I prefer impacts debating showing me how your side effects the world. Make sure you go back and relate your side to the round criteria. If your opponent makes a logical mistake in their debate make sure you point it out specifically. Do not assume I will recognize it or deduce things for you. I am not a big fan of fast talking debate.

I've debated in LD for one year in high school so far, do extemp and impromptu speaking, and am pretty chill as far as judges go. Overall, be sure to articulate clearly, especially when spreading, and make thorough explanations for complex contentions. Generally, I will be more likely to vote for your side if I can clearly understand your arguments and their links. Now for some more specific things:

Framing: I am comfortable with frameworks that are very complex. I will judge the round through the lens of whichever framework wins, which means that the debater who wins the framework debate will have an advantage. Compared to other judges, I tend to be more framework-intensive and put more emphasis on it.

Criterion Specific: I am comfortable with very odd criterions because I research philosophy a lot on my own time and it is perhaps my favorite part of debate. Just be sure that your criterions can be used as a weighing mechanism so that I can use them to make a decision between debaters. For instance, if you tell me that your criterion is "maximizing well being" (and yes, I have heard that more than a couple times), then I cannot use your criterion because it is too vague for me to use to decide between debaters. In other words, spell out exactly how I should judge your contentions in your criterion and be specific in wording.

Topicality/Definitional arguments: I love these arguments a lot, and generally the more weird the argument is then the more I will like it. Just be sure that there is a warrant for the argument and it is not blatantly asserted. If a debater is able to successfully assert that their opponent is not topical, then I will drop the opponent.

K's: I do not have a lot of experience with them (as I have not dabbled into those arguments in my past nor have I done policy) and, in the event you are running K's, please be sure to explain it clearly and to not use jargon.

Theory: I have seen some theory arguments and I have run it a couple of times, so i'm moderately comfortable with them. Generally, I will do drop-debater on theory as long as it is relatively-undisputed. Also, please do not have a solely-theory argument. If the opponent debates the resolution, and you solely provide a theory argument without touching on the resolution, then I will still vote for the opponent.

Also, if y'all have meme cases or speak in a British accent for a speech, then I will give full speaks. I cannot guarantee the win, but you will get 30 speaker points.

Yeah if you actually read this far... well props to you for making it through all of that. I wrote that like 1.5 years ago but woke up late so I didn't have time to change it. Just run whatever you want lmao. As long as you have clear links I'm vibing.

Timing:

Please be prepared to time yourself.

For speeches:

If this is a prompt-based speech, please state your prompt before you begin and report your time when you are done.

For debates:

Docs

Please send your case doc or outline - dinaberry@outlook.com

Speaking

. Speak clearly and not too fast. Slow down on major points, value, criteria, framework, definition, etc. What about spreading? If I can't flow, I can't judge. If you need to insert that much material into the round, you need to provide the outline of that material, at a minimum. In four years of judging, I've only seen one round decided on the sheer volume of evidence introduced and counter arguements and that round didn't have spreading.

. Sign post, then stick to it. If you jump around, I can't follow you. If you drop a point, don't pick it up in another speech.

. Provide outline: numbering and lettering points, impacts, etc, so I can track.

Case/Framework/Debate

. If you run an unusual case/framework/K - you have to uphold it. You can't just say here it is and that the other side isn't allowed to argue it. This is a debate, so let's debate.

. If you say the sky is green, fine with me, cite reputable sources, and debate it.

. If you run your case without sources, everything you said is your opinion and doesn't win against even the worst sources cited by the opposition.

- For L/D, if you concede framework to your opponent, and the framework argument from the opponent is clear, then framework above contentions. If you don't want to argue framework, go debate policy.

. All common historical context currently taught in Washington State high schools is allowed (ex: The holocaust happened). All obscure or controversial fiction-as-fact must be upheld with reputable and current sources (ex: Jan 6 was just a misunderstanding from a reputable world-wide source).

Poetry/Art/etc as debate

If a case is presented in a format that you haven't seen before or understand how it is relevant to the topic, please use your cross to clarify. Then debate it. Everyone had the same time to prep/research. Now you need to think on your feet.

Meta such as role of the ballot, drop the debate, drop the debater

Role of the ballot - I enjoy ROTB arguments

Drop the debate - make a very strong case

Drop the debator - there must be a clear and obvious ethical or moral breach in the round. I don't drop the debater because they haven't understood the importance of something you said to them on a personal level within the pressure and speed of the round. If you request drop the debator - then you need to walk me through the violation slowly because you've just rested the entire round on this one point and I need to understand it.

Topicality

Meh - a topicality argument needs to be strong with subpoints. Don't say something isn't topical. Walk me through it.

Voting/decisions

If you skip voters, or assume voters based on debate, then I get to choose. Probably not what you want me to do.

If your opponent doesn't literally concede a point, but instead drops it or doesn't argue it in a way you deem valid, do NOT say they conceded. That is disrespectful to both the judge and your opponent.

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I was never a super 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 and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

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. I appreciate good weighing but I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

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.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

Hello all, my name is Ashlie.

I make my decision based on the speaker who best: formulated logical arguments, extended their arguments, and responded to their opponent's arguments. The language used in the round should be comprehensible. Make sure to define key terms. I prefer clarity over speed, if I don't understand what you are saying because of how fast you are speaking, that means I am not writing it down.

During cross-examination, I am aware there will be clash and I expect respect amongst each other. My decision on who wins the round is on the speaker whomade the best arguments, not the most aggressive or loudest speaker.

Please time yourselves. I will be taking time and notify you when time is up, but timing yourself is a great skill as you can determine how much time you have left.Be mindful of the time, if your time is up. I will allow you to finish your last sentence but do not continue.

All in all, I am excited to judge your round!

Remember to be clear and state uniqueness, solvency, and impact of the policy/resolution. Take a deep breathe and show me all the hard work you have put in.

Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School for the past 5 years. My email is eastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during crossfire; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy.

Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).

-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.

-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.

- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).

Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!

Policy and LD paradigms are below.

Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out slow so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). A tag should be a complete idea with a warrant. One word ("extinction" "Solves") does not count as a tag or an argument. I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am somewhat sensitive to how mental health, suicide, rape and disabilities are discussed and expect such sensitive topics to be approached with appropriate respect and care to wording and research.

Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.

Defaults: I'm a default policymaker but am open to other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I have a strong preference for frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be 4 minutes of your 2NR, or all of your 2AR.

Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.

Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.

Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar.

Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.

I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at 2018 Nationals for it.

I have progressive software running on traditional hardware. I like progressive arguments such as Ks and narratives, but I cannot flow speed or blippy arguments because of my disability. Rhetoric is important, oratory is important, substance is what I vote on.

I prioritize clash over everything else, including procedurals and framework. I don't care how many arguments you make or how much evidence you provide if there is no clash in the round. I will only vote on uncontested offense if it is both extended and impacted in a later speech. Do not frontload the AC with an absurd amount of offense, see what your opponent misses in the NC, and then only extend uncovered offense. You will not win this way, I do not allow debaters to throw in everything and kick out of all but the easiest route to win.

I have Dysgraphia which affects physical writing and information processing. I cannot write quickly, even if I'm flowing digitally, and it takes me longer to process what I'm writing. That means if you choose to spread, or have a speech full of blippy arguments I will probably miss some things. If I miss an argument for this reason, it is not a voting issue. Do not grill me after the round as to why I did not vote for X or Y, and DO NOT try to figure out my threshold for speed. I understand that you're just trying to understand what you can do for your best chance at success, but please understand how insulting that is.

I never want to interfere in a round, but in the case of abuse I will. Decorum is a voting issue!

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards. *For this January/February topic I understand it is essentially a Policy topic in LD so to be fair on this that doesn't mean I can't understand progressive LD but like shown in my Policy Paradigm above I have disclosed what I am cool with and what biases I have tread carefuly if you don't read it thoroughly.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.

I am a lay, parent judge.

Please make it EXTREMELY CLEAR why you should win IN COMPARISON to your opponent, do not leave the weighing up to the judge.

I will drop progressive arguments (Ks, theory, other things like that). If you run progressive arguments, you should have a second, more straightforward case as well.

Speak slowly and clearly.

my email is huanghazel65@gmail.com

Hi y'all! My name is Hana-Lei (she/her) and I'm a former high school policy debater. I debated for four years in a very traditional circuit, but I've competed in progressive circuits a couple of times throughout the years! I'm currently a second-year at Northwestern University.

Please add me to the email chain: hjimaui@gmail.com

This is my first time judging these resolutions so please don't assume I know topic-specific information. I've judged some practice rounds for LD and PF; however, to be honest, I probably have policy tendencies and lean towards viewing the round as "AFF world" vs. "NEG world." This is typically how I will weigh the round and it would help your team if you can do that comparison in your speeches/rebuttals. This does not mean you have to have policy-type arguments though!

