Debate:

I am looking for style: how well do you deliver your speech?

• are you able to keep the attention of your audience?
• how is your pacing?
• are you emphasizing your points?
• are you adjusting your tone and speed?
• are you making eye contact?
• are you delivering your speech to your audience, or are you just reading your speech?
• did you practice your delivery?

Do you have a claim and a solid line of reasoning?

• are you incorporating your stats/facts or relying on them?
• facts/stats should enhance your argument, not be the center of it.
• are you brining in something new/unique or are you just repeating previous points?
• is your speech well researched?

Rebuttals

• are you able to effectively challenge and counter opposing arguments?
• are your rebuttals grounded in facts, or anecdotal in nature?

Understanding of legislation and how our political system works

• did you do your research?

Speech:

To those running the tournament: My preferred styles to judge are Congressional, IPDA, and I'm happy to judge forensics/speech. Putting me in policy is a bad idea and I don't like policy at all. In terms of Individual Events, I do best with Humorous, Duo, and Dramatic Interpretation, and worst with Poetry.

To competitors: Racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, ableism, and hate speech of any kind will earn an immediate loss of my ballot. The most important thing to me in a round is that you respect not only me, but your opponent, other judges, spectators, and anyone else. Please don't spread. If I wanted to try to make sense of spreading, I'd do policy. I don't do policy, so I don't want to hear spreading. Please just have mercy and talk at a decent pace. I have no preference in how you present your argument, just do it well.

I have a strong preference for logical arguments based on facts, even if I personally disagree with your position. I expect debates to be civilized and speakers to be serious and courteous to each other. Relax and have fun.

I have three accounts on Tabroom. This one, and the one without a school listed, are the "old" ones. Look to the "new" one for my paradigm.

This one and the other old one exist because I cannot get Tabroom to merge the accounts, and if you want to see my judging history you will get a much better picture if you can see all of the accounts.

Leslie Harden Greer Judging Disclosure:

I take the responsibility of judging seriously and believe in rendering fair decisions based on a neutral perspective. I share this commitment with most experienced judges. I approach each round with an open mind, eliminating bias and holding no preconceived ideas about the outcome. I can lean affirmative or negative with equal propensity, and teams should strive to persuade me with their arguments.

I bring 23 years of experience as an English, drama, debate, and communication teacher, and have also coached speech and forensics, directed theatre, and coached mock trial and student congress. My approach to judging is influenced by these years of involvement in the education and forensics community.

Here are some key aspects of my judging paradigm:

1. Communication is Key: I prioritize clear communication over rapid delivery. (It’s as if I can hear the quiet sobbing of the policy debaters reading this.) Effective communication is vital for conveying arguments successfully. I prefer a clear and eloquent presentation of issues in the round. Effective communication is crucial in persuading me of the merits of your arguments.

2. Play Professional: I place a high value on sportsmanship and decorum in debate. Respectful conduct is essential for a productive debate.

3. Affirmative Burden: The affirmative plan should fulfill all of their burdens. If the negative demonstrates that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected.

4. Quality Evidence: I appreciate well-articulated arguments supported by high-quality evidence. Well-researched and substantiated arguments are more persuasive in my evaluation.

5. Focus on Disadvantages and Counter-Plans: I often give weight to disadvantages and counter-plans. While I may not vote on kritiks or topicality arguments, I assess the affirmative's advantages against the negative's disadvantages.

6. Respect for Judges: I expect debaters to recognize that judges are reasonably intelligent, well-informed members of society. Debaters should present their case comprehensively and avoid assuming that judges lack the ability to evaluate evidence and arguments.

In summary, my judging philosophy centers on fairness, clear communication, and rigorous argument evaluation. I encourage debaters to present their cases effectively and persuasively, regardless of their positions, and I assess each round impartially. Good luck, and I look forward to a productive and engaging debate.

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.

-Heidi

Thank you for reading my paradigm. Taking the additional time to study and adapt to these suggestions will increase your odds of picking up my ballot, though doing so does not *guarantee* the result you are looking for.

