***FOR VIRTUAL TOURNEYS: Case sharing is allowed and encouraged for any and all online tournaments in order to account for potential connection issues to no fault of the students. My traditionalist viewpoint, however, remains, and I will not look at your case document(s) if your audio is clear. Also, per NSDA, 8 min. prep will be enforced.***

Tech > Truth aside from blatantly obvious lies. Any grey area will err on the side of flowing through.

Tag team cross is fine as long as both teams are okay with it.

Tag team speeches are not. I will actively ignore anyone who tries to speak for their partner out of turn.

No discrimination/ harassment (i.e. race, color, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, age, etc.).

Anything and everything is debatable... except the NSDA guidelines

Quoted From Michael Stone

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=83347:

"Event-specific paradigms

Policy: Know that while I have a great deal of experience in judging this event as a debate coach, and while I respect the original premise on which Policy Debate was created, I am largely disappointed with the culture of Policy Debate, and hope that you'll do the courtesy of making it a healthy event for this round. Don't expect me to allow you to flash or email-chain any files with the other team, or with me. If you cannot coherently communicate your argument in the time that is allotted without lapsing into the epileptic fits of high-pitched squeaking and gasping that are so irresponsibly passed off as authentic debate, you may expect me to weigh your wanton abuse of the debate round into my decision. Fitting an overabundance of contentions into your constructive cases simply to set your opponent up later to be unable to sufficiently answer them all is not demonstrative of you being the better debater; it simply tells me that winning means more to you than authentic debate. Additionally, simply reading cards without contributing your own critical analysis does not convince me that you are the better debater, but only demonstrates you possess the linguistic skills of a parrot.

I promise you that it is possible to have a Policy Debate round where you can be intelligible to your judge and to your opponents. Speech rates in excess of 300 words per minute, while they may be the norm in Policy Debate as it currently stands, are beyond disappointing.

Hopefully I have by this point established that I am a judge who values substance over form. I will be judging the whole of your arguments, and while I will refrain from allowing my own personal biases or my own "rebuttals" from influencing the decision for the round, I will rely on the logical arguments provided to me throughout the round to decide the case. Do not think of your debate case as a series of bullets that, if your opponent misses one bullet (contention), that your entire case falls through. Think of your cases rather as structures of logical argumentation--where you craft the logic of your argument to be able to withstand any attack, whilst exploiting the architectural flaws in your opponents' case.

A note on theory or K cases, whether they be on the AFF or NEG: These are totally valid strategies for winning the round, if used non-abusively. Too often I have seen teams walk into the round knowing they will run a racist K when they know next to nothing about the background of their opponents or their opponents' case. If you decide to run a theory or K argument, expect a great deal of scrutiny on my part to ensure you are not abusing the educational value of the round.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Public Forum: This event was originally created by the NSDA in response to the complaints made that Policy and LD had both become corrupted with a nonsensical gamification that prioritized form over substance. Public Forum was created with the intent to avoid those problems. Therefore, expect me to have a very dim view on spewing. The only other place spewing is even slightly practical outside the speech and debate world is rattling off the warnings and disclaimers at the end of radio ads about cars or pills, or if you are planning on being an auctioneer. Seeing as there's a reasonable chance that is not a common career goal for PF debaters, don't expect me to judge you favorably if you ignore the warning to avoid spewing.

In any debate round, I aim to take a wholistic approach to the overall logical strength of both sides. Don't count on being able to abuse the round by fitting in seven different contentions into your case and then expect me to reward you for not having the other team be able to sufficiently answer each of your contentions. And the logical strength of your argument is not served by simply reading cards. I expect critical analysis and discussion of your evidence. And while your case should be backed up by evidence, not every compelling argument need be made with a card. If one of your cards can be cleanly refuted with responsible logic, I will dismiss that card, regardless of the authority of the source. The logical fallacy of ad auctoritate is not a viable approach to a true victory in the debate.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Lincoln-Douglas: This event was instituted by the NSDA in response to complaints that Policy Debate had devolved from its original purpose of a healthy debate where the logical substance of both arguments would clash together in a serious discussion of significant issues. Lincoln-Douglas, unfortunately, has not been immune to the corrupting effects of the cancerous influence of the meta-game of Policy Debate, and I expect the debaters I judge to responsibly debate without manifesting the immoral foibles typical of Policy Debate. In other words, don't spew.

If you choose to present a case that varies from the traditional argumentation format of Lincoln-Douglas, you are free to do so inasmuch your "creativity" is not abusive to the educational value of the round and do not put your opponents in a position where they could not have reasonably anticipated to be able to have to counter every outlandish argument their opponents could make.

I place high value on the logical substance of both sides of the debate. While evidence-based cases are an obvious necessity, your opponents' rebuttals need not always have a "card" to counter one of your own, inasmuch as the opponent in question is able to point out any serious logical flaws that may be present in the card you present. Remember to defend the strength of your value and criterion.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl."

Email: andrea.thompson@ccsdut.org

CX

I'm a fairly traditional former CX and PF debater and current debate coach. I do not mind some speed, but I would like if debaters at least slow down for taglines so we can all keep track of where the debate is taking place on the flow. Please be organized so I know where to write down your arguments on my flow. I really enjoy stock issues debate/on case argumentation. DA's and CP's are alright, too -- just adequately connect them to the case at hand! Theory and Kritiks are okay as long as you can explain them clearly and convincingly, and you actually link them to the case. I have voted for NEG on T's before, but I'm rather skeptical about them as a whole -- if you legitimately think the AFF is kind of untopical, go for it, but T's shouldn't be used as a mere time-suck. Conditional NEG arguments are dicey to me. In the end, I always use my flow to determine who has won the round. I'm excited for some beautiful policy fun!!!

LD

I'm a fairly traditional current debate coach. Although evidence is certainly important, I believe that it is the application of evidence and logic of an argument that really makes it compelling. I do not mind some speed, but I would rather debaters speak TO me rather than read/spread/spew AT me. I love framework debates when debaters really weigh values and connect their contentions to their value and criterion. As a whole I'm not a huge fan of kritiks or counterplans in LD, but if you can explain it clearly and convincingly, you could definitely still win a round running such a case with me as judge. Please be organized so I know where to write down your arguments on my flow. LD is not CX, so a dropped argument is in and of itself not necessarily a reason to win or lose a round - it all depends on what argument is dropped, and what the response to the dropping of it is. In the last speech, I should be given voters - the reasons why you've already won the round. I always use my flow to determine who has won the round.

PF

I'm a fairly traditional former PF debater and current debate coach. Although evidence is certainly important, I believe that it is the application of evidence and logic of an argument that really makes it compelling. I do not mind some speed, but I would rather debaters speak TO me rather than read/spread/spew AT me. I appreciate framework debates (whether practical or more LD in nature) and on case arguments, but I am not a fan of counterplans/topicalities/squirrely PF cases. I'd prefer if debaters debated about the topic rather than about the game of PF itself. Please be organized so I know where to write down your arguments on my flow. PF is not CX, so a dropped argument is in and of itself not necessarily a reason to win or lose a round - it all depends on what argument is dropped, and what the response to the dropping of it is. In the last speech, I should be given voters - the reasons why you've already won the round. I always use my flow to determine who has won the round.