I put some basic notes here, but feel free to ask me questions before the round!

General Notes:

- If you win the flow, you win the debate

- Line-by-Line is good

- impact calc <3

- Speed is fine, sign-posting always helps. Go as fast as you can while staying clear (especially over online platforms)

- Rebuttals should be more comparing and analysis / I will not flow new evidence in the rebuttals

LD - specific:

- I like creative value criterions. I'm not too familiar with them, but I believe if you have one, most of your args should relate back to your V/C. Ensure your V/C are upheld and provide reasons why your V/C is better than your opponent's or how your case meets both V/Cs.

- Counterplans, Kritiks, and Theory are all fine as long as you understand the argument you are running, don't just spread through some blocks/briefs. Keep in mind that I'm used to these styles of arguments, but I'm not as familiar with a lot of the K literature.

Rebuttals:

- I will not flow new evidence in the rebuttals

- Should be more analysis / impact calc / comparing evidence / etc.

- Use this time to tell me what to vote on / what was the most important arg / how to evaluate the round

Parent lay judge. Please talk slowly.

I have been increasingly judging LD and occasionally judging Policy, but the comments below apply equally to both forms of debate. Please include me on Email chains. My Email is livill@hotmail.com

As I frequently tell LD debaters, "My paradigm as an LD judge is that I'm a Policy judge." Ha, ha! I am a Policy judge in the sense that I enjoy debating policy issues, but I have become increasingly more enamored with how LD deals with them as opposed to Policy. I enjoy a good framework debate, especially in LD.

A creative, thoughtful V/C really gets my attention. By that, I mean things other than morality/util. If you’re using FW, it’s especially important to relate your case and your opponent's case back to your V/C to show me the best way to frame the argument. A really great debater can demonstrate that their case better meets both their V/C and their opponent’s VC and does so more effectively than their opponent. I am fine with plans and counterplans, but if you're going to run a CP, make sure you understand how to do so. I am fine with theory debates as long as you relate them back to some actual argument. But, beware: I am more interested in arguments dealing with the topic than arguments dealing with the theory of debate.

Whether we’re debating a prospective policy in LD or in Policy, I believe that if we recognize something is a problem, we need to resolve it, which requires a solution. For me, that means stock issues and some kind of resolution of the harms the Aff delineates. You can rarely, if ever, go wrong, by arguing appropriate stock issues. For me, the two primary stock issues are solvency, which is key to evaluating the effectiveness of a policy and inherency, which few teams understand or argue effectively, but, which real, live, adult policy makers use every day to determine responses to problems. I vote for presumption the way any good policy maker would in the public sector – if it hasn’t been proven to be broken, don’t fix it.

I like a good T debate, but, not on cases when virtually any rational person would agree that a case is topical. I am far more likely to buy that a case is “reasonably” topical than I am to agreeing that it must meet some arcane Neg definition of a term like “it” or “is.” Also, this absurd argument that everyone should disclose their case before the round begins will gain no traction with me. One of the benefits of debate is learning how to respond quickly and effectively to new ideas and information on your feet. If you’re not prepared to debate the topic, stay home. There are other reasons to reject most Affs that involve arguments on actual issues, so use those issues instead of whining that you’ve never heard this case before.

I’m generally not a fan of K affs but sadly (for me) I will listen to anything and judge it as neutrally as possible. If you’re going to run a K aff, please be sure it has some dim unique link to the topic. Ditto for Ks run on the Neg. Also, and this is particularly for K Affs, please don’t take the tack that because you got up and read a speech or performed in front of me that I am legally, morally and ethically required to vote for you.

I am also a “policy” judge; after over 25 years as a Foreign Service Officer in the United States Department of State, I know what a coherent policy looks like and how, in the real world, policies are developed and implemented. Cases that don't offer a real policy with at least some nebulous solution to the problem, i.e. cases that offer some ephemeral philosophy that a judge is supposed to implement through "in-round solvency ballot-signing" are relatively unattractive to me. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but only when the Neg won't make the most minimal effort to argue the case in context of stock issues or policy-making.

I also look at who won which issues: who won the most important stock issues and which policy solved the problem more effectively with the fewest disadvantages and made the better sense, so, ultimately, it's about persuasion as well. I will vote for cases I don't like and don't think are topical or inherent, for example, if the Neg either fails to respond effectively or simply can't win the argument. I will not make your arguments for you or infer what you meant to say.

THINGS THAT LESSEN YOUR CHANCES OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND WINNING MY BALLOT: Really long, long, long taglines, especially ones that contain large amounts of philo/psychobabble gobbledegook. If your tag line is longer than the piece of evidence you cite, that’s a problem. Debaters who don't pause between taglines and the evidence will lose me. Stock DAs with no unique link to the current Aff being debated will bore me and it’s hard to take them seriously. Poor refutation organization is a killer - if you don't tell me where you're going, it's hard to follow you and you significantly decrease your chances of me putting the argument where YOU want it. Please understand that I flow arguments, not authors. When you extend an author whose name I have not flowed, I don’t know where to put the extension. Anyway, you’re not extending evidence as much as you’re extending an ARGUMENT. When you extend your argument, tell me which specific contention, advantage, argument or subpoint you’re refuting. Line by line is good! I really, really HATE debates that become primarily about the theory of how we're debating the issue than about the issue itself. In terms of speed, less is more. I like to be persuaded and if I can't understand what you're saying, then, you're not very persuasive. Please speak up and speak clearly, especially if it’s an online tournament.

CX/Parli:

I did policy for three years in high school and four years in college; I also did 2 years of parli in college -- through 2010. I flow (on paper, with pens!) and can usually follow you as quickly as you want to go. I'll let you know if I can't hear you. I default to offense/defense paradigm, measuring the hypothetical consequences of plan enactment against either the status quo or a counter-plan. If the 1AC gives me a different framework -- including a clear role of the ballot -- I'll default to that framework instead; usually this alternative framework is still judged offense/defense, unless you tell me to do something else. Even though I default to fiat/policy/offense v defense, I'll vote in any framework you tell me to.

1NC Kritiks/projects are much stronger if you have a clear framework, clear alternative, and a clear role-of-the-ballot analysis to buffer yourself against the 2AC's "either links to the status quo overwhelm alt solvency, or perm solves any residual links to the aff because..." arguments. (These 2AC arguments are really compelling in a traditional fiat paradigm -- but they're way less compelling if we're talking about our individual ethics, in the classroom, in a world where the plan won't actually be enacted. Lacking a well-developed framework/RotB in the 1NC, I may give the 2AC way more leeway with their perm than you'd like). Also, its super helpful to everyone if you explicitly flag your framework *as the framework* instead of burying it with the alt solvency ;)

I regularly vote on topicality or other gateway issues, but I have a pretty high threshold for voting on RVI's on T: unless the neg has demonstrably skewed the round, I have a hard time understanding why the neg's "good strategy" is somehow "breaking the rules" or "bad for education", etc. Also, if you flag something as a gateway issue mid-round inside another flow (like "conditionality bad" or even "the apocalyptic rhetoric of their CP NB is bad for debate because..."), please either include a standards/framework debate on that part of the flow, or cross-apply them from your standards/framework/K flow -- otherwise, it becomes a weird floating impact that's hard to weigh, and its probably a poor time trade-off for you.

I don't think its necessarily "breaking the rules" to run multiple, potentially-contradictory counterplans/kritiks in the 1NC -- but too often its a bad strategy because a good 1AR can use your own words against you and effectively coopt a few minutes of your speech time. This destroy's the block's time advantage and leaves the 2NR trying to make new-ish (often very weak) theory claims in addition to their usual impact-analysis; that rarely ends well for the neg. 1NCs: Be tricky at your own risk!

A few last notes:
*I've voted neg on presumption more than once.
*You're all much more knowledgeable about this year's topic, so please help me with topic-specific acronyms and jargon :)
*I've seen teams cut cards short mid-speech "to get them on the flow", but too often they cut every warrant out of their argument -- they're left with only a tag/author/date. This is actually bad time management.
*Tag-team cx is fine, but please don't jump in over your partner -- don't deny them the opportunity to score bonus speaker points!
*Above all else, be kind and have fun. I'm here to help make your round as successful as possible, so please don't hesitate to ask questions before or after the round. I keep my flows for a few days, so feel free to reach out!

LD:

I have less personal experience with LD than CX, but I've still judged maybe 100 rounds or so. I'm struggling to write a coherent "judging philosophy", but here are things I've noticed:

*I love a good value-value clash that goes beyond "My value also achieves their value".

*If you agree with your opponent's definitions, observations, etc. just group them, agree quickly, and move on. I've seen really good debaters waste well over a minute explaining to me that they agree.