I have organized my paradigm into blocks, depending on the event I'm judging, as follows:

All Debate Events:
0) I make mistakes. I'm human. You make mistakes. You're human. Grace, therefiore, is rule 0. Give it and receive it. Nobody here (myself included) has the right to consider anyone else as less perfect or otherwise inferior as human beings. Therefore, all the following statements are offered not to make you feel inferior, but to show you my thought process so you can adapt to it. Nothing more or less.
1) Decorum is the ultimate a priori voting issue. I expect you to treat one another, the audience, the facilities, and the judge(s) in your round with respect at all times. In turn, you will receive my full respect as well. We've all invested time into this contest, and to disrespect it with rude, discriminatory, bigoted, intolerant, or other disruptive behavior is an insult not only to those who sacrificed to be here to support you, but to all the people who came before you to give you this opportunity.
2) Speed is NOT your friend. In order for me to understand and apply your argument to the flow, I must first be able to understand it. If I've stopped typing (or put my pen down if using paper flows), I'm probably not following your argument. If I didn't flow it, it never happened.
3) Jargon is Speed's twin... also not your friend. Dropping a bunch of debate jargon in your speech isn't effective with me. Shorthand speak is lazy debate. Don't assume I know all the meaning behind your words. If I look confused, I probably am. So, take a second and explain things.
4) Sources must be cited properly. “Jones, '22” means nothing to me if I don't know which Jones and which article you are referencing.
5) For events that allow for prep time: Prep time begins within 5 seconds of the end of the previous speech. There is no stopping prep because your tech malfunctioned, or because you need to swap thumb drive evidence. Prep ends when you start speaking.
6) Mine is the only clock in the room that matters. You can time yourself, but if I say stop, you stop.
7) If you offer a roadmap, follow it.
8) After the round: Gather your things quietly and leave so the tournament can run on time. I do not shake hands (it's a germs thing). Do not comment on the round after it's over.
9) I do not disclose results in prelim rounds. Period. Full stop. Even if the tournament requires it. I'll take the fine/punishment. I don't believe it is beneficial to anyone. I will give oral feedback IF the tournament is running on time and if I feel the teams are in a proper mental state to listen to it objectively and accept it (same goe sfor my own mental state... I may simply be too tired to engage... don't take it personally). Oral critique, if offered is UNIDIRECTIONAL. It is not a time for you to argue your case further. Doing so will be considered a decorum violation (see #1 above). I reserve the right to change my vote in the event of a post-round decorum violation - including going to tab and requesting a change in person.

Congressional Debate:
1) I'm a Registered Parliamentarian, as in I do this professionally as a paid gig. If you're thinking of challenging my knowledge of Robert's Rules, the local rules for your tournament, etc., just don't. (Not perfect, but I get this right to 5-nines of accuracy). I always study in advance and ask for complete rules lists for your Congress.
2) As a Parli, I am looking for these things in order descending order of importance: Decorum, Participation, Appropriate Use of Procedures, Advancement of Debate, Good Analysis, and Solid Speaking Skills. You scorers are judging your speeches. I can't focus on the procedures and listen to every aspect of your speech or the flow of debate.
3) Conversely, as a scorer, I am going to actually flow the debate in round, tracking the arguments Pro and Opp and looking for you to advance the debate, not merely rehash what others have said. After the argumentation, I look to style and speech quality as a secondary voter.
4) I know many of you are being taught that 30-seconds of questioning is about getting in as many questions as possible. Please resist that urge. You'll score more points with me by letting the speaker address one or two questions fully than by blasting 5 rapid fire questions. If you need 30 seconds and 5 questions to make a point, then it belongs in a speech.
5) Be engaged during the session. Side-talk, playing on your phone/computer, ignoring the speaker... I notice these things and they're heavily frowned upon (see decorum rules above).

