North Mecklenburg Viking Classic
2021 — NSDA Campus, NC/US
Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am Ramanathan (Ram) working for an IT company in Greenville, SC. I was born and raised in India and immigrated to the US 14 years ago.
I enjoy judging speech and debate (especially your round) and it’s great to be part of this event which not only helps to shape the life and future of the students but also for myself with a greater understanding of current issues and topics.
I’m fluent in English but I would appreciate it if you (debaters) can avoid jargon as well as speaking too fast. I remain a judge/spectator for the entire part of the debate and step in if and only there is a need (exceeding time limit, inappropriate language, etc.). Also, I keep time for the entire round just to make sure the burden is not on the debaters.
It’s great to meet you all and look forward to judging your event. All the very best!!
I am a parent judge who has been judging since 2019. I have some experience judging both speech and LD fields.
Please do not spread, and please provide evidence and signposting during the round. Spreading is the quickest way for you to lose the round- if I can’t follow your arguments, I will likely pick your opponent. Speak clearly, and if running more complex arguments explain your links and impacts well. Use carded evidence.
Above all, please be nice to everyone in the round. Being rude or obnoxious will earn you very low speaks.
Enjoy the round!
I am a parent judge with experience judging PF, and have been trained to judge LD as well. I prefer that you don't talk too fast or spread - I need to be able to understand what you're saying in order to judge its merits.
As a former newspaper reporter, I take a lot of notes and will judge on the flow. For PF, please clearly articulate your contentions, back them up with warrants and support with strong evidence. I don't fully flow Crossfire or Cross-Ex, so anything important that you want noted, please extend in your next speech. By your final focus or last speech, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponents'. And in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded. Good luck and have fun!
Hello all! Because access to most technology remains dependent in some areas on socio-economic status, please note that the basics of my paradigm will be repeated in person for the benefit of any student that does not have internet access. As the standards of debate change to reflect an increasingly technologically-dependent world, please remember as future leaders and philanthropists that the students who may benefit from scholastic debate the most may not have access to these now-standardized platforms and tools. Be kind to one another, and make sure that you remember that scholastic debate is, first and foremost, meant to foster greater mindfulness, critical thinking, and the skills one needs to lead and participate in productive and compassionate discourse. Never sacrifice your empathy for a trophy!
Now that that's out of the way, you should know that I am a NC LD Debate veteran, having qualified for nats and all that jazz. In college, I've participated in a much more soft and nice form of debate via the NCICU Ethics Bowl (which I encourage you all to participate in if available to you). I am currently a student at Gardner-Webb University in the graduate MA religion program. I graduated last year with a BA in Philosophy/Theology, so I will definitely know if you mix up consequentialism and non-consequentialism.
I have no definite preferences in terms of form of argumentation. My one request is that you take my hand and gently lead me to flowing your side. The point of LD is to provide a concise, thorough, and convincing argument for whatever side you are obligated to defend. All the counterplan advocacy theory blah blah blah hoopla matters far less to me than your ability to convince me that you have one. With that said, the value debate is, in my opinion, a vital part of LD debate. You are far more likely to win if you pay close attention to the value debate. Without it, LD would not exist.
In terms of things that will definitely get you on my bad side, I cannot stand when debaters are rude to one another. Be nice, be polite, stand up during your speeches, don't hold your laptop in front of your face, and for the love of all that is holy please do not stare at your opponent during CX or make faces at them. It is not convincing. It is not funny. It will get you low speaker points and a stern lashing on your ballot.
Know that when you receive your ballot from me, 99% of the critique on that ballot will have nothing to do with my decision. Rather, I will attempt to impart my wisdom to you to the best of my ability. My comment regarding your misuse of Immanual Kant has nothing to do with your win or loss. I will tell you explicitly why you won/lost.
Finally, ask me if I'm ready before speeches, especially CX, and know that my time is the final time. I will time you and you will not trick me into believing that you had 30 seconds left. Let me know if you need time signals.
Also don't spread. If I can't understand what you say, I can't flow you. That doesn't work on me.
If I judge you in PF, I'll try my best.
I am a Debate Coach at Charlotte Latin. Have been coaching all types of debate (except Policy), but most specifically Public Forum.