*When attacking your opponent's contentions, its great to cross-apply your own case, but its even better to make new, constructive arguments against them! Too often I see both sides say "Cross apply my Contention one here to show why this is wrong" but both team's "contention ones" have been mitigated, so I don't know how much to cross-apply: the full version from your first constructive? Or the reduced version? Overwhelmingly, this is the number one way people get frustrated with my RFD's: They ask some form of "but didn't my Contention One answer that winning argument?" and I'll reply "not after your opponent significantly reduced your C-1 on your flow, and you had no other arguments on their flow beyond this cross-application". I hate having to offer that feedback after the round, so I'm hoping to do it now :)

*I love good evidence/author comparisons if we're investigating an issue of fact/data, but your author's credentials are less important when it comes to philosophy. A well-argued analytic in support for one Value can easily trump an author's generic summary of another Value. Their Phd doesn't make them smarter than you! (For example: If your opponent has some generic evidence about egalitarianism being good, I could be persuaded by a well-constructed analytic that this specific situation is an exception to their rule; if your analysis is more nuanced and on-point, don't fret if you don't have a card).

*Above all else, be kind and have fun. I'm here to help make your round as successful as possible, so please don't hesitate to ask questions before or after the round. I keep my flows for a few days, so feel free to reach out!

Speak in short, clear sentences. Take advantage of pauses, which are very effective at helping any speaker make their point or add emphasis. Also look up from your prepared text once in awhile; if in person - make eye contact. It's far better to clearly emphasize one key point than to try to argue/rebut several points by speaking too rapidly or saying far too many words in the short time allotted.

Remember, you're trying to reach your audience (or in this case, a judge) to make your argument.

Be respectful to others at all times and have a great time doing so.

-Rick

The debaters will create my lens to evaluate the flow and ultimately decide on how I will vote.

At the end of the day I will always sign for the best policy or plan that is presented to me. Debate is a complex environment with a lot of moving gears and mechanisms once arguments are deployed. The job of the debaters is to keep these gears clashing but organized while looking for the best solution to the harms. Setting up your framework will help build your house of cards, but your knowledge of the literature will reinforce the weight. Comfortable with any strategy, but still expect your story to be told and well formed. I can only evaluate a round based off of information included on my flow.

Debate from your flow to keep both me and the rest of the room literally on the same page.

*What is the Role of the Ballot? -- Spin it how you want. *

Have fun, be nice, and learn every round.

Case/evidence email: k3n.nichols@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas

Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for over 6 years and work in the tech industry.

Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)

Criteria: I consider myself to be a "traditional" LD judge. I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.

Note: I don't care for "progressive" arguments... most of the time they're just a cheap ploy to ambush unsuspecting opponents instead of expanding our understanding of the problem and the philosophical underpinnings guiding our decision. (If you'd rather be doing policy, there's a whole other event for you to enter.)

Public Forum

Public Forum is based on T.V. and is intended for lay viewers. As a result, there's no paradigm, but some of the things that help are to be convincing, explain what the clash is between your opponents position and yours, and then show why your position is the logical conclusion to choose.

TLDR: Substance first. Depth over Breadth. Speed mostly fine (Yes Clarity still matters -_-). K's n stuff fine. Not the biggest fan of T. Be organized.

I don't usually count flashing as prep unless it becomes a problem. Only ever had a problem in Policy and (funnily enough) Pufo rounds.

Email: graythesun@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

Prep:

All Prep is running prep. I'm not setting a timer, I'm using a stopwatch for all prep. Watch your own time.

Flex-Prep is valid. As in, asking questions during Prep time. I prefer if Flex-prep is more used for clarifying arguments rather then finding tricky questions... you had your chance in CX.

Framework:

As a judge I really like framework, it tends to make for an easier decision. I.E. some arguments that are argued don't really fit within frameworks in round, and I can just drop them. If there are competing frameworks I expect you to debate them, and end up with one superseding the other. That being said... if you have the same or similar frameworks, unless you're gonna describe what the nuanced difference is and how that changes the valuation in round, it's almost better to just agree that the Fw's are the same.

Contention level:

I definitely prefer depth of argumentation over breadth, knowing your evidence is key to educating yourself on the topic. I will always buy a warrant from your evidence that's well explained and utilized over one that isn't. A lot of responses to arguments made against a card can be found within the card itself. This doesn't mean you should just re-read the card. This does not mean that you can reread your card or tagline and be good.

Hey, I'm Taran (he/him)

Please put me on the email chain: Email: taranpatel001@gmail.com

Pref Sheet for all Events (1 is highest, 5 is lowest)

1 - LARP/theory

2 - K

3 - phil

4 - tricks

5 - K aff, performance

Defaults

Theory - DTD, Reasonability, No RVIs

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

As a general note, my favorite rounds to judge are really solid LARP/theory/K rounds, but don't worry if that's not your strat because I'm fine with anything as long as you do a really good job of it at explaining it and dont just spam buzzwords hoping I understand.

TLDR if you are pressed for time: Debated policy style (CP, DA) and a little bit of K, however, read whatever you want, my paradigm is here to guide you, not restrict you, but if you read something like a niche theory of power or dense trix, and don't explain it at all, do not expect me to be your 1.

- weigh, weigh, weigh! good weighing will reward you in round

My paradigm will be LD specific since I think I'm really only judging LD

Policy- favorite style of debate. I really like smaller affs and specific case debate, and tend to get bored with the same impact debates again and again. I love cps, so go crazy with your weird process cps, although the worse the cp the more likely i'll buy the perm. I think 3+ CPs is probably pushing it on condo in LD, but if thats you go for it. Love DAs, just make sure to impact it out, and make sure you have your turns case analysis, weighing, etc.. and all the good stuff in the 2nr. Good weighing in the 2NR/2AR is a good way to get my ballot in a Policy round, people DO NOT do enough weighing, and it makes my life 10x harder, so please weigh (if you do good weighing +1 full speak. Finally, please extend case in the 2AR if you want me to evaluate it at the end of the round. If case was conceded in the 2NR, a small 2AR extension at the top of the 2AR will suffice. (there's probably much more that I can say here but for the sake of not making this RFD 5 pages ask me about any specific questions before round, whatever that may be)

Theory - I read theory a lot in high school so go crazy here. It can be as friv as you want as long as you warrant and impact your standards. However, please go a little slower through analytics and on the interp text/counterinterp text, I was always not amazing at flowing. Disclosure good, but probably won't evaluate disclosure on novices, people who clearly don't know what it is or people who can prove in a verifiable way that their school policy prevents it. Good standard weighing and clear abuse stories are easy ways to get my ballot in a theory round.

T - I love T debates, one of my favorite positions to read, so go crazy, not much else to say here, although I'll be sad if you don't at least have a TVA.

Tricks - I mean, I guess you can but I probably not the best for them. Just delineate them, err on the side of overexplaining the arguments (like don't be blippy) and be up front in CX. Also, reading them on a novice or trad debater will cap your speaks at 27.

Phil - I'm familiar with Kant, Rawls, Hobbes and virtue ethics at a basic level but assume I don't know your lit and err on the side of overexplaining what the framework is and how the offense links under it.

K - I've only really read cap and security as a debater so assume I don't know your lit so err on the side of overexplaining the theory of power in the 2NR. I really like well done K debates, so please don't forget the line-by-line for overarching overview answers and shallow explanations of the arguments that regurgitate buzzwords, that will make me sad. Including examples to explain the theory of power and/or alternative are also good. I also like specific links to the 1AC, generic links are fine but specificity will always better your chances of winning and/or getting good speaks.

K affs/performance - I don't really know the ins-and-outs of this style of debate too well because I never really debated in this style, but I will say I tend to lean on the neg side of T-framework just because I ended up on that side in a lot of debates. Although, this is not to say you cannot read these arguments, just make sure your ci is not super vague and ridiculously blippy, and be ready for the impact debate since thats your best shot here.

Hi.

This is Tim Pollard.

Brief note for LD Debaters (2024):

Yearly small note addition before I judge my one-ish tournament of the season, content of last year's note is all you really need to know (but my hearing has improved dramatically).

JanFeb 2024 is a topic that concerns several rapidly-developing global crisis. Evidence that describes the behavior of states a decade ago is probably really questionable. Evidence the describes the relations between countries in the region more than 6 months ago is probably pretty questionable. You should ask your opponent these questions.

** I am going to be very willing to accept reasonable analysis made by a debater about current states of affairs over outdated evidence. **

Brief note for LD Debaters (2023):

Every year I stray further from meaningful investment in debate. All the things below are probably still true, but I have spent even less time involved in the activity than previously. Be gentle. I can hopefully still flow your speed but my sound discrimination is completely shot so make sure you are exceptionally clear at whatever speed you debate.

To summarize the decade of rambling that follows, the process to get me to vote for you is:

a. explain what you are defending.

b. explain why that is different from the other side.

c. explain why that means you win.