Policy Debate:
Overview: If you read nothing else, read this: I will most likely vote for the team who gives me the easiest path to vote for them. (By the way, this is true of just about every judge on the circuit, no matter their paradigm). Give me an unambiguous, articulate, simple way to pick your team up, and the ballot is yours.
1) By default, I am a Stock Issues judge - I debated Oxford (a slightly different form of what you do today), NDT, and CEDA formats in HS and College, all of which used this time-honored and tested framework: Topicality, Inherency, Significance, Solvency, Ads/Disads. Aff must win all five. Neg needs only win one issue decisively. (Assuming a priori voters don’t come into play, which is rare).
2) I give VASTLY more weight to on-case arguments. Inherency and Solvency are my most common reasons for voting NEG. I consider Topicality a time suck unless the case is grossly non-topical. I despise debates that become pure T or just K's (or only these 2 things), and the team I feel is most to blame for creating that problem will lose my ballot every time. Significance and Inherency are the two most overlooked issues in debate today - I won over 80% of my negatives on these 2 issues as a young debater, and I miss hearing those arguments. I LOVE a good counterplan that gives a clear, net-competitive alternative to the Aff case.
3) The sole exception to #1 & 2 above is that I accept Theory arguments IF they are clearly communicated, carried all the way to the 2AR/2NR, and have DIRECT link to the round. Example: I voted once at National-level outrounds on a performative K because it dealt directly with something that occurred during prep time between the 1AC and 1NC and had a clear impact on Neg's ability to debate the round. This is a rare strategy - risky unless you can prove both the immediate root cause was the opponent and the clear impact to the round. Additionally, Presumption belongs to the Neg. Aff has a burden to present a complete Prima Facie case in the 1AC or the round is over at that point.
4) I do not read evidence unless challenged directly under the NSDA rules of evidence, and then only to determine the validity of the challenge. If I didn't hear it clearly, it didn't happen. If you think it's critical to your case, make absolutely sure I hear it.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:
Overview: If you read nothing else, read this: I will most likely vote for the side who gives me the easiest path to vote for them. (By the way, this is true of just about every judge on the circuit, no matter their paradigm). Give me an unambiguous, articulate, simple way to pick your side up, and the ballot is yours.
1) I learned LD from Minh Luong. My camp study partner/roommate was Victor Jih (founder of Victory Briefs - and yes, I'm name dropping, Victor... if you're reading this with your student, :) ). I finished 3rd at NFA Nationals in college. I am likely what you would call "old school." I've also coached TOC outrounders more than a dozen times in my career. I understand TOC-circuit style, even if I disagree with most (or all) of it.
2) LD is Values Debate. It was created expressly as a counterpoint to Policy. I will reject plan text in LD. Period.
3) A Value is (I can't believe I actually have to write this) something that has inherent, intrinsic, or physical value to you or others. Morality isnot a value. We can be moral beings because we value X, and valuing X is moral according to Y framework. But we cannot value morality by itself. If you read this, and your case has "morality" as its value, take 5 minutes of pre-round time to think of something valuable that applies to your case and value that, please. I guarantee your case has something in it you can use this way.
4) A Criterion is the philosophical or logical approach/framework that, when applied to the resolution, establishes a hierarchy of values according to some logic or philosophical consideration. If you choose not to offer one, then you agree to be measured by the standard your opponent offers. If neither offers one, then you're subject to my chosen criterion for the round in front of me. This is an unpredictable place to put my ballot in.
5) In the end, I will vote for the case that establishes, in the context of the resolution, their value to be superior by whatever criterion is the best choice within the round, supported by the arguments in the contentions offered.
6) Kritiks in LD have to be directly linked to the cases offered, or the events in round. Tenuously linked arguments will be given little or no weight in round. Generally, K's need to be established as a priori for me to even consider them.
7) Theory arguments are rare in LD. Presumption exists, and I have voted on it when the AC is clearly not prima facie valid. Beyond that, you'll probably spend more time convincing me that your specific theory argument is a priori than you could spend on case in direct clash.

Fun fact: 80% of my RFD in LD are on Value/Criterion. It's rare that a decision has to go deeper than that in justification.

