MOUNT VERNON Invitational and NIETOC TOC Qualifier
2022 — Cascade Commons, WA/US
Speech Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA
Coached LD: 21 years
Coached CX: 17: years
Competed in LD: 4 years
Competed in NPDA: 2 years
Rounds judged 2016-17, LD: 10, CX: 1, PF 1
LD Paradigm: I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over twenty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know.
I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why, based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another paradigm being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing.
As far as specific arguments go.
1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments if the aff is affirming the entire resolution. In a round where the affirmative runs a plan, T becomes more relevant.
2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD. I especially hate AFC, and must/must not run plans, or arguments of this nature.
3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate.
4. You need to keep sight of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework.
Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear. Please adjust your speed accordingly. I will not keep repeating myself and will eventually just stop flowing.
I have not judged very much CX lately, but I still do coach it and judge it occasionally. I used to consider myself a policy maker, but I am probably open enough to critical arguments that this is not completely accurate anymore. At the same time, I am not Tab. I don't think any judge truly is. I do enter the room with some knowledge of the world and I have a bias toward arguments that are true and backed by logic.
1. I will evaluate the round by comparing impacts unless you convince me to do otherwise.
2. I am very open to K's that provide real alternatives and but much less likely to vote on a K that provides no real alt.
3. If you make post-modern K arguments at warp speed and don't explain them to me, do not expect me to do the work for you.
4. I tend to vote on abuse stories on T more than competing interpretations.
5. I really hate theory debates. Please try to avoid them unless the other team leaves you no choice.
6. The way to win my ballot is to employ a logical, coherent strategy and provide solid comparison of your position to your opponents.
I am able to flow fairly quickly, but I don't judge enough to keep up with the fastest teams. If I tell you to be clear or slow down please listen.
Couple of notes.
*It is okay to pause to take a deep breath.
*Try to stick with 3 or 4 points that bolster your case. For me, judging is about having thirst for knowledge on a topic. Blasting me with a firehose of data doesn't necessarily quench my thirst.
*I am currently working in a high school library, which I love. Yay books!
I am active in the competitive storytelling community -- like The Moth, for example. In fact, I have won four Moth story slams. Prior to moving to the Seattle area, I lived in New York, worked on Wall Street and hosted The Dawn Patrol, a financial news show in Times Square.
Hi, I'm Allison (she/her) and I competed in Public Forum for 4 years in high school and in Worlds debate at the National Tournament for 3 years. I am also the daughter of two debate coaches and have grown up in the activity.
I am a traditional Public Forum judge. The biggest thing I ask of any debaters I judge is that you persuade me to vote for you. Your FF should be spent spent weighing the round for me, I will not do it for you. I will only vote on points that are carried through from summary to final focus. No off time road maps. Respect and be kind for your opponents.
I'll be flowing the debate but don't expect me to weigh the debate on an issue if you don't touch on that issue during your final speeches. Use the first three speeches to win the debate, use the last speech to tell me WHY you won the debate.
I'm not a fan of progressive argumentation so use only when necessary, I would much rather see a traditional Value-Criterion debate. I can handle some speed. Depth > breadth. Make sure you have clear signposting and use voters! If you do not weigh your impacts, I will not weigh them for you and you will drop my ballot.
All debate styles: The best debaters are the ones who know the most, prove to me you're the debater who knows the most.
Also feel free to ask any questions before the round if you need clarifications. Good Luck!
Debate, for me, is a very powerful tool/activity that helps students in developing and honing their skills and confidence in public speaking and expressing their ideas cogently and eloquently in a limited amount of time. It is an activity where people put for the their arguments, either for or against, a particular topic and are able to defend their positions through well researched data. The person who is able to make their case, either for or against a topic, and back it up through their well thought out arguments ends up winning the round.
Kindly note the following about me:
I am relatively new to judging so am not a big fan of speed - but as long as you are able to pace yourself properly, while staying on point with your arguments and back-up data, and are able to clearly articulate and put forth your arguments, I am fine.
Please do not be condescending in your interaction with your opponents (no scoffing or any other disparaging behavior - debates need to be civil - if I see this kind of behavior then you stand losing the round and I will inform your coach through the Tabroom and include my comment in the RFD) and do not be unnecessarily aggressive in your speeches (a little bit of emotion while making or defending your point is ok ).
Cheerios, and best of luck!!
Happy debating ...
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:
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.
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 likely 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.
I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. If you treat this like Policy Lite, I will take out my frustration on your speaker points, and if it gets bad enough, on the rest of the ballot as well. 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.
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.
Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread.
Hello and congrats on making it this far!!
Congress was my main event when I did speech back in the day, so I'd prefer that you take me seriously as a judge. I have 10 years combined experience between competing and judging, and that should scare you.
Correctly cited and frequent evidence is what I'm looking for, all of you can stand up there and give me a great speech but only a few of you have researched the topic and know what you're talking about. Use your entire three minutes and lay out the speech in an easy to follow and organized road map.
Chairs will be judged on how they control the session and their organization. I expect you to keep accurate precedence and recency, as I will be doing the same. Chairing was my favorite! I know what you should be doing, so don't try to sneak anything past me.
My name is Kaelyn and I did LD for 3 years in high school and have been judging and coaching for past 7 years.
I will look at the round based first by the framework (value and criterion) that is set by the affirmative. The affirmative should be using this value and criterion as a way to prove that the resolution is true and support this with evidence. The negative must then either provide a counter framework to prove why the resolution is not true, or prove why the resolution is not true under the affirmative's framework. If the affirmative cannot prove the resolution to be true or the negative provides more persuasive evidence against the resolution then I will negate. I am open to other ways to weigh the round if both debaters agree on this during the round.
Other aspects to keep in mind:
I am basically going to be deciding who wins the round by looking at the key framework in the round (whichever is established as the most supported framework in the round) and looking at my flow to see which side has the most arguments on the flow that support that framework.
I am in general looking to see the big picture at the end of the debate, I do not want to decide the round based on details of definitions or small semantics. I prefer have bigger impacts linked back to the framework.
Delivery: I am fine with speed but like tags and important information to be read slower. I will say clear if I can't understand the speed.
I do understand progressive debate arguments like topicality, theory, DAs, Ks.
I am open to vote for them if I feel it is warranted within the round. I do not like to see progressive arguments for no reason or to just be confusing. If it is going to be run I want it to be well explained and it is your job to tell me how this is going to function in the round and why I should vote for it. Similar to avoiding nitpicky issues, I expect to see a justification for theory to be run.
