Short Version:

I debated in high school (very traditional policy) and college (parli, just one year). I teach English. While I coach LD, l prefer a good traditional-style Lincoln-Douglas debate. This is not Policy. I look for solid clash of values throughout, and would prefer that you avoid jargon as much as possible. A thoughtful and well-supported value structure is more important to me than individual cards, and everything you discuss should be related to your framework.

Full Version:

Judging Style:

I really like to see good clash. I find it easiest to vote for you if you have a thoughtful, solid framework which is well supported by all of your contentions and evidence. Impacts are extremely important to me. While I think the best debate is traditional in style, I'm open to seeing creative approaches, but only to a limited extent. I have a B.A. in Philosophy, so I'm very comfortable with any philosophical arguments you might want to run. Feel free to be complex, but I will be able to tell if you misrepresent or misunderstand the philosophy.

Speaks:

I generally stick to a range of 26-29, with 26 being average or slightly below, 27 being decent, 28 being good, and 29 being excellent. I typically reserve 30 for persuasive, perfect speech. If you are being truly unnecessarily rude, or use racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. language, then I will rank you lower than this range.

Speed:

For me, this is related to speaker points. I'm fine with speaking quickly, but believe that spreading has no place in debate and is, at its core, abusive. If you spread, I will drop you.

Flashing:

I'm fine if you want to flash your case, cards, whatever to your opponent, so long as there is mutual agreement. I'm not interested in reading your case, though. I will only evaluate you on what is spoken during the round. This is not an essay contest. The only material I will ask to see during or after the round might be specific cards, if questions about them become relevant to the debate.

Regarding time, just don't waste it. I don't typically count the time taken to flash toward prep, unless you're clearly taking advantage.

Ks

I don't generally love these, but I'm happy to entertain a really well constructed K. You'll have an uphill battle, you really need warrant, and I won't typically default away from the resolution, but you could still convince me that you deserve my vote with a good K.

DAs

I'm OK with these, but they need to be impacted. I tend to treat these as just another argument.

Theory:

I have a pretty low tolerance for these, but will accept a thoughtful theory shell, especially if there is a potentially clear instance of abuse. You need warrant, and should carefully explain interps.

Flex Prep/CX:

I will not allow the use of flex prep.

General Comments:

I've probably left out my thoughts on some aspects of debate, so please ask questions if you have them. I'll do my best to answer. What I'm really hoping to see is a sportsmanlike debate that is thoughtful. While there are some strategies that I believe are inherently abusive, I will at least hear you out if you make an earnest effort to have a good academic debate.

I am new to judging as of Fall 2021. (Please forgive me.)

I want to see arguments that are presented fully and in a compelling manner. You don't need to have more arguments than your opponent so much as you need an argument that is convincing. (There are plenty of reasons why we should mine asteroids, and really only one reason I can think of why we shouldn't. [See movies Asteroid and Deep Impact.] That one neg reason, blowing up the planet, is pretty solid.) So, slow down a bit and present your arguments fully and with conviction.

When offering data, it's also true that fewer numbers, presented in a clear manner, can be more persuasive. Giving lots of numbers can result in your audience (me, in this case) failing to see the significance of that one key number. Also, look to round numbers where appropriate to ease understanding. For example, the internet just told me that the population of North Carolina is 10,701,022 people. But if you are talking the NC population in reference to some political issue, your communication would probably be more effective to say "over 10 million people" or "nearly 11 million people" or "10.7 million people". And if you say, "Out of the total population of 10,701,022 people, 38.2% of them are over the age of 50 who have incomes of less than $45,000," you are probably lowering the chance that any of your numbers have persuasive power.

I appreciate creativity in problem-solving. In this context, it means I'm not opposed to radical arguments if you can stick the landing. Give it a try. I also

I'm a science instructor by day. That means I appreciate scientific method and data and I want to see good logic in your argument.

I hope you relax and enjoy yourself. Remember that nothing bad happens, even if you don't win the national tournament.

Hi! I'm Samad (he/him). I did LD at Providence High for 4 years, and I am currently studying Public Policy and Philosophy at UNC

Email for Disclosure if you want to do that: Samadrangoonwala@gmail.com

Feel free to ask me questions or find my after the round for more feedback, this is (supposedly) about education so happy to try and help.

Important things

1. Don't be a jerk or a racist/sexist etc. etc. '
2. Tech>Truth but don't lie to me or say outlandish nonsense, you can extrapolate from cards but that has to be logically done and the cards themselves have to be quality. I'm not gonna believe that the SAT leads to Nuclear war because some talking head from CATO says so unless their logic makes sense too.
3. You can talk fast but I'm rusty and might ask you to slow down, if I can't write it down then it probably wont do any good. (Anything above like 200wpm is probably too fast)
4. No new stuff in the last speech
5. Please at least adress the framework debate, I like philosophy and its the key part of the event.
6. Tell me why arguments matter under the FW(note if you can tell me why you win under either FW then you don't actually need to win that debate to get the ballot)
7. Personality is cool, and card dumps are fine and can get you the win, but your analysis of evidence is important, too.
8. Side note on that last bit: you can be passionate and aggressive without being mean; don't be mean. have fun :D
9. Give voters if you want to, please for my sake say something more then "i win because i said X"- like ok why do I care? Draw the connections for me!
10. Specifically for TFL states, unless the circuits changed dramatically in the last 3 years, I'm assuming a lot of trad arguments. That said I'm open to K's, T, plans, etc.
12. Rough Speaker point breakdown

I don't know how speaker point inflation has changed in the last few years but this is give or take what i'll use

30- Best I've seen all day, if you don't place top 5 I will be incredibly surprised

29- Very good! May have had some minor slipups but you are still easily one of the best

28- Great! Some more major issues, this is probably the highest you'll get with an L, about average for a W

27- Getting into tricky territory, average loss, or a messy messy win. I'd recommend changing your strategy moving forward

26- Major major errors, at some point you done goofed and lost the narrative, you almost certainly need to make adjusts to either in round strategy or case structure. If you got this with W something catastrophic happened for the other guy.

<25- You probably said something vitriolic. This is me trying to tell you to never do anything like you did in the round ever again.

I'll probably give you a speaker points bump just for taking risks, being creative, doing some fun little strategy stuff that makes me smile etc.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

I flow each speech and, as a result, use my flow as my primary decision-rendering tool. The flow is especially important to me when deciding between two debaters with nearly equal performances. I also value clear, distinct voter issues and look for debaters to use voter issues to connect multiple ideas across the debate. Additionally, I look for clear frameworks to set up the round for each debater and for each debater to use these frameworks to present deep analyses of the main issues in the round.

In general, I prefer you speak no faster than a brisk, conversational pace. Trying to “out-speed” your opponent or overwhelm them by spreading will not earn you points in my book. If you speak so quickly I cannot easily gather your main points, how am I supposed to flow them and weigh them in the round?

Final Thoughts

At the end of the day, I am just one judge with one set of opinions. Speech and debate is meant to be a fun and educational activity. I hope your experience is rewarding, educational, and, above all else, fun.

Good luck!