Public Forum Debate:
Overview: I was coaching when PuFo was created (Ted Turner Debate was its original name). It was patterned after a TV show called Crossfire... a 30-minute show around a single topic where 4 guests debate the merits of a single issue. It was intended explicitly to be an event judged by laypersons... a default audience sitting at home on the couch watching the show. My paradigm is strongly influenced by this framing of event intent.
1) I do not keep a rigorous flow of PF rounds. I will make notes about the performance of the debaters and their key arguments during the round. But since I don't flow debates on TV talk shows at home, why would I do so here? Frankly, if I can't track 3-4 main arguments per side in my head, with a few memory notes, then I shouldn't be judging debate. And if you are making more than 3-4 main arguments per PF round, then either you're going too fast for PF or not going deep enough into each line of argument you're making. Either way... flowing is not needed in this event. It's just way too short a round for that.
2) Because I'm not flowing, clarity and simplicity in your argumentation are key (as it should be in an event designed to appeal to a lay audience). The more complex your argumentation, the more likely you're going to lose me. And my ballot. Keep it simple.
3) This isn't "Policy light." Even topics that appear policy framed (i.e. - "The US Federal Government should...") are intended to be debated point-counterpoint. Not in a plan-counterplan format.
4) Theory, policy, jargon, frameworks, etc. have no place in this event. Again, this is point-counterpoint debate. There is no presumption. The burden of proof is on whomever is raising the point. The burden of refutation is on the opposing side. And you don't automatically win by your opponent dropping an argument. If an argument is dropped, you must prove how dropping it proves fatal to your opponents’ position, or benefits yours. It could be they dropped it in favor of a stronger response on another point that wins the round.
5) Clash is required. Because there is no presumption, you don't just get to win on Con if Pro doesn't make their case. "Two ships passing" debates end up being decided on my ballot by coin flip. I've decided PF rounds on the mere appearance of clash on a single otherwise irrelevant point because neither team wanted to engage the other. Make a good debate. Engage your opponent with direct clash please.
6) Crossfire is a freely-flowing exchange. It is not cross-examination with an examiner and a respondent. Statements are not only allowed, but expected, especially in Grand Crossfire. Show off your discussion skills in these periods. It is also NOT a screaming match. If I'm getting nothing from the screaming chaos, I'll end the Crossfire... better to keep the tournament on schedule.

World Schools Debate
Unlike every other form of debate, WSD is designed to be scored. Not judged as you might traditionally expect it to be. It is possible that a team could win the arguments, but do it in such a sloppy, inelegant, derivative manner that they end up losing the round. I do not believe in low point wins in WSD.

So, how do you win my ballot in WSD? By scoring points. Here's how you do that:
1) Content (40%) - Arguments need to be: Relevant to the topic; Substantive; Deeply constructed (I'd rather hear 2 substantive arguments in 8 minutes than 4-5 weakly built arguments with limited support or limited exploration of the concept). Arguments should be properly constructed (claim, warrant, impact). Refutation should be likewise relevant, on topic, directly contrarian, and properly constructed (claim, counter-claim, warrant, impact). Evidence, when offered, should be properly cited. Analytics, when offered, should be strongly correlated to the argument being made.
2) Strategy (20%) - A good WSD case has a goal, an objective, a purpose, an agenda, a cause... however you want to word it: You're all working toward a specific goal. This is not point-counterpoint debate. There isn't any theory that requires all arguments be made in the first speech and extended. Instead, each 8-min speech is supposed to be constructive in nature. This can be done many ways, but each member of the team should playa role in developing the narrative the team is creating (and defending) as a whole. I rate you on how well you define, serve, and complete that role. For example, in a case where "This House regrets the narrative that children are the future," a good Gov team might divide the work 3 ways. Speaker 1 offers how the narrative was formed, its flawed purpose, and how structural ageism played a part in founding that narrative. Speaker 2 might extend off that into three ways the children are directly harmed from the narrative (added pressure increases anxiety, leads to suicidal behavior, etc.), citing child development theories and experts in the field. Speaker 3 might then devote an amount of time to how resolving this narrative takes pressure off our children and let's kids be kids, building a better future for us through our children, but not by applying pressure to succeed or improve out lot as adults. This isn't the only way it could be done, but is a good example. In contrast, Speaker 1 giving 5 substantive arguments then having speakers 2 and 3 extend and add more evidence is a bad strategy (often seen in CX or PF). In WSD, it doesn't work. Bottom line: The strategy should be cohesive, interconnected, defining and advancing the narrative.
3) Style (40%) - How you conduct yourself in round goes a long way toward this style score: Is the team confident, but not arrogant. Is the team professional. Are they appropriately aggressive when needed, and deferential when not. POIs go a long way to scoring in this area. POIs should be relevant to the point the speaker just made. They should be a single point, not a series of questions or statements. POI is not cross-examination. They should be brief, but contain enough content to make the point clear. They should be just frequent enough to be relevant and just infrequent enough as to not disrupt the flow of the speaker. Barracking is heavily frowned upon and will be penalized. Also, how you respond to POI affects this score as well. Each speaker should accept at least 2 POI (preferably from different opposing players), and address those points directly and substantively before moving on. Most of all, Style scores are elevanted based on how well your team tells a story - each speaker is a storyteller as much as a debater - combining argumentation skills found in LD, CX, PF with rhetoric skills found in Oratory or Expository. Wit is rewarded, but so is rich use of language. Most of all, helping your opponent understand your argument is an element of style, part of making good debate is avoiding deception or intentional confusion of your opponent. Take the time to help make it clear to them what you mean. Opponent misunderstanding affects their score and yours. It doesn't help you.