Email Chain: email@example.com
1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.
2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.
3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks
4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:
- "Flow” judge I guess, can follow the fastest PF debater but dont use speed unless you have too.**
- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.
- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.
5 Things to Remember…
Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)
After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.
I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.
Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.
I would prefer if you DO NOT paraphrase; you can, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round.
Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.
SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS
"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.
29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.
28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.
27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.
26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.
25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.
Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior."
***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***
Never done this before. Looking forward to learning though. Thanks for your patience.
Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm before the round starts. For email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org. I did LD for four years with North Meck HS and NCSSM. Currently double majoring in Philosophy and Math at UNC.
- Speed is fine up to the point where you have to resort to breathing techniques. This does not mean go the same speed you would and cause yourself to pass out.
- Especially in circuit debate – post rounding is a-ok by me. I know I don’t have as much experience with circuit LD, and so the more feedback I get and engagement on my judging, the better I think I am going to be in the future for it.
- I know this makes me sound super lay, but like, PLZ do not read me whatever boring stock util. case you have prepped for lay judges, I hear about enough of this on the local circuit – I want to see something exciting.
-Tech problems: please have speeches recorded as backup.
-I’m lazy as hell – your job is to write my ballot for me.
Authors I am very comfortable with: DnG, Heidegger, Baudrillard, Foucault, Kant, Adorno.
I take as minimal an approach to judge intervention as possible. However, there are certain standards for what I just will not accept:
-New in the 2; I won’t drop you but I don’t flow new arguments in the 2. Not flowing it means it didn’t happen.
-Blatantly false claims: racism good, climate change not real, etc.
Plans and CPs: I’m not the biggest fan of these sorts of debates but I’ll certainly put up with it. Just make sure you execute well.
Policy vs Policy: Compare evidence quality (authors, methodology, sample size, etc.). I could not possible care less about the number of cards you have compared to your opponent.
Topicality: CPs must be competitive. There are a few ways I have seen this violated:
- CP: do the AFF except some absurdly minimal aspect;
- CP not mutually exclusive with the AC
- Resolution doesn’t spec. an actor, but the CP only changes the actor. This is especially relevant to ACs which don’t provide a plan. This is just a more specific case of the first example and – I think – a more egregious violation.
Additionally, please give cards for T; I won’t drop you if you don’t, but your speaks will probably suffer. The more absurdly technical the T debate, the better. Conditional CPs are immensely cringe. I’m also fine with Nebel T, watching people cry about how they might not be able to read an absurdly specific plan is hilarious.
I’m most comfortable with Cap Ks, but if you read me cards from Tankies, Maoists, or the like… RIP your speaks. An important note in K debate is please do not try to obfuscate your way to victory.
- Signpost and go line-by-line.
- The more explicit the link the better.
- What does the K do or accomplish concretely? (K-Affs especially)
- Unless it makes sense in lieu of your FW, I’ll prolyl dock your speaks for reading me HuffPo, etc.
- Give a framework for the K!
- If you struggle with providing examples when asked in CX, it probably tells me you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I’ll give you 30 speaks if you read some Neg-Dialectics K about how you should always negate because affirming always traps concepts in a fashion which runs opposite to the dialectical Idea of truth. It would be really funny and would make my day.
I’m probably most comfortable with this. I did a lot of Kant FWs in my time, so I’ll be very comfortable with those. Consequently, I am fine with the idea of not having impact calculus – but only in rounds where you have demonstrated that consequences need not be considered; the default in debate seems to be some sort of util.
I am not a fan of testing the plausibility of a theory based on how a majority of people feel about it (something about Ideology and so on and so forth *sniff*).
Meta-ethics are dope and cool.
I will not penalize you on neg. for just going insane on reading turns and conceding FW, unless you do something insanely stupid like concede a Kant FW and then read impact turns (which I have seen people do). Like???
LOCAL TOURNAMENTS: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WARRANT YOUR FW IN A SUBSTANTIVE MANNER. If you don’t, do not expect to get above a 28.