I will probably laugh if you structure every argument with each of these three points but based on a lot of the debates I've judged in the past few years it would probably also result in the easiest ballot of my life voting for you.

Brief note for LD Debaters (2022):

Short notes to actually reflect the sort of debates I seem to be judging.

The space topic is complex and kindof unclear about what actually constitutes topical ground. Please make it extremely clear what constitutes "appropriation" and what your position says about it. I will be heavily rewarding debaters who leverage this fact in the speaker points department and think it will greatly improve your strategic position.

util mirrors reward nuance and in-depth analysis. You should be able to identify what the current direction of the status quo is (uniqueness) what the affirmative does to affect that condition (link) and what the implication is for people (impact). Your speech should reflect this structure and the more explicitly you develop what each portion of the argument ("the economy is collapsing now so there's no risk to the disadvantage", "chinese emissions mean US action can't change the status quo") the more directed I will be towards voting for you.

the easiest way to increase your speaker points beyond that on the negative is to not waste speech time reading a nonsense framework that is just "act utilitarianism" when your opponent has already done so. If your framework offers an actual strategic advantage, go ahead but if your 2nc is going to be a body count against the aff's bodycount please don't spend 20s of the 1n telling me why "justice subsumes morality" (please never say that in any debate).

Note for LD debaters (2020):

Below you will find a paradigm that reflects what I've been doing in debate for the last 5 years - infrequently judging policy debates. All the points translate pretty directly back to how I feel about LD. Though I should add that I do have a reasonable amount of familiarity with "LD-style" arguments, so don't worry that I won't like your Kant Aff. I would love to hear your Kant aff.

However, policy debate HAS spoiled me by not having to deal with some of the ... idiosyncrasies of LD debate. Three aimless rant sections identified with bold if you don't have time to read the corpus and need to check what's relevant to you.

First, I think Theory debates in LD generally sit somewhere between asinine and making the activity of debate actively worse. If yr ideal 1ar involves metatheory, I am likely not your judge. I also really don't want to judge any theory debate that would make "Reading util against a Kant aff and then going to case" an impermissible negative strategy (AFC / ACC sort of things). Arguments like theory-justified frameworks are pretty close to that as well, seems like cowards moves. That said THERE ARE DEFINITELY TIMES WHERE YOU CAN AND SHOULD READ THEORY AND THAT'S OK. TOPICALITY is a different class of argument from theory and you should read it.

Second, at an in-person debate event, i would be unable to flow yr a-through-f enumerated warp-speed-delivered 5-word-each wall of spikes. I can't imagine this gets better over Zoom, so enunciate. Slow down a little, or i'm liable to miss the third reason why moral skepticism affirms and I will not vote on it when it shows up in the rebuttal. This is also true in the theory debate. If yr strat is to make your opponent miss something in the cloud of chaff, I'm likely to miss it as well and won't feel bad about not voting on it.

Third, some of the notes on K debates below likely operate slightly differently in LD than in policy debate (or maybe they don't.. i have no idea what the metagame looks like these days). Short version: Yes I will vote for your critical argument. It is absolutely crucial that you explain how it functions and under what understanding of the world and debate I should vote for it if that differs from "the resolution is true/false". I've probably forgotten most of the buzzwords so walk me through it.

Please feel free to ask me questions before the round if you want something made more clear or it's not in the doc - I don't spend a lot of time in-depth thinking about debate anymore so I'm sure it's imperfect. timapollard is my google email handle if you have q's. (Actually does this tournament even have prefs? You might just be stuck with me and I hope to provide better service than the average rando. Good luck.)

Top-level (Following material assumed policy debate but still applies generally):

The first thing I evaluate in debates are questions of uniqueness or differentiation. You will win if you prove why whatever you did in your speech is distinct and preferable from your opponents.

I usually think of debate as a game (in the strategic and competitive sense). That doesn’t mean that it lacks extrinsic value or is bound to specific sets of norms or forms of strategy. But does mean that things like speech time limits and my ability to sign a ballot deciding a winner are non-optional. Prep ends when you email the doc or otherwise transmit your speech to the opponent.

The ability for me to understand the structure of your argument is a prerequisite for me to evaluate it, so debaters have a positive burden to explain the function and operation of their argument. I am willing to vote on presumption if either I cannot describe to myself what an argument does or can be persuaded by either side wrt it's non-function.

Judging the round is based on the comparative quality of argument as presented. The most important thing is that your chosen form of argumentation displays knowledge of the issues and is compellingly defended. The more you sound well-researched and engaged in the issues, the better points I'm likely to give you.

I evaluate performance in CrossX compatibly to a speech.

I flow on paper and might ask you for some. I still want the doc, but pay attention because I don't want to (and probably won't) dredge up yr args from some speech doc if I couldn't catch them in the speech. I'm usually pretty good at saying if I can't flow you.

Assorted Specifics:

This is the first tournament I have judged on the arms sales topic. Assume my knowledge of the topic is imperfect - as mentioned, yr burden to make me get yr arg.

Plan is implemented and matters debates

I don't subscribe to the offence/defense paradigm and believe in the ability of sufficiently complete defense/lack-of-link to take out an impact.

Going for the permutation against a criticism in your big silly impacts aff generally just sounds weird and you are actually going for "case outweighs" anyway. Seriously just talk about how sweet your aff is. The permutation is a fundamentally defensive argument.

Go for T against policy affs more. Folks are getting away with WAY too much.

KvK debates

First, generating external impacts and/or differentiating your impact claim is critical. Often these debates get gummed up in both teams winning that they solve and the other team causes some amount of violence/oppression - with me left to muck through and pick an internal link story, tending to have people end up unhappy.

Second, explain how yr perm works in the context of the debate round - what does it mean for me to endorse/reject a permutation? The argument that affs don't get permutations in these situations (method v method debate) threatens to make sense but also has to work through my presumption that the negative must prove something the aff does/assumes/engages with is bad. Generally you should not expect to win just for having another good idea.

Clash debates

I am extremely unlikely to be persuaded by args that reduce to FW: Ks are bad. Stop whining and defend yr aff.

I generally think affirmatives should take an affirmative position wrt the topic area (this doesn't mean you need a plan or to defend the politics DA or whatever).

Debates where I vote for critical affirmatives against T usually hinge on the aff either successfully defending what distinguishes the affirmative from a negative arg against topical affs, or winning impact turns. You will benefit from putting a lot of defensive pressure on the neg's impacts - which tend to be poorly developed.

Both sides - don't fall into the trap of forgetting the 1AC. At the end of the day the 1AC happened and its ability to solve is likely strongly determinant of a lot of the rest of the debate.

T debaters: Stop going for the truth-testing 'assume all their args are false because we can't research them' stuff.

Zachary Reshovsky Paradigm

Last changed 12/13 10:32P PST

About me and Overview: I have a background with 4 years as a high school debater (Lincoln Douglas) and 3 years as a collegiate debater (1 year NPDA parliamentary and 2 years NDT-CEDA Policy) at the University of Washington - Seattle. At UW, I majored in International Relations where I graduated Top 3% of class and was a Boren and Foreign Language and Area Scholar (Chinese language) and nominee for the Rhodes and Marshall Scholarship. My expertise is in China studies, US-China relations and Great Power Relations.

As an LD debater, I was (and still am) a believer in traditional LD rather than progressive LD arguments. I believe that the introduction of policy arguments to LD (in particular on resolutions that clearly resolve around moral/philosophical issues) are inappropriate. As such, I strongly prefer cases centered around a strong Value and Value/Criterion, an explanation of why that V/VC is moral, and how it links to the topic. As well, please explain to me in rebuttals why you are winning using specific articulations and spins on your/opponent's evidence. High school debaters in particular struggle with articulating why they are winning in final rebuttals, which oftentimes invites frustrating judge interventions. I will consider consider policy arguments in LD (in particular on topics that directly involve a policy proposal - e.g. "the US should implement a federal jobs guarantee" topic). However, these type of arguments will get substantial less weight than traditional LD topics. I prefer depth over breath arguments - I've noticed a lot of debaters will extend all of their offense without telling me which argument is the strongest, why I should vote on it, and how it beats out your opponents arguments. This forces me to intervene and attempt to weigh which extended arguments are strongest. In an ideal world, you'll provide me with a single argument where I can feel comfortable voting. Regarding procedurals, I have a very high threshold for Theory. I believe that Theory is vastly overused in LD and distracts from the substantive education that discussing the topic brings. Your opponent needs to be doing something truly abusive for me to consider it. I'm happy to consider Topicality arguments if I'm judging CX. In LD, I rarely see cases that are off-topic, but if you feel your opponent is feel free to run T.