Overall, I am looking for clarity, politeness, and a debater to show me exactly how they win the round.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
I am a parent who volunteered to judge debate while one of my children was involved. Now that they have graduated I still help most weekends when I am able.
I am also a teacher; I have higher expectations of students who debate, simply because they are trying to improve. I am not a trained debate coach but I have been learning about debate for the last 7 years.
What I usually tell students who ask for my paradigm:
If I can't understand your words I can't judge your arguments. You have practiced your speeches, you know them, so help me understand what you have to say.
I like to hear a clear argument, so tell me what your points are, then offer your evidence. Be honest.
I like the occasional clever pun-but don't overdo it unless you can absolutely nail it!
The most important thing to keep in mind is: You are working hard and I respect that work. You are doing something that matters, thank you for learning about our world and refining your ability to discuss and make decisions about important issues.
Hello! I'm Peri (she/her) and I debated for Mount Vernon HS in Washington doing LD for 3 years in high school. I have my Bachelors in International Studies focused on Peace and Conflict Resolution in the Middle East and North Africa. Now, I'm enrolled in grad school at American University for a master's in International Relations (meaning I know more about the Middle East than the average person) Here is my email if you need it... email@example.com
A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.
Substance > Style
Don't rehash, bring up new points prevalent to the debate. I love to see refutation particularly after the first two speeches. Please, lets move on if we are just going to say the same thing over and over.
Every time you speak in a session, it gives me more reasons to rank you at the end of the round. Fight to give those speeches and use questions! Don't let any of that direct questioning time go to waste!!!
A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.
I did traditional LD in high school. I am a traditional LD judge. You can run some arguments but disguise them as more traditional and focus on that style to keep me a happy judge. Take that into account. Don't spread I won't understand. Explain your arguments clearly and you'll be fine. No Meta-Ethics
A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.
I'm judging more and more pufo these days. I like clear, well organized constructives. Don't just read everything one note. I appreciate that public forum is supposed to be different than LD and Policy. Keep it that way.
Random framework arguments about the intent of the topic aren't going to work for me. If things change in the status quo, you need to be prepared to discuss them.
I'm a parent judge. It's my first time PF judge. I did couple speech judges in past two years. Some things you can do that will help me:
- Please speak slowly and clearly.
- Speech organization: Clarity and structure are helpful, explain your contentions and impacts with clear links.
- Short off-time roadmaps are ok.
- Tell me why you win the round, like highlight impact calc/weighing impacts in Summary and Final Focus.
My paradigm for Lincoln Douglas is very traditional. I am looking for a straight debate over the resolution from both the Aff and Neg side. I do not entertain plans and counter plans, rather I am looking for a value and criteria followed by contentions supporting the argument. As to spreading, I am not a fan as I think it detracts from the quality of the debate.
My paradigm for Public Forum is that this is Public Forum and there should be no paradigm. Keep to the resolution, with supporting contentions and evidence. You can offer frameworks, but I will not require your opponents to accept the framework, nor will I give it much consideration in the final analysis.
Hi there! I did LD for 4 years at Central Valley High School (Spokane, WA) and I’ve been doing parliamentary debate at Western Washington University for two years. I attended debate camp for three summers back to back in HS as well. I typically judge LD.
Prefs shortcuts for LDers:
K debaters- 1 or 2
Policy (plans/CPs/DAs,PICs)- 2
Traditional- 1 or 2
Phil debaters- 2 or 3
Theory/trix debaters- 4 or strike
Performance debaters- 1 or 2
*Note for traditional/novice/PF debaters — if none of this makes sense to you, scroll down to the bottom for my traditional paradigm.
- My NUMBER ONE rule is to keep the debate space safe and inclusive. Therefore, if you compromise the safety of the debate space for your opponent, for me, or for anyone, you will likely lose the round. This could include being overly-aggressive in cross-x, treating anyone disrespectfully, disrespecting someone’s pronouns, running something -clearly- outrageous or offensive, or using offensive rhetoric. (Quick note about rhetoric — it’s not a game-over argument in my eyes. If you honestly didn't mean to offend with your rhetoric, it might slide. Typically though, I will punish you for it.)
- Spreading’s okay with me. If you do spread, PLEASE email me a copy of your speech doc before your speech(es). Otherwise I might lose some crucial warrants in cards or something. I will destroy each speech doc in front of both debaters after the round is over.
- I’ll give speaks around 27-30 for standard circuit rounds. I use speaks to punish debaters initially, but ultimately the ballot if you really piss me off. You’ll earn higher speaks by giving good rebuttals, good word economy, appealing to pathos and logos, speaking clearly, and using TASTEFUL puns in your speeches.
Ks- Run them. I’m a K debater myself so I know how to evaluate Ks. My personal favorite Ks (in order) are Anthro, Fem, Cap, afropess, and most of DnG’s stuff. I love these Ks not just because I like the arguments themselves, but I like debates about those critical fields. If you’re running high-level kritiks like Baudrillard, Fanon, etc please slow down to explain them. If you can’t explain your K to a common person, don’t run it. I generally need a ROTB for Ks but I can evaluate it through a value criterion if that’s how you roll. Also - I like it when debaters explain how their alt’s solvency and when they weigh the K and the AC. Oh and K affs are awesome.
Theory- I’ll vote on theory if you win it but I generally don’t like theory debates. If trix or theory-overload is your style, avoid me. I’ll vote on RVIs if you win them. I really have a hard time voting for plan theory/CP theory/DA theory/K theory but if you win it I guess I’ll vote for you. PIC theory/disclosure theory are definitely acceptable positions for me, so go ahead and run that if you want.
Policy- Run it! Plans are totally fine as long as they’re topical (see non-T positions below for non-T plans). CPs/DAs are totally fine and legitimate too. CPs don’t have to be competitive IF they solve much better than the AC. You can also run a CP even if the aff doesn’t have a plan text. DAs need UQ and a solid link, and idc how long the DA is. PLAN-INCLUSIVE counterplans are good with me, but word PICs are usually not legitimate to me. Solvency is a must when you’re LARPing.
Phil- Probably run it if you know it, but be cautious. I know Kant fairly decently, and util/consequentialism is always fine. You MUST send me your speech doc when you’re going for a heavy phil position. Also, you MUST be able to explain the phil if I look confused. I like well-warranted frameworks, and I love syllogisms within the framing. Other notes — standard/value criterions can either be the name of the phil or a text, I LOVE(!) it when you break the framework cards into subpoints, weighing between AC and NC under your phil is a must, and you don’t have to have a value generally.