Go ahead, but I don’t have a lot of experience here so don’t be surprised if it goes bad for you (I mean it will still be my fault, but just know it’s likely to happen). If you do read theory: PLEASE stay away from jargon! I am putting in the work to better understand the evaluation of theory debates, but I’m not quite there.
Spikes: fine. A prirois: cringe. NIBs: cringe. Burdens: fine. Triggers: cringe. I’m not chill with RVIs just yet until I feel I have a better handle on them. Sorry .
First time circuit judge, avoid spreading and debate slang.
I am a parent judge, and this is my second year judging LD. If you are doing prefs, please consider me as a lay judge. I flow off the round, and I am unable to follow spreading. Be clear and coherent, because if I can't understand what you are saying, then I can't vote for you.
email ~ email@example.com
For nat circuit debates:
I prefer "policy-style" cases, and I can best understand econ, scientific, political capital, geopolitical, and structural violence related arguments. DAs are great, CPs are fine, but clearly articulate mutual exclusivity and net benefits.
I am not familiar with Ks or Phil Arguments, don't run these.
I understand the general concepts of theory and topicality, please only run it if there is legitimate abuse, explain it slowly and clearly, and tie your standards to your voters and implications. However, I'd prefer if you refrain from initiating or baiting it.
Debaters that speak clearly, signpost, clash well, and comparatively weigh their arguments will get the most speaks.
I typically award 27-30 speaker points, I just have a few asks:
1) Be respectful towards me and your opponent
2) Be honest about prep time, and ethical about your card cutting
3) No 3NRs please
4) Have fun!
I am a citizen judge and a parent of a competitor. This is my 4th year as a judge for LD and PFD. I have judged local tournaments in South Carolina and a few National Circuit Tournaments.
The quality of your arguments is more important than the quantity of your arguments. I will reflect after the debate on who won the debate. Memorable examples relevant to your argument and insightful logic to explain the reasons behind your position can be decisive at this moment of reflection.
Explanation of your evidence and its relevance to your case is more important than the relative credibility of your sources versus the sources of your opponent’s evidence. I will ask myself if I “buy” your argument based on your explanation of the evidence and its relevance.
Enunciation is important so that I can understand your points. Brisk speaking is fine, but don’t sacrifice my ability to understand you, especially in a virtual environment.
Debate the actual resolution. Tell me why it matters and what the stakes are.
Overall, don’t make me work too hard. If you and your opponent were attorneys, which one of you would I hire to defend me in court?
I am the Speech and Debate Coach at Carolina Day School in Asheville, NC.
Our program at Carolina Day focuses on Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and some speech events. In competition, I primarily judge Lincoln-Douglas.
I will always be flowing debates and will be familiar with the topics. I hear a lot of debates and can handle speed, but speed cannot come at the expense of clarity. If I can’t understand what you are saying and get it down on the flow, I won’t be able to weigh it later in the round.
I value frameworks in PF. If you don’t have a framework in the constructive, I will assume we are employing a cost-benefit analysis.
I judge primarily on a traditional local circuit. I'm open to progressive argumentation, but it will need to be clearly explained and clearly connected to the topic.
I am a parent judge with some college speech and debate experience but I am new to judging.
-Please speak at a conversational pace.
-I will flow all the round except for the cross examinations. So, the better organized your speech, the better I can flow.
-Please obey your time.
-Be respectful and professional at all times.
-I look for clear, organized and logical argumentation.
Good luck and have fun.
I am a volunteer judge for my son's school in speech and debate events. Like most mercenaries, I go when and where I am asked. I am a trial by fire judge for better or worse. I have little to no formal training in speech or debate. Send me a short PDF or video clip and voila, I'm the expert. Well maybe not the expert, but I judge objectively. Hopefully my comments and clear and helpful.
Speech Events: Novice Reading, Story Telling, Dramatic/Humorous/Duo Interpretation, Declamation, Extemporaneous/Informative/Impromptu Speaking
Compulsories - adhere to any event compulsories. Cite titles and authors of reference pieces. Read from script if required, even if you know it by heart. Follow, but don't be afraid to stretch (grace period), time limits.
Vocal - Speak in articulate ??? at a pace that is easy to follow. Vary pace in an appropriate manor, but do not loose control of enunciation.