As well, try to be creative! I come from a family of artists and always have looked at debate as equal parts rhetorical art and logic. Some of the best rebuttals and cases I have seen have had really creative spins on them and really sounded entertaining and compelling. I would encourage debaters to study examples of speeches in which the speaker has articulated not only a strong argument, but also delivered it in a way that delivered with rhythm, well apportioned arguments, was organized cleanly, and had substance that was comparable to strong prose in a novel rather than a rote response to a prompt.

Regarding my views on specific types of arguments:

- Primarily policy/on-case judge, but certainly willing to consider Kritikal and off-case arguments. DisAd/Ad impacts need to be spelled out clearly and weighed thoroughly in later rounds or else risk judge intervention. Find that debaters oftentimes do not get beyond surface-level tit-for-tat argumentation in later speeches in debate. No attempts made at crystallization of arguments, nor any attempt made to weigh why one impact (magnitude, timeframe, probability) or combination of impacts should OW other impacts and, equally importantly, why they should OW. Magnitude definitely easiest impact to evaluate, but feel free to do other impacts as well.

- For CPs, better to run 1 CP than many. Leaves more room for fleshing out that argument. I'm ok with Consult CPs.

- For Kritiks, I'm familiar with general arsenal of Kritiks, but please do not assume that I know the ideology/philosophy by heart. Explain it as if I am a 200-level undergrad student. Second, please articular impacts as you could an advantage or disadvantage. In particular, the link needs to be strong, specific, and very clearly linked to Case. Unmoored or vague links tend to be the death-knell of kritiks - debaters oftentimes just pull out the first link that they find and then proceed to force it to link to the case the AFF is reading. Make sure you make clear why the AFF is uniquely causing some ideologically-grounded harm or is buying into some existing detrimental framework.

Likewise, the impact of Kritiks tends to be highly nebulous (e.g. the plan causes more capitalism and capitalism is bad). Specific and clearly defined impacts are always good - they are particularly helpful for K debates.

Think of K Alternatives as very similar to a kritikal CounterPlan text - ideologically-driven condemnations that (e.g. "The AFF is evil in some undefined but scary sounding way") never work out well much like CounterPlans like (e.g. "Do the Plan but in a better way" never work). Would always recommend to debaters that they discuss why the Alternative solves or remedies some problem to a greater degree than the Plan.

- For Identity arguments, please lay out specifically how and why the AFF/NEG is engaging with a structure of power or dominance in a specific way that is problematic. That the AFF/NEG simply exists/reifies an existing power structure will get some traction yes. However, given that in order to make positive change in any environment one has to engage with unequitable power structures, it is important to describe precisely how the offending party has 1. in concrete terms, made the situation worse/more inequitable & 2. how this OW whatever benefits the offending party is accruing. Saying the offending party is simply working within existing inequities alone will not be sufficient to win usually, even when those inequities are a valid cause for concern. Again, specificity is important here - how many and in what ways is the offending party hurting disadvantaged communities.

- For Performance-based arguments on the NEG - I have a very high threshold for clearly non-Topical Perf arguments. Many teams seem to be running clearly non-topical arguments on AFF that do not in anyway link to the resolution and then proceed to claim some special framework that neatly fits/justifies their Performance into the resolution - this does not mean that they will get my ballot if the Neg runs Topicality in the 1NC.

- Likewise, for Performance-based arguments on the NEG - NEG needs to clearly win 1. why the Performance should be weighed in opposition to the AFF and within the AFF's FW. OR 2. Why whichever NEG FW that is put forth is clearly preferable. Again, I have a high threshold for clearly non-resolution specific neg performance arguments. So if the Neg wishes to win in this situation it needs to VERY CLEARLY win why a performative FW is the criterion on which the debate should be judged.

Speaking point scale:

- 29.9-30-near 100% perfect (flawless execution, strong elocution, high degree of erudition in arguments)

- 29.5-29.8-very strong debater, octo/elims performance (highly coherent arguments, well extended, effective execution and thoughtful usage of time, high degree of consideration to opponents)

- 28.8-29.4-average debater, perhaps 4-2/3-3 record level performance (better than average, but includes some dropped arguments, lack of coherency throughout debate but ultimately enough arguments are extended to win and/or come close in debate)

- 27.8-28.7 - un-average debater - unable to make coherent arguments, lots of drops, lack of tactical acumen or strategic skill in debate proper. Able to read first constructive, but unable to recognize with arguments are to be prioritized in final speeches. Relies too much on ASPEC/procedurals in place of on case/Kritikal arguments.

below-27.8 - very un-average debater - does not know how to debate and cannot coordinate correctly with partner. Lacking in basic etiquette towards others.

- Notes to debaters: Evaluation mostly dependent on quality of arguments - however, polish also comes into play. Clarity/clear organization and efficiency in rebuttals will increase your speaker points dramatically. Well run obscure and non-Western philosophies (Eg Baudrilliard, Taoism, Shintoism) will also garner extra speaker points on basis that they make judging more interesting and less monotonous/repetitive. Same thing goes for contentions that discuss innovative/non-talked about issues

FOR LD: I debated LD In high school and am comfortable with speed in it. I strongly prefer value/criterion based debate and will not consider policy arguments in LD. From my perspective it is important to win the VC debate, but not essential. I view the VC as something akin to goal posts in soccer (you can still score/gain offense through the oppositions goal posts, but it is harder to win because your opponent controls the scoring boundaries).
Ultimately, I will evaluate offense/impacts through a normal magnitude/probability/timeframe lens and will default to a Utilitarian calculus if nothing else is provided, but will weigh through whatever VC wins. I strongly prefer weighable impacts (Eg X number of people will be helped to Y degree), which creates clarity in judges mind. I see a lot of debaters (especially in LD) not doing 𝘾𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧 weighing of their impacts vs opponents impacts in NR And 2NR, which is unhelpful and creates judge intervention. I would strongly recommend spending at least some time in each rebuttal evaluating your impacts as to why you are winning on probability/magnitude/timeframe/vulnerability of populations affected/permanence of your impacts. As with all debate, please crystallize in final speeches with concise underviews that explain why you are winning and how your arguments OW/eclipse/precede your opponent’s impacts.

several general thoughts on LD debates I’ve seen:

- on contention level debate, please warrant out your contentions and extend claims and evidence in whole (claim, internal warrant, and impact), in particular in the rebuttals. Greater specificity is better. I’ve noticed a lot of debaters merely extend the tag lines of their evidence without the warrants/cards behind them and, more specifically, what the evidence does in debate/how I should evaluate it relative to other positions. This is problematic in that it leads to judge intervention and forces me to evaluate evidence after round. In NR/2AR I would prefer that you tell me how to vote rather than ask me to adjudicate between/weigh in on Impacts. A good rebuttal will not just include extensions of evidence, but also point to what parts of the evidence (eg the historical example that the author references, the statistical meta study that the cards author proffered) support your claims and what impacts their ideas will lead to.

- evidence: I prefer evidence that has descriptive/historical/statistical claims rather than predictive/speculative claims due to the fact that the former is based on things that have already happened/is more scientific whereas the latter has not occurred/is based on predilections that may or may not occur. I will prefer the former over the latter absent an argument made to differentiate the two. Expert authors will be preferred to non-experts in a vacuum. Non-contextualized anecdotal evidence is the least preferred type of evidence.

- AFF strategy: I notice a lot of debaters (in particular on the affirmative) have a difficult time extending sufficient offense in the debate to stay in the running. I would strongly recommend extending your arguments/contentions first (esp in the 1AR where there is a timeskew) before moving on to opponents case. Inexperienced debaters tend to get distracted/overwhelmed by their opponents case and attempt to tackle it first, but end up running out of time to extend their own case after getting bogged down in said opponents arguments. The best offense is a good offense - you can win if you extend your claims and leave some of your opponents claims dropped, but you cannot win if you extend none of your claims but shoot down the majority of your opponents arguments. I would strongly recommend starting out with your case first in rebuttals and then moving to refute your opponents case.

The Affirmative needs to be even more strategic/efficient in the 2AR. The 2AR needs to focus down on one to two arguments they are winning and not attempt to cover the entire flow. Past losing 2ARs I have seen have spread themselves too thin and never told me where to vote. In order to ensure that you get your offense on the flow, I would recommend a 20/30 second overview at the top of the 2AR explaining why/where you are winning and where I should vote. This ensures you have a shot at winning even if you do not get to all points you wish to discuss in this short 3 minute speech.

- Timeskew: By default, I will give the affirmative somewhat more room than negative to make less well developed/consistently extended arguments due to the timeskew (The Neg won 52.37% of ballots according to a meta analysis of 17 TOC debate tournaments in 2017-18). Beyond this, if the AFF argues that their arguments should have a lower burden of proof bc of timeskew, I will give the AFF even more room to make blippy arguments.

