in the debate. Please don't read Kritiks or dense philosophical fws. Counter-plans are fine if you explain them well and show why they are preferable to the aff.
My full paradigm is accessible at the link below. It's pretty long so take what you want. You can ask me questions before round if I've missed something, you want me to explain more, or you don’t want to read this.
TL;DR Former traditional debater. I always vote off the flow, can handle speed, and understand the jargon (in fact prefer that you use it). Warrant your points, give me a framing mechanism, and be respectful. Regretfully I'm Tech>Truth and try not to intervene. Overall, debate the way you know best and I'll try to catch up (unless I don't like what I see).
If you're going to make an assertion, you better back it up with evidence and analysis.
If you have evidence, you better give me analysis to tie back to your point. Don't assume the evidence speaks for itself.
If you make a point you better give analysis to show it proves that supporting/negating is the way to go.
NOTE: I get REALLY cranky if I suspect debaters are manipulating (or outright faking) evidence.
If you're a PF debater, don't waste your time with off-time roadmaps, because there are only two things you should ever be doing--hitting their case, and defending yours. Even weighing is just hitting their case, and defending yours. If you are organized in presenting your points it will be clear what you are doing. I'm ok with paraphrasing, but if the other team asks to see the original text and you can't produce it, I'm ignoring your evidence. I'm also ok with non-traditional approaches, but you better make it CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR that it's necessary, because I will always pref good debate over acrobatics.
If you're an LD debater, you better be giving analysis that shows your points are proving that you have achieved your value criterion. Articulate the connections, don't assume they speak for themselves. As far as non-traditional cases, I won't automatically vote against, but you better sell me on the necessity of going there, and that it's enriching the debate, and not hobbling it. (Particular note: I really hate pure theory cases, but won't automatically vote against. That being said, let me reiterate-- You better prove that what you have to say is improving the quality of the debate, and that your theory is a better/more important debate than the debate over the resolution. Which means you will have to still talk about the resolution, and why your debate is more important. If you're just doing it for the sake of being fancy, it's a no-go for me.)
If you're a CX debater, get a life (JK!). I value quality over quantity. Take the time to analyze and apply your evidence instead of just turning on the fire hose of verbiage.
No one should ever tell me when or how to time. You can self-time, but I am the final arbiter of time.
If you are excessively rude, aggressive, shouty, or derisive you will see it in your speaks. If you are racist/sexist/homophobic, or any other type of bigoted I will vote against you every single time. This includes denying a person's lived experience.
Jaylin Talmadge ~She//They~
If you have QUESTIONS email me AND/OR EMAIL CHAIN: firstname.lastname@example.org
Racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, etc. is a voting issue. If you say something that attacks an individual or their identity I will not condone this and you will experience consequences based on the severity of the action :)
If you feel uncomfortable or unsafe with something your opponent has said or done please email me and I will deal with it accordingly
Trigger Warnings matter so please include them if need be
I will listen to any argument BUT if you are running any KRITIQUE then I would highly suggest asking if I am familiar with the lit/author. This is not for my need but your desire- if you want me to understand and properly evaluate it then ask. I like dense phil I just also like having enough confidence in the lit to judge the round
Speed is cool with me, if you have a TOC bid I will not be ale to understand your top speed BUT I will say slow and/or clear if I need it <3
BUT I am not the only person in the round- in debate, an institution crammed full with structural inequities the round MUST be accessible to your opponent as well, I want you to run your kritiques but it should not be against a traditional only debater or someone who is not equipped for that debate!!! ALSO IF YOU ARE A COMPETITOR YOU CAN SAY SLOW/CLEAR TOO
PLEASE STOP COUNTING DOWN BEFORE YOU SPEAKKKKKKKK- you can ask if we are ready but y'all just talk
About me: I did LD for 2 and a half years on the Washington local circuit. I am a Freshman at Colby College planning to double major in Science, Technology, and Society and Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies with a minor in African American Studies. Yes, I was a traditional debater, no that does not mean I hate progressive nor does it mean I am stupid in regards to it.
**This is being added to after every tournament based on my experiences there. If something is unclear please feel free to reach out because this is VERY incomplete and will be for a while**
I think speaks are dumb but also some tournaments get angry at me if I give everyone 30 so I try to be a speaks fairy but I might be restricted (both by the tournament and by your personal actions)- instead I start at 29
Novices: I consider myself a flow judge. If it is not on my flow but you said it rip.