Physical - Comfortably use as much of the room as possible if movement is allowed. Keep one foot planted if movement is restricted. Always use facial animations and craft grand gestures to emphasize important moments of your performance.
I was a high school and college debater and have been an active high school coach ever since. I am chair of my state league as well as an NSDA District Chair. Dating back to high school, I have over 35 years of experience in the activity. However, please don't consider me as "old school" or a strict traditionalist. Like any activity, speech and debate is constantly evolving and I am open to and embrace most changes. You'll clearly understand all of the rare exceptions to that as you read my paradigm.
It is very important to remember that debate is a communication activity. As such, I expect clear communication. Well articulated, supported and defended arguments, regardless of quantity, are far more important to me than who has the most cards that they can spout out in a speech. While I'm okay with a limited amount of speed, excessive speed beyond what you would use in the "real world" is not effective communication in my mind. Communicate to me effectively with well reasoned and fully supported arguments at a reasonable pace and you will win my ballot. I don't accept the "they dropped the argument so I automatically win the argument" claim. You must tell me why the dropped argument was critical in the first place and convince me that it mattered. I look at who had the most compelling arguments on balance and successfully defended them throughout the round while refuting the opponent's arguments on balance in making my decision.
Things to keep in mind about the various events I judge:
Policy debate is about policy. It has a plan. Plans have advantages and disadvantages as well as solvency or the lack thereof. Some plans also might warrant a counterplan from the negative if it is good, nontopical, and can gain solvency better than the affirmative plan.
Lincoln Douglas Debate is about values. I am interested much more in values in this type of debate than any sort of policy. However, I'm not a strict traditionalist in that I don't require both a value premise and a value criterion that is explicitly stated. But I do want to hear a value debate. That said, I also want to hear some pragmatic examples of how your value structure plays out within the context of the resolution. All in all, I balance my decision between the philosophical and the pragmatic. Persuade me of your position. However, please don't present a plan or counterplan. Switch to policy debate if you want to do that. Bottom line: debate the resolution and don't stray from it.
Public Forum Debate is about current events and was intended for the lay judge. Don't give me policy or LD arguments. Clear communication is important in all forms of debate, but is the most important in this one. I am not open to rapid fire spreading. That's not communication. Please don't give me a formal plan or counterplan. Again, reserve that for policy debate. Communicate and persuade with arguments backed up by solid research and your own analysis and do this better than your opponents and you will win my PF ballot. It's that simple. Debate the resolution without straying from it in a good communicative style where you defend your arguments and attack your opponent's and do this better than they do it. Then you win. Persuade me.
Congress Paradigm: (I'll be honest. It's my favorite event.)
Congressional Debate is designed to be like the real Congress when it functions as it was intended. Decorum is absolutely critical. While humor may have its place in this event, you should not do or say anything that a United States congressperson of integrity would not do or say. You should also follow Congressional decorum rules and address fellow competitors with their proper titles. When judging congress, I want to see clash/refutation of previous speakers (unless, of course, you are giving the first speech of the topic). Try to avoid "canned" speeches that are largely prewritten. This is not dueling oratories. It is still debate. I look for a combination of new arguments and clash/refutation of arguments already made. I do not like rehash. If it's been said already, don't say it unless you have a uniquely fresh perspective. I am not impressed by those who jump up to make the first obvious motion for previous question or for recess. Obvious motions score no points with me, as they are obvious and can be made by anyone. It's not a race to see who can be seen the most. I am, however, impressed by those who make great speeches, regularly ask strong cross examination questions and show true leadership in the chamber. Simply making great speeches alone is not enough. If you give three perfect speeches but never really ask good cross examination questions or rarely participate proceduraly in the chamber, you might not get the ranking you were hoping for. Although speeches are very important and a major factor in my decision, they are not the complete package that I expect from a competitor. I'm looking at your total constructive participation in the chamber (in a productive sense, not a "just to be seen" sense). Finally, to reiterate what I said at the beginning, I take decorum very seriously. You should too.