Kritiks (General): Im a fan of Ks in LD. Unlike Policy arguments that have crept into LD (Plans/CPs/DisAds), I believe that Ks belong in LD on the basis that they are grounded in philosophy rather than practical politics.

Several observations/suggestions for Ks in LD:

- On the Link level, please make a clear link to something your opponent specifically does in her/his case. I've noticed that a lot of Kritikal debaters rely on very generic links (e.g. saying that the AFF proposes a policy, the policy involves Capitalism, and that Capitalism is bad, therefore you should reject the AFF) rather than an indictment of some aspect of the AFF's specific proposal (e.g. the AFF's plan proposes an increase in mandatory minimum sentencing, this will lead to a higher prison population, prisons disproportionately affect minority populations and are therefore structurally racist, mass incarceration is the warrant, therefore you should reject the AFF because they lead to more structural racism). The former example relies on generic appeal to a structure the AFF exists within/likely would have to exist within in order to implement policy, the latter explicitly outlines what specifically the AFF does to increase racism/violence. If and at all possible, please try to articulate what the opponent explicitly does to warrant your K.

- On the Alt, I have noticed that many people who run Ks have a very vague (and at times non sensical) Alternatives—in the past I have voted against Ks often because of their lack of Alt solvency. If you plan on running a K, please make clear what the Alt does and how the Alt can solve/lead to some substantive change better than AFF can. I have a very difficult time voting for Alts when I don't know what they do. I would recommend making specific empirical examples of movements that align with Alt’s views that have succeeded in the past (eg if you’re running an Alt that wants to deconstruct settler colonialism, point to historical examples of Native movements that dislodged colonialism or the effects of colonialism—for example protests against the DACA pipeline in S Dakota, Native Americans protests against Columbus Day + what meaningful and lasting policy/public opinion changes these movements imbued). Its my personal belief that movements that lead to most meaningful change not only indicts and identifies a policy/problem with the status quo, but is also able to engage with the political sphere and implement some meaningful change. I believe that a well-articulated K should be able to do the same.

- K Impact: If K Impact involves some degree of indictment of the AFF, please explain to me what the AFF indictment does/leads to out of round beyond merely asserting that the AFF leads to bad impacts - otherwise it is likely that I will default to voting AFF on basis that AFF does/advocates for something imperfect but net positive. Even winning that the Aff leads to bad things (eg that the AFFs deployment of military forces is imperialist/that AFFs passing of a policy leads to more capitalism) may be insufficient to win when weighed against the entirety of AC impacts — the K also needs to prove THAT they do something beneficial as well (see previous paragraph).

- Type of K you run: You are of course welcome to run any K you feel is strategically valuable in the moment. As a personal side note, I personally prefer hearing Ks that come from obscure/not-commonly-run philosophers (e.g. Foucault, Deleuze, St. Thomas Aquinas) rather than commonly-understood philosophies (e.g. Capitalism). I believe that introducing non-traditional philosophers into debate adds substance, flavor, and argumentative diversity to the debate sphere - Independent on whether they win, I will reward debaters who run these arguments with additional speaker points for the above mentioned reasons.

Race/Gender/Transphobic/Homophobic Kritikal indicts - I will consider indictments of an opponent on the basis that they have done said something racist, gendered, -phobic in their personal behavior. The indictment, however, needs to clearly documented (e.g. a screen shotted Facebook post, a accusation with references to multiple witnesses who can corroborate the incident) and the offending violation/action needs to fall into the category of commonly understood violations of norms of basic decency surrounding race/gender (eg a racist joke that would be called out at a dinner party, usage of the N word towards a debater of color, calling a female debater the B-word, usage of the six letter homophobic/anti-gay term that starts with F). Microaggressions will be considered, but will have a much higher burden of proof to overcome because they are more difficult to prove/document and have comparatively less negative impact. As well, these arguments preferable should be accompanied by an articulation of what Impact of dropping a debater will have (e.g. will it send a strong sanctioning signal to other debater generally to not make the joke in question in the future(?), will it merely deter the accused debater from another repeated violation(?)) outside of round. Without an articulation of framework, I will default to a standard VC framework in LD and Policymaking Impact calculus on basis of magnitude/probability/TF in CX - if you lose/fail to provide a non-traditional framework, this does not mean that your race/gender arguments will not be evaluated, but does mean you will have to explain how they work/function under a CXmaking/VC framework and likely means you will face a comparatively uphill battle.

Speed Ks-please do not run them - I don’t believe they are worth considering and are a waste of time. After having come across them 3-4 times this year, have not voted for a speed K. Unless opponent is literally spreading so fast no they are unintelligible, I believe that it is unwise to spend all our time and energy indicting each other for procedurals when we could be debating about the substantive of the topic.

I am not a fan of Performance/poetry in LD, but will consider it if absolutely necessary. Know that I have a high BoP to consider these types of args.
I generally have a very low bar to granting the AFF RVIs due to timeskew. I have granted AFF RVIs about 70-80% of the time when the AFF has introduced this argument.

I am a former debater and I am a coach currently.

I appreciate clear sign posts. I am fine with spreading. I will flow your round. I do not think absolutely everything you say requires a card and I believe demanding carded evidence for everything is really just a means to make debate more inaccessible.

Primarily, I am concerned with your rhetoric skills and your ability to present clear and thoughtful responses to your opponents' arguments. Can you put together a cohesive case? Do you have a deep understanding of the evidence you are reading and are you able to defend it with passion? Are you able to find gaps in your opponent's logic? Are you able to weigh impacts? These are the things I will vote on.

email chain: cammiesoderquist@gmail.com

History: Former LDer and policy debater in previous century. LD state champ, nationals, etc.

Side note: I get that 21st century LD has become more like policy in regards to solvency, plans, spreading and the like. I like direct clash, thus I prefer LD stay in LD camp ("should we...?") and policy stay in policy camp ("how do we solve...?"), but I'll judge fairly on what's presented. I'm a flow judge.

-----------------------------------

Specifics:

Framework. If two are presented, tell me why yours is superior or, better yet, how you uphold both.

Argumentation. Claim, warrant, impacts. Please weigh everything in rebuttals and explain why I have no choice but vote for you.

***This is probably the most important point I can make. Don't just say your evidence says the opposite of your opponent's evidence. Explain WHY your evidence is superior, and if both are saying the opposite, WHY yours still outweighs. I want to hear the analytics.***

Theory. Explain why critical. I will not vote on frivolous theory, but I have voted on educationally-sound theory before (ex: time skew spreading abuse).

DAs. Be explicit on uniqueness. I'd love to see interesting impacts other than the tiresome environmental extinction, nuke war. (ex: DA with impact of losing one's soul/loneliness/isolation. It was awesome!)

Ks. These can be interesting, but this is often less clash. Explain why you would choose this strategy instead of direct clash. (If you can't explain why, don't do it.) Make link obvious. I rarely vote for Ks because I have seen many debaters reuse them to avoid preparing on the new topic. I have voted on a few which were extremely well executed and applicable. (ex: Trans K ran on "The illegal use of drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not criminal justice." with examples of hormone therapy--expertly applied to topic.)

Plans/CPs. Not my fav at all. We're not solving things in LD, that's policy, but I will judge fairly provided links and uniqueness are strong and why yours is clearly better.

Spreading. Don't. Although I was a policy spreader, this technique should stay in policy debate, simply due to the evidentiary requirements to support plans. LD doesn’t require proof as it’s asking “should?”, and I want to hear the reasoning not blasting of evidence. Instead of spreading, convince me with your amazing and unique analysis and weighing. I won't call "clear". That's not a speed appropriate for clash and crystallization.

Tricks. Don't like 'em. Instead of these tactics, wow me with your analytics, CX and and knowledge of reso.

-----------------------------------

Things that make me happy:

• Argument clash, crystallizing why your position is superior and why you win the round. Make it easy, do the weighing for me.

• Strategic CX. Lay foundation for args in speech and I'll be singing Pharrell Williams. I LOVE CX! (Unless it's brought up in speech, though, it won't flow, but just say "as I showed in CX, or as my opponent agreed to in CX.")

• Key voters. (Don't just list contentions, have the REAL KEY VOTERS of that round and why you win.)

Things that make me sad:

• Giving a win due to a dropped arg instead of why.

• 1NC spreading for the express purpose of the above (weak tactic).

• Referring to cards by citation only in rebuttals. You’ve heard your case 20x, I haven't. Don't just refer to the citation (ex. "williams '20"), please use tag and cite (ex. "my williams '20 card that explains the negative psychological impacts blah blah")

-----------------------------------

Random:

• There's a word I love (mentioned 10x above). Use it often, and it will make you a superior debater.