Performance/Non-topical positions- Run them. Anything counts as a performance if you call it one, so have fun (but be safe). If you claim to be topical and you lose on T with these kinds of positions, you’ll lose the round. Performances/non-T need framing of some kind. Also you need to be able to explain the thesis of your performance’s argument if it’s unclear. Performances need to either be reasonably topical or 100% nontopical. Otherwise, do whatever you want AS LONG AS it doesn’t jeopardize the safety of the debate space. Also - disclosure is nice for nontopical positions. If you provide proof that you disclosed your performance to your opponent BEFORE the round starts, I’ll give you an extra half of a speaker point.
Topicality- I have a very high standard when it comes to topicality. If I feel the shell is especially frivolous, I won’t vote on it. Otherwise topicality is just fine. If your go-to strat is T no matter what, avoid me. Oh yeah, and T’s a voter if you win it.
- MY NUMBER ONE RULE is that every debater must be kind and respectful to everyone in my rounds. Overall, just be a good person :)
- I value effective communication, persuasive argumentation, creative thinking, and having fun! Debate is supposed to be educational and a good time, so make it that way.
- I like giving high speaker points and seeing -tasteful- passion behind what you’re arguing. Logos and pathos go a long way in my book.
- Anything in my circuit paradigm will generally apply if you wanna be circuit at a local, traditional tournament.
- Other random notes — I like good eye contact, slowing down on tags, polite cross-x, humor, and being a human (and not a robot) in round.
- SPECIAL NOTE FOR PF DEBATERS — If I’m judging you for PF, everything from my traditional paradigm still applies. I like when PF teams have frameworks in their constructives but it’s not necessary. Make sure you focus on clash during your speeches and make sure CX isn’t overly-aggressive.
Definitions - unnecessary unless you are defining something creatively. Definitions debates will make me very, very sad.
Framework- You need to have a value and value criterion, and they need to be fair to both debaters. Weighing between frameworks and weighing under your opponent’s framework is a must. But I’m completely fine if a debater just wants to use their opponent’s framework. Also, if you have similar frameworks, I appreciate it if both debaters agree to collapse on a similar goal with their frameworks. (example: aff has justice/consequentialism, neg has morality/util. Debaters agree to weigh their impacts under what’s the most ethical consequence). Generally, I like framework debate more than contention debate, but it depends on the debaters and the topic. I’ll tell you in-person what I like with frameworks on a particular topic.
Contentions- I like well-warranted contentions. They can have multiple sub points, but they all have to be meaningful. Also, contentions MUST HAVE empirical evidence, not just analytical arguments. If you have a good mix of empirical evidence and analytics, I’ll go with it. In traditional rounds, solvency isn’t that important, but nice if you have it. Your contentions also must have impacts and you ABSOLUTELY NEED to weigh those impacts against your opponent’s.
- You can time yourselves.
- You can sit or stand no matter if it’s a circuit round or a traditional round.
- Try to use all of your time in your constructives and rebuttals, but it’s probably okay if you don’t have a lot to ask in cross-x (if you understand everything).
- Memes cannot be offensive or potentially to anyone in the room.
- Content warnings are appreciated BEFORE your speeches.
- My pronouns are he/him/they/them. Don’t care which ones you use.
My contact info —
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org (flag emails as important if I’m ur judge)
Facebook: Gavin McCormick
Have fun out there in the debate world, and I’m looking forward to seeing you if I’m your judge! Thanks for reading my paradigm :)
Hello, folks. The TLDR of my paradigm is:
I try not to interfere in the round unless it's to protect the 1AR and the 2NR from the subsequent speeches.
It should go without saying, but I'm a tech over truth judge. I think debate is fundamentally a game and competition. This view sort of bleeds into my number one issue that I have with a lot of debaters being that there seems to be a lack of strategy in the modern debate round. If you want to see more of my thoughts on debate strategy, scroll down and you can see. No matter what, I'm going to give feedback after the round (partly because my handwriting is awful) partly because you should be able to ask questions. If both teams agree, I'll disclose after the round.
When it comes to feedback, I swear that I'm not mean. I just have thoughts. I don't think you get better with me saying "you did so good", "you're a star", and "sEe YoU aT NaTiOnAls!" I think that you get better by judges telling you what they think. Odds are, unless you did really well I won't give you a positive comment in my verbal feedback. It doesn't help that I'm also very sarcastic and constantly look dead inside. That doesn't mean that you're a bad debater, and it doesn't mean that you didn't do something fantastically in round. It just means that I want to share my constructive criticism. I know it's a meme in the debate community to make fun of judges with bad takes on judging, but (hot take here) maybe listen to them. If one judge has a take like "truth over tech" or "speak slower" or even "substantial means 96%" odds are there are others like them. If you want to win, learn to judge adapt. I always sucked at it and never really cared, so I'm saying this to y'all as my warning.
Don't be a shlemiel, just debate good.
UPDATE: Tabroom isn't linking to my other email that I've judged a lot of tournaments with and debated a lot with. Because of that, my records (both judging and competition) are incomplete. If you ask me before round what my distribution has been for the last couple of tournaments, I'll probably tell you.
Include me in the email chain, my email is email@example.com
These next few paragraphs are me ascending the ivory tower and giving thoughts on various arguments, so read at your own risk.
My name is Bax, I use He/His/Him pronouns. I'm a stats major at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota where I do mock trial, debate, J-Street, and I'm an editor for the school newspaper. I qualified for nationals a couple of times and went to a lot of bid tournaments but I was from a rural school so I'm pretty familiar with both traditional and more circuit arguments. I'd like to say that I had a pretty healthy mix of both circuit and trad debate, but let's be honest, no one really tried in the covid season. I did primarily policy throughout high school with a bit of progressive LD in the middle. Now that this biography is done, here's my thoughts on various arguments.
Weigh GOD Damn it, Weigh!! It makes my job easier and lets me stick to my TLDR paradigm better. If there's no weighing done I will vote neg on presumption. I know that makes me unpopular, especially in PF and LD, but these are the consequences of your actions for not weighing. I vote neg on presumption because I think it's the most fair and rational way to assess a round where neither side weighed. In the real world, if someone makes an assertion (and can't prove it), then we don't assume that that statement is true. The aff has the burden of proof, and judges should hold the aff accountable to that burden. I think judge weighing is unfair to both sides. For example, I personally default to probability times magnatude with util calculus as the best way to weigh, but that's obviously not fair to K debaters who run arguments that are harder to quantify in certian ways. As is such, I have decided that the most fair way to assess rounds where neither side weighs is to vote neg on presumption. I also will vote neg on presumption if the neg tells me to and gives me a compelling reason of why its decent way to view the round. This is rare, but it has happened in the past.