If you concede something it is technically true BUT YOU HAVE TO EXTEND IT IN EACH SPEECH AND IMPACT AND WARRANT IT OUT!!!!
In addition, here are somethings you should do if you are in this situation: (a) prove to me that those arguments have no impact under the framework, (b) prove to me that the other arguments within the round supersede the ones you have conceded, or (c), if it was your argument conceded, use this to your advantage for time management or even a win.
Weigh your impacts for me. I shouldn't be left at the end of the round with consequences that do not connect to the framework or each other. I am not gonna pick what is the more important impact for you.
Please do not spread unless you have confirmation from your opponent that they are okay with it
Time yourself and please, for the life of things, do not count down before starting your time or tell me when you are starting your time just start speaking!! :relieved:
I prefer doc exchange (1) online sucks (2) its good for evidence verification and making sure people aren't clipping (3) makes the debate more equitable for people who would prefer (or need) both the auditory and the visuals.
The Neg's obligation in the round is not to defend that the status quo is a good place, rather to show that in comparison the Aff's world is worse.
Framework itself is not an argument for traditional debate. It is what you propose to me is how we should view the round and understand impacts. Having said that, for K's framework and the roll of the ballot is up to you to tell me how to evaluate it- is the presumptions the topic/aff makes itself an impact to vote neg? idk. Also, if the roll of the ballot is to vote for the person who did better in cross ex, and it is agreed upon in the round, I will literally vote off that.
Tech > truth most of the time
I am ok with flex prep, however it is your opponent's choice to answer a question or not, they are not obligated. They also have the right to tell you to be quiet.
You may play music during your own prep but not your opponents'!!!
1. Clarity over quantity. ESPECIALLY ONLINE It will be a better debate for your opponent(s), you and me if you prioritize speaking clearly over speaking more. I will honestly do my best to say clear and slow but I will often get too distracted trying to follow your arguments so if I look lost I would try slowing down to see if that helps. ALSO, if you are a competitor you have the right to tell your opponent to slow/clear (they are different so try to be specific), this space should be accessible hearing wise for everyone participating.
2. If you do want to go fast, work your way up to your top speed!!!! Start at like 75% or some other pretty arbitrary but slower than top speed pace then as you read your constructive/go through your refutation you can pick up the speed. I need time to get used to your voice and ngl its been a bit since I've heard people speak at their top speed so just help ease me into it
I am ok with T. I have had a lot of annoying experiences with frivolous T when I was a novice so if you are a novice running T don't just do it as a cop out to "out smart" your opponent, its not a cute look. THIS MAY MEAN if you read T to extend it and not drop it immediately in the next speech (this is different from kicking T). That tells me you ran it for literally no reason <3
Open members: go for it, have fun. I am still developing my opinion of competing interps versus reasonability so you tell me and justify why and I will probably opt for what you put forward.
Link- How does this aff in particular actually link to the K. If you read only generic cards I will listen but no one is getting much out of that and I can almost guarantee you the aff has more specific links. If the links are carded for generic links and analytical for more specific ones I will take it.
Alt- Ideally, the alt has both positive in-round impacts and if we imagined a world in which it was implemented positive out-of-round impacts. That's not going to happen in each round so if you have only one, tell me why you only need one of them or why the one you offer me outweighs the other one.
I prefer alts to be really clear and not generic. If your alt is more than reject the aff tell me what that world is like and how its vibing more than the aff.
I have no preference for conditionality at the moment- make your claim and back it up then we are cool.
Clarity of the plan text is important for everyone to be on the same page, SLOW DOWN or say it twice something so your opponent and I can engage with the round properly.
Something being textually competitive only is usually not enough for me to buy the CP. This is true because usually there is an avenue or two you can take to find evidence or whatnot to make the CP (I forget the "proper" word so I am going to say) contextually competitive- it can be something even as simple as funding reallocation just try to give me something more.
ALSO I don't know why I have to add this but you should link to the aff if not, even if your opponent doesn't call it out I will buy the perm SO easily
My name’s Luke (he/they), you can just call me that in round. I’m a very traditional guy when it comes to LD. I competed in Ohio for 4 years and judged for 2. So with Ohio being very traditional that is all I have seen.
For LD I think the most important aspect of it is the FW debate. However if you aren’t good at it don’t focus on it a lot. I pay the most attention to FW warrants.
The more clear and concise you are the more likely I am to vote for you. I don’t like doing work so the more work you do for me the better. Do the weighing for me. If you are trying to do a turn or anything like that, tell me.