• Evidence is important, but a logical, well-thought-out argument to question evidence is even better. Analytics is what I see missing from LD nowadays, and it's very sad. It shouldn't be who can blast as many pieces of evidence, it should be who can logically and thoughtfully use the evidence to make an argument and support it the best. I love unique arguments based on simple logic. (ex: "The US ought not provide military aid to authoritarian regimes" where Neg explained the psyche of dictators is that they ONLY speak in terms of weaponry thus applying Aff's examples to Neg and gaining those impacts. Unique and brilliant strategy!)

• I leave bias (political, social, etc.) at the door and only judge on what is in round. Do not worry about any arg that I might personally disagree with--doesn't matter. I was a debater; I get it. Tech over truth, except for totally obvious historical facts.

• Casual/friendly. Be comfy, take off jacket, heels; hope opponents can be friends--joke and laugh

I like debate and have been coaching and judging debate for 40 years. I competed in high school policy debate and college NDT and CEDA debate. For most of my career, I coached all events at Okoboji High School in Iowa. I worked for Summit Debate at NDF Boston in Public Forum for 15 years and judged numerous PF LD practice and tournament rounds. I have been the LD coach for Puyallup High School for the past five years. I'm working with the LD, Congress and PF at Puyallup.

The past six years, I've judge LD rounds from novice through circuit tournaments. I judge policy rarely, but I do enjoy it. Paradigms for each follow.

PF This is a debate that should be interesting for all Americans. It should not be overly fast or technical. I will take a detailed flow, and I don't mind terms like link and impact. Evidence should be read, and I expect refutation of important issues, especially the offense presented in the round. Follow the debate rules, and I should be good. The final focus should spend at least some time going over weighing. Be nice to each other, and Grand Cross should not be a yelling match. The summary speaker must extend any arguments to be used in Final Focus. I expect the second speaking team to engage in the arguments presented in the rebuttal. I do not like disclosure theory, and it would be difficult for me to vote for it.

LD - I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past four years. Washington state has a slower speed preference than the national circuit, so I'm not as practiced at that type of speed. My age means I don't flow or hear as well as I use to, so make sure I'm flowing. I like speed, but at rare times I have difficult time keeping up. If this happens, I will let you know. I expect a standard/criterion debate in the round. If you do something else, you must explain to me why it is legitimate. If you run kritiks, DA's, or plans, you must develop them enough for me to understand them. I do not like micropol positions. I will not drop them on face. I don't mind theory, but again, it must be developed. Bad advocacy is bad debating. Lying in the round or during cx will be dealt with severely. CX is binding. I expect clean extensions of arguments, and will give weight to arguments dropped by debaters. I want to be a blank slate in the back of the room. Please tell me why I should vote for you. Deontology frameworks are fine, but they must be justified. Any tricks must be clear, and obtuseness in CX will not be allowed. Finally, I will not vote for disclosure theory unless something weird happens.

Policy died in our circuit, and we were the only team still trying to do it. I haven't coached a policy team for a season since 2010; however, I've had teams go to tournaments in policy for fun and to try it. I've also judged policy debate at district tournaments to fulfill the clean judge rule. I have judged a couple of policy rounds this year, and they were not difficult to judge. Just expect me to like traditional positions.

Watch me for speed. I will try to keep up, but I'm old. It's a lack of hearing that may cause me to fall behind. I will yell "clear," and that probably means slow down. I'll do my best. I like all kinds of policy arguments, and I'm ok with kritiks. You may want to explain them to me a bit better because it may have been awhile since I heard the argument. Besides that, I'm a policy maker unless you tell me to be something else. Theory is ok, but it should be developed. Abuse must be proven in the round. Rebuttals should kick unimportant arguments and settle on a few to delineate. The final speeches should weigh the arguments.

Cajon High School, San Bernardino, CA

I debated Policy for one year in high school a hundred years ago. I have been coaching LD for nine years, judging it for fifteen. I like it. I also coach PuFo and have coached Parli. I have judge two rounds of Policy as an adult and am not a fan.

LD: Briefly, I am a traditional LD judge. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules (no plans/counterplans), that affirms or negates the resolution. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. Go off topic and you had better link to something.

Parli: I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence.

Public Forum: Stay within the rules. Don't dominate the grand crossfire. This was designed to resemble a "town hall" and should not get technical or be loaded with cards. It is a debate about policy, but it should not be debated as if it was Policy debate.

In more depth:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.

Speed/flow: I can handle some speed, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, treat me as a lay judge.

Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.

Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker.

Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give under 27 or over 29. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged a state champion. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair.

Theory: I generally dislike the migration of Policy ideas and techniques to other debates. If you want to debate using Policy methods, debate in Policy. In my opinion, much of the supposed critical thinking that challenges rules and norms is just overly clever games or exercises in deploying jargon. Just my opinion as an old fart. That said, I am okay with bringing in stock issues (inherency, solvency, topicality, disads) if done thoughtfully, and I will accept theory if all of the debaters are versed in it, but you'll do better if you explain rather than throw jargon.

Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.

Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.

Former high school speech/debate competitor. Fifth year coaching speech/debate. It’s really important for me that you are clear, enunciate carefully and don’t speak so fast I can’t track your points. Sign posting is essential. Show me why you won your case. Focusing on impacts is also important to me.

The best way to win my vote is to be the one who provides the most compelling case, and to be a strong technical speaker.

Assume I know nothing, the burden of information is on you.

~Clear signposting, make sure I can keep up with your mode of speech as I try to follow along.

~Limit spreading, if I can't understand you I cant judge you.

~Please watch your tone, you don't need to shout.

~I tend to favor philosophical arguments.

*Please disclose if at all possible.

Experience - I did Public Forum as a freshman and then switched to primarily doing Policy. I also have some minor experience doing Lincoln Douglas and Big Questions. I have judged many practice debates and a few rounds at tournaments.

Policy Paradigm - I like to think of myself as tab, however realistically I'm not perfect at fulfilling that position. I will vote on anything if it is run well and explained enough that I can understand it. I won't rule any arguments immediately and try to vote solely off the flow.

Case - Not much to say here, in general I like a case with some degree of framing.

K - I am not the greatest at comprehending large amounts of postmodern terminology strung together and read extremely fast. The simpler your Kritik, the more likely I am to vote for it. Having an overview on more complex Ks would be greatly appreciated.

Stock Issues - I love stock issue debates. I have a fairly low threshold for solvency and inherency. Please don't only go for stock issues, however, I'd like to see some offense. That being said I will vote neg on presumption unless a valid argument is presented otherwise.

DA - Obviously I like and will vote for DA's. They're kinda the stock issues of the neg and should be present in most neg cases

T - Kind of fits in with stock issues. I do consider reasonability a good argument, and have a slightly higher tolerance for T over other stock issues. Please don’t run T to be abusive because I will vote on theory against clearly abusive T if given any reason to do so.

CP - I will vote for competitive and non-topical counter-plans so long as the neg sufficiently proves the CP is such and that it's a better policy option.

Theory - I don't like to vote on theory, although if there is clear abuse I don't mind it. make sure you do a good job of explaining why your interp is good for debate.

K-Affs - I'm likely to vote against K-Affs as long as there’s enough for me to vote off of.

Will all of this in mind, I will vote off of what I see on the flow at the end of the round. I also generally prefer smaller higher probability impacts but that doesn't usually end up changing the decision in round.

LD Paradigm – I’m not the most progressive judge when it comes to LD. One of the reasons I like LD is because it specifically avoids the mess of lingo and technical understanding that is policy while covering similar ground. That being said, I won’t immediately vote against progressive case ideas, however I am less likely to. As with policy I vote off what’s on the flow. Please don’t speed, I can handle it but I don’t like seeing speeding in LD, unless you’re reading the content of your cards. I will cover my opinion on some arguments I have weird opinions on below –

Util frameworks – I hate util, especially if both sides run util. I don’t want a debate solely about who has the better evidence and I want to see some framework clash. I won’t vote you down on face but I won’t enjoy the round.

CPs – If the topic isn’t over a recommendation of policy, I don’t want to hear a counterplan. If you don’t frame it right, I will vote down CPs on non-policy topics (for instance the wealthy nations have an obligation to provide development assistance topic) on face. Generally be careful running a CP, because poorly run CP’s will annoy me.

K – I don’t particularly mind Ks in LD and won’t get annoyed if they’re run, although they must be run well. I don’t want a weak link that just barely gets the job done, you need to prove that your Kritik is relevant. I will err on the opponents side if there is any significant risk of not linking.

K aff – Just don’t please. I’ll buy just about any argument against K-Affs if you don’t affirm. I will intervene with personal beliefs regarding the RoB unless you completely convince me otherwise. This means I won’t buy arguments about the morality of voting for your side.

DeOnt – I prefer DeOnt to Util but I still don’t like seeing debates in which both sides read a DeOnt framework. It gets a bit too stale for me.