If i'm judging with Caleb Stewart, we'll probably vote the same way. We were a team and keep roughly the same paradigm.
Look, we all have preconceptions or things we have thoughts on. I don't want you to think that I believe that my way of the debate is the only right way, because I think there are many different interps. I do want you to know that I'm an ex-debater who has reentered this event on the otherside of the ballot. As is such, I have thoughts on basically every argument and strategy. You can totally try to concince me otherwise, but know that my thoughts on some of these arguments means that you might have to put in substantial work to make me think that they're legit or not. I'm totally open to this, but I think everyone needs to recognize that no judge has 0 bias. If you want to try to convince me that dispo advocacies are bad for policy debate, go for it. You just have to understand that I already have my thoughts on the matter and you'll have to put in more work than your opponent who is trying to defend it. I mention this because I think it's unfair for judges to not disclose their own thoughts on relatively common strategies and arguments used in the debate space and expect debaters to just know what they mean. A lot of these are issues that could come up in round and I have the most thoughts on. If you really feel strongly about this, run a theory shell (might be hard for number 2. I guess that one is more of an FYI).
1. "CX is a speech"- Chris Eckert. Things you say are binding. CX isn't an excuse for severance. With that said, CX is for you as a debater to understand what you're debating against. So, I clearly won't use your CX as a way to judge the final round, but CX is binding. For example, if the other side is running a weird framework and you start poking holes in it in CX and they straight up concede the whole round, you need to tell me that in your next speaking slot. I'm not going to just write that down during cross. Their answer to the CX question is totes binding though.
2. please sign post. I can handle spreading, but sign posting makes it so much easier. Also, sign posting is not "they said λ, but we say ℵ." I'm flowing. I know they said that, where did they say that? Where am I flowing this? Why does what you say matter if they said that? Just say "on the DA" or whatever if you really have to. Nothing makes me more upset than the whole "they said; we say" writen on the flow. It's bad strat and just irks me.
3. Tech issues are to be expected, if it went well it wouldn't be debate.
4. I think flex cross is totally a thing that debaters should be able to use. Ideally you should use your whole cross, but if you'd rather take some of it and put it to prep go ahead or vice versa.
5. I prefer Tag-team CX to traditional CX. If you and your partner want to do this in PF with a Grand Cross for every individual cross I'd be ok but it's up to the other team.
6. Stealing prep is cringe
7. I tend to like Condo and dispo*. I think that the aff should be able to defend itself against multiple different angles. The only reason that I (*) dispo is because I think that it is almost situational. Like, if it's LD and you run a dispo advocacy that's clearly there as a time/strat skew with two seperate condo advocacies I'm going to have a harder time voting for you. I think it's a legit strategy, it just makes you seem like a crummy person. I mention this because I did have to vote for a kid who did this and it made me mad for the rest of the tournament. If it's policy though, I probably won't buy your dispo bad arguments. Saddle the heck up and deal with it, that's why you have 8 and 5 minute speaches with ("somewhat") competent judges.
8. T is an a priori issue. I think this should be obvious, but I guess it needs to be said. If the aff is untopical, it's untopical and shouldn't win. There's no way around it. I remember one time I tried running a RVI on T (so sorry to Cheyenne GL for that) and I sit and cringe at that to this day. The aff shouldn't win just by showing that it's topical and a non-topical aff shouldn't be allowed to win. I won't vote you down on the spot if I think your case isn't topical and no one calls you out, but I will probably mention it after. This should give you a hint that I think RVIs are something of a bain to the debate community.
I think debate strategy is totally underused in more traditional circuits. It's become what I've commented on most in recent tournaments. I'm not going to give you my entire thesis on debate strategy, but I think that a lot of teams (in both PF, LD, and policy but especially LD and PF) tend to hit a point of diminshing returns with their arguments. Running 13 off may be great (please don't I'm trying to cut down on the amount of paper I use), but I miss the days when people would only go for one arg in the 2NR. I know a lot of more experienced debters might be confused by this statement seeing as it's obvious due to the time economy, but newer debaters seem to lack this skill. My honest advice to all debaters is when you get to the neg block (or equivelent) in the debate, take an honest look at the flow. What arguments are sticking and which ones aren't? Never go for everything, kick something. If you're doing it right, by the end of the 1AR (at the latest) it should be obvious what the neg is winning. Kick everything else and just go for it. Clearly, it's better if this is off case, but this works for on case too (sometimes). Obviously, this is situational, but don't go for everything. Time-skew is real, use it to your advantage, but don't let it become a catch 22. For aff strategy, it's honestly all in the 1AR. We all know that the 1AR in both policy and LD is the hardest speach in debate. You have 4 or 5 minutes to respond to 7 or 13 minutes of neg talking ground. If the neg is going for an a priori argument, clearly start with that and then move down in order of arguments that you're winning. The best 1AR that I've ever seen in my life was a policy team that broke to semis at nationals. Go for T, Case, off-case turns, everything else. When you do those, it's harder to loose on T and you can leverage the case and turns to outweigh the neg off. The aff needs to be looking to the 2AR in the prep for the 1AR. How are they going to weigh and how are they going to cut the neg ground down a size? On soft-left affs, framework should be way way up there in terms of aff priority, but that should be clear.
TLDR: neg strategy should always be "what shouldn't I run?" and aff should always be "when should I run this?"
Most of this paradigm is focused on Policy just because I enjoy policy the most. That doesn't mean that I don't like y'all PFers and LDers, I just need to give my policy babes some attention ;)
I love a good K on K debate or even a policy on K debate. I'm pretty caught up on cap and set col lit, but everything else I've fallen out of touch with. Keep me up to speed on the lit, and I'll be down.
I'll vote on T if the Neg goes for it, no matter how bad it is. Hot take. If you're varsity and you can't beat a T shell easily in the 2AC, your aff is probably not topical.
My tolerance for theory is a lot higher than most judges in policy, maybe because I did some LD. In my opinion, theory is a legit tactic that's very underused. That doesn't mean I want to watch 90 minutes of debate about debate for 6 rounds, but I think that some debaters let small abuses go unchecked. Theory to me is just like any other a priori argument: if you want to make it a law in the round, basically run the abuse like an inround DA. Interp of what you think the rule should be, why they didn't follow it, why your rule is better than no rule, and why the rule matters. The only difference is that your impact is competition or fairness or whatever.