Congress Presiding Officers: Keep your wording as brief and concise as possible. Avoid the obvious. Please don't use phrases like "Seeing as how that was a negative speech, we are now in line for an affirmative speech." Here is a MUCH better option: "Affirmative speakers please rise" or "We are now in line for an affirmative speech." There is no need to tell anyone that the previous speech was negative. We should know that already. Just immediately call on the next side. It is acceptable and advisable to also very quickly give the time of the previous speech for the reference of the judges, but we do not need to be reminded of what side the previous speech was on. The phrase I dislike the most in Congress is "seeing as how . . ." So how do I judge you as a P.O. in relation to the speakers in the chamber? Most (but not all) presiding officers will make my top eight ballot if they are good with no major flaws. But how do you move up the ballot to get in "break" range? I place a great deal of weight on fairness and decorum, knowledge of parliamentary procedure and the efficiency in which the chamber is conducted. I reward presiding officers who are precise and have minimal downtime. And, as mentioned earlier, it does not require a great deal of language (especially jargon and phraseology) to be an excellent presiding officer. I'm not judging you on how much I hear you speak. I'm judging you on how efficient the chamber ran under your leadership. An excellent P.O. can run a highly efficient chamber without having to say much. Keep order, know and enforce the rules, and be respected by your peers. That said, you should also be prepared to step in and be assertive anytime the chamber or decorum gets out of hand. In fact, you should step in assertively at the first minute sign of it. Finally, while it is often difficult for a P.O. to be first on the ballot, it is also not impossible if your excellence is evident. And as a side note, while this is not a voting issue for me, it is worth noting. When giving your nomination speech, you don't need to tell me (or the rest of the chamber) that you will be "fast and efficient." That phrase is overused and heard from almost every candidate I've ever seen nominated. Everyone makes that claim, but a surprising number don't actually follow through on it. Come up with original (but relevant) reasons that you should be elected.
Things to avoid in any event I judge:
"Spreading" or rapid fire delivery.
Ad Hominem attacks of any kind. Stick to the issues, not the person. This is the first thing that will alienate me regardless of your position.
Kritiks - You must be extremely persuasive if you run them. I'll consider them and vote for them if they are excellent, but I'd rather hear other arguments. Very few kritiks are in that "excellent" category I just mentioned. These are mainly only appropriate for Policy debate. I'll reluctantly consider them in LD, but never in PF.
Debate that strays outside the resolutional area. Stick to the topic.
Lack of respect for your opponent or anyone else in the room. Disagreement and debate over that disagreement is great. That's what this activity is about. But we must always do it respectfully.
Condescending tone or delivery. Don't even try it with me. Trust me, I'll hear a condescending tone/delivery much louder than any argument you make, no matter how good the argument is. I'll make a condescending tone a voting issue that does not play in your favor. You don't want that.
Hi, I'm Sanjana! I did LD and Extemp at Ardrey Kell (graduated in 2021), and now go to Dartmouth College. I primarily did traditional LD/some circuit LD my senior year, and went to NSDA & NCFL nationals 4 times.
My general preferences are that you spend enough time explaining the links and impacts of your arguments, what the implication of those impacts are for the round (especially through framework in LD), and how that interacts with and weighs against your opponent's arguments, and signpost. Be as comparative as possible in your last speech.
Speak at a moderate pace that both your opponent and I can follow.
I will be flowing the round. No new arguments in summary.
I am a first generation Cuban-American who grew up in rural NC (so my Spanish is weak at best). I competed in speech (poetry and prose interpretation mostly) in both middle and high school. I have had two children compete in debate so I am aware for both formal rules and conventions.
I am a veterinary pathologist with extensive diagnostic and research experience (including covid studies); I also am a huge history buff. So I will probably know if your science or history is wrong / out of context / or misleading. That said, I do not penalize the speaker unless the error is egregious, meaning that a reasonable person would know the speaker is in factual error off the top of their head. Otherwise, I expected the opposing side to point out the error themselves. I do penalize if the opposition misquotes the other sides argument.
Please do not speak so quickly I cannot understand what you are saying.
And good luck!
I am a patent judge with several rounds of experience judging debate events. I am the typical “lay judge”. However, I am more than capable of evaluating strength of argumentation and evidence when deciding who has won the round. Please make sure your arguments and evidence are clear.