I have ADHD so the more entertaining you are the better. I will try my best to follow along even if you aren’t but I’m not making any promises. Also that is another reason to call me Luke in round.
When it comes to speed. DO NOT spread or anything close to it. I cannot follow it and makes debate inaccessible.
Also I have judged all year it won’t show up though because Ohio uses speechwire.
My email: Lucastom495@gmail.com
I participated in PF, Policy, and Extemp throughout high school and also did a couple tournaments in parli, congress, and impromptu. I've also judged LD, PF, and now policy events, so I could be described as either a journeyman or well-rounded, whatever you prefer. As of now (5/2021 NCFL National Tournament), I don't judge too often, but I can certainly follow arguments and a flow sheet is my best friend.
That being said, for debate events (will update as I'm asked to judge different events):
While I competed in policy several years ago, I have not judged in policy recently nor have I kept up with the latest arguments and trends in policy.
That being said, feel free to run anything - I won't hold any of my preferences or experiences with certain arguments against you. The most important thing for me is that you do the work for me on the flow - give me the most important voting issues and do impact calculus on those points. I REALLY do not want to decide that for you. More specifically, several key points:
Ks / Critical affs: Several years ago, these were only starting to become more popular in the circuits I was debating. Therefore, I don't have a lot of experience with critical stuff. In this case you should both clearly explain the arguments AND link it to the resolution or case debate - I'm more likely to buy it when you do the work on these flows.
Stock issues and case debate: I love myself a good case debate and think that a solvency debate is very important for accessing impacts at the end of the round, but this comes with limits. For example, I really don't want to have to vote on T or inherency arguments so neg, please try to complement those flows with some offense flows.
DAs/off-case: Again, given that I haven't been judging this topic this year, do the work and clearly link these issues to the case debate. But I probably would understand these at first glance better than K debates.
Speed: Haven't judged fast rounds much, so if anything, be clear and especially keep your tags clear. As I understand it, we now share speech docs for the constructive speeches, so this shouldn't be an issue for me to follow that. But I would rather you be clear and have quality over quantity, especially in the rebuttals.
CX: Probably won't flow this, but anything in CX is liable to be put in future speeches that I will indeed flow. Corollary to that is that the teams should reference anything in CX they want to be remembered in the round.
Miscellaneous: If opponents drop an argument, I WILL NOT automatically extend it - the teams must tell me to extend it and why it matters. I don't want to have to do the work at the end of the round. You are also responsible for telling me when to start and stop prep time.
If you have any other questions, just let me know and I'll try to answer them as best I can. Overall, this is meant to be fun and educational so bring that spirit into the round. Good luck!
Also, if you have questions after the round, feel free to email me at email@example.com and I'll try to give you some helpful answers or feedback!
I know that speed is now more prevalent than it was when I debated, so make sure you're speaking clearly. If anything, emphasize your evidence tags so I get them on my flow. I don't know if critical arguments have become popular in PF or not - I will listen to them but I am not well-versed in critical theories, so make sure you really do the work for me on those types of arguments.
Crossfire: I won't flow it, but I will write down important questions or answers for reference. That being said, whatever is in the crossfires doesn't stand alone, so if there's something important in there you NEED to mention that in the next speech. Two big things:
- Do not interrupt your partner or your opponents.
- You MUST be asking questions. Do not use this as an opportunity to extend your own arguments. I won't drop you for it but I will be annoyed.
Final Focus: No new arguments in the Final Focus speeches - I won't flow them. If it's something egregious in the Grand Crossfire then sure, bring it up, but this should be rare. If you're not doing the work for me in the FF and stating voting issues, impacts, and why you're winning them, then you likely won't get my vote. The last thing you want is for me to disregard an issue that you find important, or vice versa.
Miscellaneous: Don't abuse prep time, and you are responsible for telling me when to start and stop prep. Also, you must actively point out and extend a dropped argument - I won't do anything with that argument unless you tell me to extend it across the flow.
If you have any other questions, just let me know and I'll try to answer them as best I can. Overall, this is meant to be fun and educational so bring that spirit into the round. Good luck!
Also, if you have questions after the round, feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org and I'll try to give you some helpful answers or feedback!
Most of my philosophical views on debate are an amalgamation of influences from Marna Weston, Evan Cartagena, Nigel Ward, Carter Levinson, Josh Michael, Skyler Harris, Daryl Burch, Calum Matheson, and Shanara Reid-Brinkley. That information may mean something to you, it may mean absolutely nothing. I wouldn't read too much into it.