I'm not a big fan of multiactor fiat, but if you can run it strategically I'm down. "Fiat is durable" shouldn't get you out of basic circumvention arguments, but if it does because of opponent incompetence, mozel tov I guess.
I like progressive LD, but a good traditional LD debate will always have a special place in my heart. With that said, i generally default to the same policy rules when it comes to progressive LD with more emphasis on theory. I definitely love a good LD debate where theory is made a big issue.
Value and VC clash is big for me too, framework makes the game work (or something quirky like that.)
Plans in LD:
I'm chill with a plan in LD if the resolution is open to it. Action resolutions should always have some debaters running plans, but truth-testing resolutions is where it gets a little dicey for me. For the violent revolutions topic a few years back, I ran a plan about Eritrea and I still laugh at it. I'm obviously not going to vote you down just for running a plan on a truth-testing resolution, but if your opponent brings it up just know that my preconceived biases make it more likely that I'll buy their arg.
Yes, yes, yes. Non-Pic Cps in LD are so underused and it makes me sad to see.
K debates are fun, but don't be the mamzer who runs 5 conditional ks on a novice just because you can.
I could honestly write a book on debate strategy and spend half the time talking about LD. LD strat is (in general) absurdly cringe. That's partly because the way LD is set up has made it the bastard lovechild of 2016 policy debate and 2019 PF debate for one person. This leads to a lot of people that policy debaters have started affectionately calling "LARPers" (Live Action Role Players). They want to be policy debaters, but they bring it into LD. I won't stop you if you want to run a plan in LD. I won't even stop you if you want to run a K. I won't stop you if you want to run a dispo aff plan with an RVI cherry on top. If you want to pretend to be policy debaters, I will judge you like policy debaters. This is both an invitation and a threat.
My thoughts on progressive PF can be summarized by my favorite Scrubs quote:
"Bad, bad noobie"
Progressive PF to me leaves a vacuum that requires the judge to intervene and that sets a dangerous precedent. This changes if both teams are competent, but as I've gone around the less I believe there's such thing as 2 competent progressive PF teams hitting each other in a prelim. I'm not saying don't spread or use some specific policy lingo, but if you're running a DA try to do it right.
Traditional PF debate is good, I'm generally a fan. I tend to think that traditional pf (where it's two sides fighting for truth, justice, yadda yadda yadda) is unrealistic. Trad PF, just like every other form of debate, is a competition. Treat it as such.
I have competed in or coached various debate formats for over 20 years. Namely, I competed in policy debate for 7 years and competed and coached public debate for another 12 years. Ultimately, I value being a tabula rasa judge at the core.
For PF in particular, my desire is to see debate focus predominantly on persuasion and reasoning. Evidence should be a guide to the debate, not the debate itself. Impact calculations should be obvious, explained, and well defended by logic and reasoning. Debaters should not depend on evidence to speak for itself, nor should they be unable to explain basic warrants when prompted. Kritical argumentation and topicality should only be used if it is applicable, provides needed negative/con ground, and should not be used as a time suck. Finally, debaters should be well rehearsed with signposting and telling me where they want arguments on the flow; I shouldn’t have to make that judgment for them.
For email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
This is my second time judging World Schools at Nationals.
My World Schools team took second in state this year (full disclosure-- I'm from Washington and we do not have a strong World Schools presence in my state).
I love the uniquenesses of World Schools.
I value good public speaking. Speak like you're trying to actually persuade me. I do not like spreading.
I value going into depth on a few points. Explain your reasoning. Don't just get up and read a bunch of cards. Remember, you don't have to win every point. This is not a flow debate. You need to decide what the key issues are and then go into depth on those issues.
Don't play funny with the definitions. The World Schools norms are you should interpret the resolution as an average, intelligent person on the street would interpret it.
Don't forget to state the impacts of your arguments.
Case/evidence email: email@example.com
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 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.
Howdy! My name is Millie N. My pronouns are they/them.
I have 6 years experience in debate, but my strong suit is extemp. Debate should be as fun as it is rewarding. Those that argue their points clearly and effectively will get full points, but may not win. I believe that pushing yourself out of your comfort zone is the most important part of growing and learning.
Good luck, stay safe, and have fun.
I am a new judge to PF. Speak slowly. If I don't understand you, I will unfortunately not be able to evaluate you accurately and that could impact your scores.
Clearly articulate your contentions and sub points. Please interact with each other's arguments.
Hold yourself and your opponents accountable on timing.
Disclaimer: I can only argue with what is presented to me in round. Ultimately, if you want to run something, who am I to stop you? I'm flexible enough to deal with it.
TLDR: Speed fine. K's n stuff fine. Do what you want.
I don't usually count flashing as prep unless it becomes a problem. Never had a problem outside of policy rounds.
I did LD the most when I was actively debating, but have experience with most other forms of debating and have actively judged for Pufo and Pol (Though still pref LD). I debated a wide range of arguments, from stock to progressive. I have a particular love for K's, especially so when they are accessible by everyone in round, and understood particularly well by the Debater running them.
All Prep is running prep. If you say you're only going to take two minutes of prep, end up taking an extra 30 seconds and try to pass it off as only two minutes... no... just no. 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 less confrontational than CX and much more used for clarifying arguments rather then finding tricky questions... you had your chance in CX. Flex prep is Not binding as far as tricky questions go, however, if a debater willfully misrepresents their argument, I'm either slashing speaks or treating just that misrepresentation as binding, depending on how much that misrepresentation shifts the round. IE. If it becomes a centerpiece for the debate, it's binding. If it's just a side argument... speaks. Try not to do it.
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 nuance difference is and how that changes the valuation in round, it's almost better to just agree that the Fw's are the same.
K's function as their own FW. They don't necessarily need a super comprehensive FW with a K, the ALT and Link's are FW on their own. If those aren't sufficient, you can run a bit of FW up top or something, especially if your Alt is Drop the Debater... that isn't really a FW sufficient Alternative and you're going to need some work to set that up. Honestly, I have a higher threshold for Drop the debater args with no intrinsic justification then I do a more progressive mindset alt. You have to disclose an alternative for your K's when you read them, no more hidden drop the debater alt. I weigh the Alt as part of the K's FW. I think it's also good form for accessibility. If you don't disclose an Alt, I'm going to default it to Drop the Debater, and hope you provide justifications in the next speech and probably drop speaks a point or two.
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.
Not really a whole lot to say here, just debate it.
I'm fine with Speed and progressive argumentation.
That all being said, I can only vote for what is offered to me in round, and am pretty flexible with what the debaters want to argue.