In General, I want an interesting debate with lots of framework clash in round. I will vote for any argument run well enough although how good is good enough varies depending on the argument and context.

PuFo Paradigm

I want to hear interesting arguments. I like good framework. I don’t like really deep evidence debates, please minimize how much time you spend arguing evidence, If you have one really good point about why their study sucks just say it clearly and move on. I don’t care about how y’all behave in Cross-Fire and will vote you up in speaks if you can successfully get answers, as long as your methods aren't outright offensive. I vote off what’s on the flow at the end of the round. Because of that, having a strongly structured case with policy styled cards will help a lot because I’m never really sure what to flow with uncarded PuFo cases.

Big Q’s Paradigm

Once again, I will vote off the flow. Once again, I want y’all to be intense in cross-fire, that’s what makes the round interesting. I will say that I prefer a more passive-aggressive approach when it comes to Big Questions. Please define words that are in the resolution, particularly the ones that are important to your arguments. I don’t mind hearing the NSDA cases, however I highly encourage y’all to come up with your own cases.

Tl;Dr

I will vote off the flow to the best of my abilities. I like to see well executed cross examination/ cross fire.

I have an extensive history in debate. I did LD in high school and CEDA in college. I have coached NPDA, IPDA and BP as well as a full spectrum of speech events. I am currently the Director at the University of Washington Bothell.

I prefer clash debate. I don't mind speed as long as everyone in the competition is happy with that. Debate should not leave anyone out. Make sure to meet criteria. After that, I try to be tab and judge on what the debaters bring into the round.

Savoy High School, Savoy, Texas / Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida

DEBATE EXPERIENCE:
I competed in CX Debate, LD Debate, and Informative/Extemporaneous speaking during my four years of high school. I then went on to join the Debate Team during my two years at Florida State University as well. In the years following college graduation, I have both judged and coached students/tournaments on all levels from Elementary School through Collegiate levels.

JUDGING EXPERIENCE:

Experience Judging: CX Debate, Policy Debate, LD Debate, Parli Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congress Debate, Informative/Extemporaneous Speaking, Editorial Commentary, Spontaneous Argumentation Debate (SPAR), Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, and Oratory.

AWARDS/CREDENTIALS:

High School - 9th Grade - 5th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 10th Grade - 5th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 11th Grade - 4th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 11th Grade - 5th Place in State of Texas 1A - Impromptu Speaking High School - 12th Grade - 4th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 12th Grade - 2nd Place (Silver Gavel) Speaker Award - 2nd Best Speaker in State of Texas - 1A Cross-X Debate

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

CROSS-EXAMINATION DEBATE:

Briefly, I am a traditional CX judge, and, as you can see above, the majority of my experience both on a competitive level as well as that of a judge has been on the CX circuits. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules that affirms or negates the resolution. I am always open to hearing plans/counter-plans and find a debate round to be very intriguing if/when I see two teams who know how to present, execute, and defend a quality plan/counter-plan, etc. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. However, at the same time, basics are still very important to me. (i.e., Pay attention to AND provide/present strong, credible, current evidence in support of any contentions/arguments presented. Be quick to point out/counter old, outdated, irrelevant/unreliable evidence given by an opponent. I believe very strongly in backing any/all contentions/arguments with strong evidence from reliable/trustworthy sources.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE:

PARLI DEBATE:

I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. However, again, please refer to my notes above under Cross-Examination Debate regarding my thoughts on evidence, etc. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence. FLOW, FLOW, FLOW a debate in it's ENTIRETY from start to finish. It is almost ALWAYS easily apparent if/when a debater fails to do this as arguments/contentions almost always end up being forgotten/skipped/unresponded to as a result. This could prove catastrophic to a debate. I tend to carry any arguments/contentions presented in the constructives all the way through to the end and, in most cases, will consider them to be fact if/when an argument/contention is skipped over and/or not responded to by each team member.

IN MORE DEPTH:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.

Speed/flow: I can handle speed, having competed myself on a collegiate level, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, I'd go with more focus on creating strong, compelling arguments vs reading your speech faster, etc.

Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.

Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker. Though debates can be/often times are quite contentious, even heated at times, I EXPECT AND DEMAND that ALL DEBATERS treat one another, their teammates, their opponents, coaches, judges, and staff with the utmost respect AT ALL TIMES. I do not like ugly (mean). I can appreciate an aggressive/contentious debate/cross-examination, etc, however, it is imperative that each and every competitor carry themselves with class, dignity, and respect at all times. Remember, we are ALL IN THIS TOGETHER at the end of the day!

Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give perfect speaker points. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged state champions, and have, personally, been the recipient of a Silver Gavel Speaker Award my Senior Year in High School. However, even then, I did not receive perfect speaker points from my judges. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair. If you are hoping for a lenient judge who gives out speaker points like they're nothing...that's not me. While I will ALWAYS BE FAIR in giving out speaker points, I expect any debater that I give perfect/near perfect points to to REALLY set themselves apart from the rest in some form or fashion and EARN those high points. Again, however, I am not one to be TOO STRINGENT/STINGY with my speaker points and will, always, be fair to all.

Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.

Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.

Doug Weinmaster is a parent judge with prior experience in PF, LD, and IE events.

I do not need off time road maps, and I do not appreciate spreading. I prefer that you weigh your impacts. Please speak at a slow enough pace that I can understand. If I cannot understand you, I will stop flowing.

Contentious but respectful debaters will earn the highest speaker points.

I award "bonus" speaker points for:

a) Reference to a specific type of aircraft or spacecraft;

b) Use of a line from any classic "80's" movie . . . i.e. "I feel the need . . . the need for speed!"; or

c) Reference to, or use of a line from a John Grisham novel or movie about lawyers.

Congratulations - because your participation in Speech & Debate means you have already "won" by developing your skills, knowledge, and confidence!

My Experience Comes Mainly In LD. - 2 Years as of 2020

Mostly truth over tech, though I will vote both ways

Basic Stuff: Don't Care Where Sit, Either Sit or Stand, whatever is preferred. Timing yourself is highly recommended. I give a few seconds of grace at the end of your speech but after that, I won't flow what you say. I vote primarily off of flow.

Speed is well, I don't really care. If you want to go fast, do so. If you are a slower debater, great go slow. However, if spreading please flash the case, otherwise, I probably won't be fast enough to flow arguments. To let me know you are going fast close your eyes and say "I am speed."

Argument Wise, I am really open to anything, but I do like a typical Value/Criterion debate. K's, DAs, T-shells, Plans, or whatever has to be explained well enough that I can understand. And if they just don't make sense I really will not vote on them. I have a high threshold for T, probably won't vote on it unless large. As for meme cases, run them but probably won't vote for them. I will give extra speaker points if you can prove to me you can juggle.

This is how I pick my Champion:

1. Pick the winning framework/whatever is best.

2. Weigh the impacts through the framework, whichever side has the largest/most impacts under the fw will win the round.

This is how LD rounds should be judged. Sorry if some parent judges don't understand that.

Tl:Dr

No outside bias

Speed doesn't matter

Open to any argument, provided it is explained

Email Chain: benjaminye[dot]email[at]gmail[dot]com

School Affiliations: Eastlake High School ('22), Northwestern University ('26 +- 1)

Topic Knowledge: 6/10---worked with Northwestern's camp this past summer, but haven't really followed the topic since. Err towards overexplanation.

Top:
Debate how you debate best. Preferences are outweighed by clear and effective argumentation.
I'm still trying to sort out my takes on debate broadly. The rest of this paradigm is a list of my thoughts so far:

Non-negotiables:
- I will try to flow to the best of my ability. Numbering, distinct tags, and pen time are great; full speed analytics, long paragraphs, and lawn mower spreading are not
- Please don't literally break debate (speech times, double wins, etc.)
- Rehighlightings should be read for me to evaluate them
- Arguments need to pass the "I can explain it back in the RFD" test

Argument biases:
- Yes judge kick. Consider this the strongest bias on this paradigm
- Conditionality is probably good
- Probably more receptive to counterplan shenanigans than most (cardless CPs, 2NC CPs, CPing out of straight turns, etc.)
- Rejecting the argument is probably sufficient for theory (barring T and conditionality)
- Fairness is probably an impact
- Teams should probably defend some model of debate

Misc:
- I'm relatively visual with facial expressions
- I think I care more than average about clarity, especially on card text
- Will call clear twice before just not flowing, it's on you to figure that out beyond that point
- No -isms, please---I'll err on the side of playing things out but will vote you down if it threatens the safety of anyone in the round
- If you're marking a billion cards, please do so as you're reading them---doing so before cx burns an abhorrent amt of time
- I am uninterested in adjudicating arguments about things that happened outside the round
- My scale for speaks still needs calibration, will try to aim for 28.6-ish for 3-3 bracket but please don't read into them too much
- (Online) Camera off = not here and not ready