That said you can read any style of argumentation infront of me and I will vote on it as long as it has a clear warrant. The worse the warrant the lower the threshold for a response and I will probably not give as high speaks for cowardly arguments and cheap shot wins. I am probably worse at evaluating dense theory debates than other styles, which doesn't mean that I won't vote on theory, just that I'd prefer not to sift through 8 theory shells to make a decision. I will likely be better in clash debates.
To steal a few lines from Carter's paradigm:
"In order that you are not surprised should the following take place in your debate, I will tell you now I do not intend to vote on blippy arguments that side-step the real question of the debate. This will not apply against a category of warranted arguments that might be considered "must answer" or even "cheap shots" arguments that are, however, germane to the debate. Examples include but are not limited to floating pics, topical versions, truth testing, cp results in the aff. HOWEVER, If you like to hide a one-sentence ASPEC violation in a 2nc block or practice other forms of argumentative cowardice, I will be displeased and I expect you will feel similar displeasure as a result of my own.”
A few other points -
1) The critical versus policy divide is illusory and the borders between them are far more viscous than you would like to believe. Despite what you may believe based upon my current argumentative proclivities, I have no preferences in terms of critical or policy arguments. This is NOT to say that I am tabula rasa. Aristotle was far too presumptuous to believe such a thing was possible. There seems to be some vicious tribalism in our activity that we tend to blame on stylistic choices (Phil or K debater, policy or tricks debater, east coast, west coast debater). Yet what seems to underly this division more broadly is the form of argumentation regardless of style. That is to say, I DO have preferences, but these preferences are based upon HOW not WHAT you argue. Read a plan, go for a tricky counterplan--but impress me in the WAY that you do so.
2) Reading is the lost art of debate. Too much of contemporary debate has become kids shooting their shotgun-like arsenal of blocks at the other team while desperately hoping that something might hit the target. "Clash" has become a rarity rather than something to be expected. The inability to read, write, and thus explain one's own arguments will likely hinder my ability to adjudicate them (and it will certainly hinder your speaker points). Read your literature. I will be reading evidence.
3) Framing Wins debates. If you cannot tell me crystal clear what you want my RFD to be by the end of the debate then you did it wrong sorry, not sorry. Debate is ultimately a community of rhetoricians and thus you need to tell me a story for the debate. Scattered 2NRs and in-conclusive 2ARs will not do. You need to tell me where the nexus question of this debate will be, write the story of my ballot with your words and evidence. Contemporaneously, I want to also be told what my role is in this debate. No, this does not have to be achieved through a "Role of the Judge text", but rather through comparative impact framing to augment your impact calculus. If you are telling me a story for my ballot, how am I to narrate this story? "I will attempt to emulate some or all of the following people when deciding your debate: Mike Hester, Julio Cortàzar, jon sharp, Jack Ewing, THE judy butler, THE Judith Butler, John Turner, Amber Kelsie, Jean Genet, Jorge Luis Borges, Félix Guattari, and Jim Gentile. I am (un)comfortable playing (m)any of these roles -- and any role at all -- so lest I choose one to my fancy, you had better tell me how to decide your debate."
4) Engage the resolution how you want but do know that I can be persuaded by framework arguments from the negative. I do believe that the resolution is a stasis point, yet how you engage this stasis point is ultimately up to you. You may indeed adopt a more fluid interpretation of the resolution or a stricter one - as long as you can defend it. However, the aff should endorse a conversation of the resolution in some way. There must be an inherent problem with the status quo, that is significant and harmful, which only topical action can resolve. Anything else is a negative argument. That said, how you define what is "topical affirmation" is ultimately up to you. If I can't explain what the aff does at the end of the round because it was a hodge-podge of cards without any story then you will lose on presumption. Creative K affs will get higher speaker points than stale and repetitive ones, and innovative applications of framework beyond the Hemanth transcriptions will be rewarded.
--If you are a framework debater, do not talk past the aff and focus on your stuff. You need to talk about their stuff and win why your stuff matters more. I don't really have a preference for what flavor of framework I enjoy the most (fairness vs clash vs state engagement etc) but the more you're able to contextualize your flavor to the aff the better. Remember - Good debaters beat their opponent's arguments, but great debaters take the best version of their opponent's arguments and proceed to defeat them.
--If you are a K debater, know your model of debate and be ready to defend it. Remember, you are defending a departure from the status quo of debate and thus you have the burden to prove why your model of debate ought to be endorsed even at the risk of change. Impact turns are non-unique disads if they are not supported by a countermodel that resolves a risk of your offense.