Hello! I am Penelope Ridnour (she/her) and I have debated for 2 years now! I did impromptu and informative, I also dipped my feet into CX and Congress. Though I never did these consistently. If you have any questions, comments, concerns at any time during the round. Do it during the beginning.
My contact for chain links are - firstname.lastname@example.org
During these rounds I have NO bias. I am looking for students who are able to convince me and bring me to their side of the argument. Preferably I like statistics. I don't like when the argument strays far from the topic, please stay on topic. I don't enjoy when a speech is LONG and repetitive, I am sure most Judges and competitors don't either. I expect your research to be done thoroughly, this is a competitive academic sport.
I will be flowing on my computer.
I am fluent in English. Though online has made things progressively harder for everyone. Please speak with a normal and confident tone. I prefer confidence over anything. Please use a speed around 300 - 400 WPM.
Absolutely no discrimination towards sex, religion, homophobic, Islamophobic, and racist comments. This will account to your points.
I was a first speaker in PF for 4 years in high school in addition to World Schools Debate, so I have a lot of experience listening to all types of arguments and speaking styles.
My judging philosophy is simple…I expect you to make it easy for me to vote for you:
Signpost your arguments. If you have several contentions, it is important that you let me know which contention you are on so I can keep track of it in my flow. If you are in a subpoint, please let me know this. With each piece of evidence, tell me the source and year so I know its relevance to the case. Most importantly, TELL ME THE SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACTS OF YOUR EVIDENCE. If you do not tell me why the evidence is important, I cannot weigh it more heavily than other pieces of evidence that has impacts.
Note 1: I am fine with any argument, but please make sure that you tell me why it is important (significance and impact), if not I will think it is an irrational argument that has no merit.
Note 2: ENUNCIATE YOUR WORDS. If you are speaking fast, slow, or anywhere in between, and I cannot understand you, I stop taking notes. If I am nodding my head, I am following your argument, if I am looking at you (or in this day and age at the screen) and not down at my paper, you have done something wrong and it is up to you to fix it.
Do not ask clarifying questions, it give the opponent endless time to restate their case and make it stronger. You should be asking questions that help your partner in their refutation so they have the proper ammunition to deliver a strong hit against the opposing team.
I am fine if you speak over one another, and I will not intervene unless there is a blatant disrespect going on. Please be civil, don't be condescending.
Signpost your blocks. You should tell me which contention, which subpoint, and which piece of evidence is being refuted. If you have several blocks for one argument, tell me prior to listing them off, then proceed to tell me which block number you are on so I can keep track of it in my flow. If your team is speaking second, please frontline the refutations provided by the other team. Most importantly, IF YOU DO NOT REFUTE THE ARGUMENT, I CARRY IT THROUGH TO SUMMARY SPEECHES, do not make me do that.
Again, no clarifying questions. Here you should be asking questions that will help your partner in their summary so they can then proceed to tell me why your team has won the round.
This is the speech I pay closest attention to in round, since I was a first speaker I have mounds of experience giving these speeches. In this speech, you should be doing several things: 1. Tell me which arguments still stand on both sides, 2. Weigh the impacts of each remaining argument, 3. Tell me why your team has won this round. Most important, IF YOU DO NOT CARRY IMPORTANT EVIDENCE OR CONTENTIONS THROUGH THIS ROUND I CROSS IT OFF MY FLOW, make sure that everything you want me to judge at the end of the entire round is mentioned in this speech.
Note: If I notice that one team has no more remaining contentions/subpoints/evidence and the other team calls this out, I will cast my ballot in this part of the round. Make sure your summary is good.
If you are asking a clarifying question you have probably recognized that you have lost the round. Here you should be asking questions about the fragments of evidence and subpoints still standing in the round.
Here you should be crystalizing the round, putting everything in a nice bow. The goal of your final focus should be for me to be confident in my decision. Normally, I have a clear sense of who won prior to this part of the round. If you have any doubt that I will vote against you prior to this speech, make sure that by the end of it I have to reconsider my thinking.
As someone who did Extemp and Oratory for 3 years, delivery is also important:
This is where presentation matters. On ballots we are asked if wins are "low point wins", don't make me do this. If you have a good argument, you should be presenting it well (especially if you are a first speaker presenting your team's case).
For tiebreaks at tournaments, speaker scores matter, so ensure that your presentation is good so that you are not that single 4-2 team not breaking because of low speaker scores.
Most Important Note for the Round:
If you are in anyway Anti-Semitic, Racist, Homophobic, Sexist/Misogynistic, Islamophobic, or display any other form of hatred, I will drop my pencil, give you AND your partner the LOWEST possible speaker score, YOU WILL LOSE THE ROUND, and will be reported to the tournament director for further punishment.
Debate is supposed to be an inclusive setting for people of all backgrounds (religious, gender, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic, etc...) please don't be the reason someone quits debate.
Note: This is a paradigm for my local circuit. For nationals, i still judge similarly.
Background: I competed for a couple years with no particular accolades. I judge Congress a lot. If you see me as a judge in a debate event other than Congress, consider me a smart lay judge with little to no understanding of conventions of your event.
Frankly, Congress is not as complicated as other debate events. You only get three minutes, and there aren't a ton of different ways to argue compared to other debate events. That said, this is how I will judge you in Congress:
-Content matters a lot to me. Lots of judges say they don't like rehash, but I really mean it. If you are the 5th speaker you should probably reference what other speakers are saying. If you are the 15th speaker, please don't pretend your points are new. Flow the round, weigh the values of both sides and argue why the values of your side are the most important of the round. If you have evidence that suggests that your side should win a value that the other side has tried to claim, explain why your side should get that claim over the other, rather than just stating that you do and expecting that to be undisputed. If your speech would work as an authorship and you are not the author, you're not debating. You're giving a 3-minute oratory. If you don't understand how to do that, go watch any PF round and you'll probably see a higher amount of debating than I see in Congress.
-How good of a speaker you are will matter. I probably value your speaking ability less than most Congress judges in Washington, but it still will play a factor in how high you score and rank. Even though we are (supposedly) debating legislation, you're doing it in the form of a persuasive speech, and so all speech conventions apply here.
-Ask good questions. It's by far the easiest way to recognize who is paying attention and understands what's going on in the room. Any question that will be really obviously answered with either a yes or no answer is probably not contributing much to the debate. Ask lots of why questions, especially when speakers should be answering them in their speeches and failed to do so.
-Don't just read off a piece of paper. At least try to make eye contact. I understand why novices do this. I don't understand why open competitors do. It doesn't really feel like you're paying attention if your "contribution" to the round is reading a prepared statement. If speaking from bullet points makes you stutter or lose your train of thought a lot, practice your speeches until it doesn't. I would rather you be a little less polished but be more adaptive and open to your chamber, as long as I can still understand what you're arguing.
-Don't try to be too smart. I see lots of debaters try to be smarter than everyone with their "unique" points that have minimal impacts and/or don't make any sense at all. There's plenty of room for imagination in Congress, especially considering how interesting flaws in legislation can be, but run your point by someone smarter than you before you give it in round.
-Don't be a jerk. I'm a pretty informal judge because that's who I am as a person. I think there's value in making your participation in this event reflect who you are and what you believe. But don't be so loose that you insult people, make racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic/any kind of hateful or derogatory comments. I do believe there is room for debate to be fun and also to not be insulting. Don't attack people, attack arguments.
Don't spread and don't make excessive evidence calls.
I'm a traditional LD judge - I prefer a traditional V/VC framework, and like a philosophical debate that substantively engages the resolution.
I have very limited tolerance for speed / lack of clarity.
Drake University Class of 2025- International Relations (IR) Major and Law, Politics, and Society (LPS) Major
I was a National Qualifier in Policy Debate, went undefeated in IX at the same NatQuals tournament, and had a Domestic Extemp bid to NIETOC, so I will have no trouble keeping up with any argument you choose to run.
Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. If you are any of those listed before, I will stop flowing, you will immediately lose the round, and you will receive 0 speaker points (solely because I cannot assign negative speaker points).
Conditionality is good (for policy).
Don't clip evidence. If caught clipping evidence, I will vote you down, and you will receive 0 speaker points.
I believe you can run almost any argument and win the debate; that means that I am fine with almost all arguments— this includes meme args but read them at your own risk (please don't run the Shrek K).
If I am on a panel with Baxter Meyer, we vote the same way. If you have any questions about my paradigms, just check out his.
I am decent with speed (assuming we're in person). I don't mind speed, but full-on spreading is typically frowned upon by me (see: ableism); if I cannot understand you, I will let you know.
I will vote Neg on presumption if the Aff has major solvency deficits.
Other than that, I am tabula rasa as a judge.
I like to be part of the email chain: email@example.com
You don't need to "earn" my ballot. It's high school debate. I'm not going to take out my feelings on a bunch of kids just wanting to enjoy their time in high school, spread a message, or attempt to enact social change. At the end of the day, just debate and have fun.
Topicality is a major voter for me.
FXT is nontopical.
If you are not topical, you will have a substantially harder time winning the round. I had a few bad experiences with nontopical Affs in high school, so now I'm scarred for life and lean on T as a crutch because the Aff has 'unlimited' prep. However, if you can win the theory argument, I will still vote for non-topical Affs.
I love love love theory! If you want to run debate theory, I am all ears for it!
Typically, Multi-Actor Fiat is usually bad (So no 50-State, NATO, EU, UN, etc. CPs), and Durable Fiat is typically good. However, with that being said, I can be convinced otherwise in-round.
Furthermore, SCOTUS Fiat is something I won't allow in-round unless there is a case already heading to the SCOTUS; even then, SCOTUS Fiat is still suspect.
I am a-okay with Ks. I think a good K (such as Cap, Neolib, Fem, Afropess, Queer, Security, etc.) can easily win the round if the argument is run correctly (which I think is rare).
I am fine with K-Affs so long as they're topical (which I know is typically rare). If they are not topical, you can still win, but it is definitely an uphill battle for you. (See reasoning under T)
PICs, Topical CPs, and Nontopical CPs are all great! Truly, any type of CP is absolutely wonderful (especially for topics that have no good Neg Ground).
I personally believe that Conditionality is good (especially when it comes to CPs). I will kick arguments if told to.
I can be convinced Condo Bad in the round, but I will default to Condo Good if this argument isn't run.
Aff- Don't forget to perm!
Run what you want to run as a DA. I really enjoy smaller impact DAs, but the occasional big-stick DA can make for a fun debate! Just please, for the love of all things holy, make sure you have good link work.
Taking a page from Baxter's book, "neg strategy should always be 'what shouldn't I run?'" Meaning that you can continue your 13 off during the 2NR but take a critical look at what args are sticking and which args need more work.
Cross-X has always been a speech for me (and I also think this is where debaters truly shine). Set traps, make jokes, and do what you want— it's your time. Whatever you say will be going down on the flow.
Open CX is alright with me. My partner and I did open CX all of the time in high school. Just ensure that the other team/judges are alright with Open CX.
Framing is important in Policy. I like to see good impact calculus. If there is no framing by either team in the round, I will default to Probablitity>Magnitude or the most "believable" framing that fits the round.
Public Forum (PF)-
Nothing truly special here. I did PF for a year and a half, so I know my way around Trad. PF Debate.
I am fine with traditional arguments in PF, but please, please, please, do not spread or run a progressive debate in PF. Let's keep the PUBLIC in Public Forum. (That means no Ks, CPs, or Theory). If you want to have a progressive debate, go do LD or Policy.
I prefer copious amounts of evidence in PF
Other than what is above, I'm tabula rasa as a judge.
This is the only style of debate I haven't debated before on a debate circuit. That being said, I did LD back in my high school debate class (among several national qualifiers in LD). Although I lack competitive experience in LD, this lack of experience does not define my knowledge of the topic area. I study political philosophy at college, so please don't just stumble your way through the theory clash.
Value/Value Criterion clash is paramount in LD, so I would like to see a lot of analysis on this specifically.
January-February 2023: You can run whatever you wish as your value, but be warned that the resolution does favor and imply Justice. As such, I am tempted to vote down should anyone not have Justice as their value.
I don't mind progressive LD, so run whatever you want. (If you decide to run a progressive LD round, see the above policy paradigms.)
Former high school speech/debate competitor. Second 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.
I'm a parent judge. I've done several tournaments, mainly with speech events.
I look for evidence, a tightly constructed, succinct argument.
UPDATED: Nov. 2021
I am an assistant coach at Bettendorf High School in Bettendorf, IA. I am now in my 6th year as a coach at BHS. I coach primarily speech.
1. When it comes to judging debate, I am looking for a speed level slightly above conversation speed. I do not care for fast speakers since competitors are supposed to be convincing the judge and not outspeaking the competition.
2. For the delivery of the case, I am looking for competitors to clearly lay out their case by stating what are their contentions and subpoints.
3. While debating, I am looking for clear connections to the impacts of your evidence and case.
4. Also, while debating I am looking for competitors to be civil and allow each other to ask questions and not cut each other off.
I am a traditional/flow LD judge. Progressive debate is fine (plans/counter-plans, K cases, framework) but must be solidly grounded in research that ties tightly to the resolution -- and must engage with the opponent (i.e. resolutional Ks tend to fail with me because that leaves no room for the opponent's case). Courtesy to your opponent matters. Please keep spreading to a minimum!
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.
No outside bias
Speed doesn't matter
Open to any argument, provided it is explained
Student judge from STEM here:
I've been debating PuFo for about 3 years, you can speak a little faster but be clear.
I don't flow crossfire but I do evaluate it, if you need something particular bring it up in a speech. This isn't a reason to drop it though, if you get overtaken in crossfire it will impact my decision (please don't dodge questions)
I like numbers that give me concrete impacts, not a requirement but nice to have.
Don't dodge opponent contentions, if you don't hit them head-on I'll count it as dropped.
Signpost if possible, I like knowing where I am in your case.
Recent = relevant. If you and your opponent present similar impacts I will always favor the more recent one.
Lack of evidence isn't a counterpoint, if your sole counter for an opponent point is "lack of evidence" or "too much speculation" I will drop it. Present your own points and your own evidence and tell me why your impacts weigh out.
I'll drop speaks if you consistently misquote your opponents, but that doesn't hold a candle to what I'll do to them if you're blatantly rude. Be nice please...
The most important out of all of this: Tell me why. Whenever and whatever you're weighing, countering, presenting points, etc. there should be a reason. I don't particularly care what kind of evidence you present, if it's there I'll look into it. Don't make bold claims with no backing.
Keep a fun and lively debate if possible, always nicer to judge the more memorable rounds. Humor is fine (I love meme arguments), but try your best to bring it back to a professional argument.
Email me at firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any questions, you can send me your cases, speeches, etc. there too. Let me know at the end of the round if you want me to give you some feedback about it!
tldr: very lay judge, speak slow, be respectful, cross matters (i can elaborate why)
the length of this paradigm doesnot mean that i am a flow judge. do not be confused i am being very clear in the way i vote to prevent confusion.if you are confused in ANY way, PLEASE PLEASE ask me before the round.i am more lay than the average washington local judge and that's saying something
scroll down to important notes *there are asterisks
english is my second language, parent judge
do not use jargon unless you want me to be confused
please speak slow and enunciate-- slow
i mean it. if you see a confused look on my face you've done something wrong.
that said, make eye contact with me but absolutely do not yell at me-- this is a professional enviornment for education
if you are going over conversational speed, send a speech doc (idc if its constructive or rebuttal do not read fast if you cannot provide a speech doc). unless you want me to miss whatever you say.
email@example.com (also remind me to check my email when you send the case)
set up email chain before round--also include me in card chains
if one specific evidence becomes a major point of clash in the round, say "ida take a look at this" and let me know what to look for.
i would advise against running theory/ks because i barely understand pf as is although please have faith in me that i can recognize abusive debaters and will take action accordingly (going to tab, marking in ballot).
etc. cursing at your opponents.
i am giving up my time to judge so treat me and your opponents with respect as you would do so in a professional environment.
do not steal prep time PLEASE and do not lag at the beginning pf the round when setting up come prepared.
truth>tech unfortunately, squirrely impacts into nuke war or smth will probably have me confused
hint hint i am afinancial planner so numbers make a lot of sense to me
warrant out CLEARLY how you get to those numbers though..
weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh i will not weigh on your behalf in my ballot.
i would advise weighing during rebuttal then summary then ff so it becomes rly clear to me how i should vote
i do not know what framework is, explain it to me (make sure i nod)
etc. "judge, you are going to be casting your vote on this round off of x. this is more important than larger numbers bc xyz. my opponents agreed/conceded to this in y speech. we are all on the same page for you to proceed to sign the ballot based off."
if ur gonna run fw, come to round early and explain to me what it means before round. again make sure i nod
be professional. i don't want to see a messy workspace with 897713 flow sheets everywhere or fiddling with clothes/hair, i believe that this reflects confidence
please approach me if u have an issue with this
probably collapse, i'm not keeping detailed flow so it's hard to keep track of so many arguments
obvs make sure ur ops dont have any residing turns on ur case
if ur the op, explain what a turn is before u say "turn"
cross matters a lot- if it is a wash or if you and your opponents don't clearly implicate how i should sign my ballot throughout your speeches (ff is not adequate) the round will come down to how you treat your opponents.there are three, total 9 minutes. i don't think that time should go to waste. every speaker has more than a whole speech's worth of time in cross. if u have additional qs about why i listen to cross, ask me before the round.
attitude and presentation of knowledge is important in my judging methodology.
be respectful to your opponents, let's have a calm round.
do not argue i get annoyed if i feel like i'm being yelled at
do NOT interrupt during cross. i can tell if your opponents are talking straight for 2 minutes and trust that i will dock them accordingly. if i pause your cross to tell you that i feel you consistently interrupt, that is the only warning i will give.other indicators will be my facial expression during the round
be professional- please don't eat during the round. i understand rounds run late and it's difficult to find a time to eat. this comes off as disrespectful towards your opponent and i as well as the sport of debate. if you have a genuine reason to eat,make it clear to me before the round.
please try not to be late-debate always makes speech run late so let's get it started asap
confidence wins- everyone has similar knowledge on topic, so i'll probably sign the ballot on whoever is able to best present and communicate to me (as well as adapting to my indicators) unless theres a distinct difference in skill level--i do take notes but i will not be able to catch quick "turns " "delinks" etc
- don't throw out jargon or topic specific acronyms, explain it.
2. i will vote off if u give one turn, explain what a turn is, and exactly how it interacts with your opponent's arguments rather than if u dish out 15 turns at a speed i can't understand
not about quantity or tech, but about how i perceive the round, which is lay
3. i probably won't have a technical flow, but tell me to write something down "judge, make sure to note for your ballot (if u win or lose the round) that my opponents did xyz"
thank u for reading this long paradigm but trust these niche little things help you win the round, especially if the clash is unclear to me. i want u to be successful and judge adaptability is definitely a skill to acquire.
also keep in mind just because certain terminology was used in this paradigm does not mean i understand it. if u aren't sure, double check or err on the side of no. i used debate terms so you can easier understand how to adapt
if you are confused by my paradigm, ASK me about it before the round starts. my daughter wrote this
kk bye good luck<3