Ultimately, the goal of WSD is to engage in good debate stylistically. Yes, you do score points for content and strategy, but that is only 60% of your total score. Between two teams with equal skill in argumentation, the deciding factor on my ballot is almost always style. So make a good debate, not just winning arguments. Any good debater can win an argument. On the WSD stage, you need to do it with style.

Parliamentary Debate
Overview: If you read nothing else, read this: I will most likely vote for the side who gives me the easiest path to vote for them. (By the way, this is true of just about every judge on the circuit, no matter their paradigm). Give me an unambiguous, articulate, simple way to pick your side up, and the ballot is yours.
One unique aspect of Parliamentary Debate (whether its IPDA, APDA, NPDA, NPTE, BP... doesn't matter): You get a topic assigned to you in short order before the round. Those topics can be questions of policy, value, or fact. Rather than repeat my paradigms here, consider this:
- if your topic for our round is policy-based, read my CX paradigm, then come back here.
- if your topic is values-based, read my LD paradigm and then return here.
- if your topic is fact-based, read my PF paradigm but take it with a grain of salt... PF isn't Parli stylistically. I'll address the style in a moment. However, fact-based topics lend themselves to more point-counterpoint debate style, like PF, which is why I suggest you look there first.

Once you've done that, understand this:
1) I give a bit more leeway in how deep the arguments go because of the limited prep nature of your event. However, I expect the arguments to be well constructed, cleanly delivered, complete, and properly linked to the topic or to another argument (if refuting such).
2) Speed is absolutely not your friend here. These rounds get muddy really fast, so stick to your flows and make sure I know what you're addressing when you speak. A few seconds spent clarifying why you're making the claims you are (what purpose they serve in the round narrative) are worth more than 1 full minute of spewing arguments.
3) Like in WSD, POIs are critical to advancing the debate and remaining relevant. I give a lot of weight to POI... far more than most judges on circuit, and I'm known to vote entirely off a very well made point that "sticks".
4) Points of Order - aka POIs made in the final summary speeches - will be ruled on immediately by me before the speaker may proceed. My rulings come in two forms: "Point taken" (I'm considering it), or "Point NOT taken" (I'm rejecting your argument, move on). This is important as most of the time there are no opportunities for substantive response and you need to know if I'm considering the point or not before your speech ends. The form is this: Opponent raises a point, Speaker addresses it briefly, both pause and wait for my ruling. This may be new for high school debaters, but commong on the collegiate ciruit. Wait for me, please (Note: This is ONLY for rebuttal speeches... in constructives, just keep going)
5) The gallery and backbench may express agreement or displeasure respectfully (low groan, brief muttering, or light tapping/knocking), but never with anything substantive (no shouting any content or arguments). If this becomes a problem or distraction, I will stop it. If I intervene once, there will be no audience reaction permitted for the rest of the round.
6) The prima facie case for the resolution must be made, introducing and framing the topic, plus enough argumentation to fully justify the case on its own, by the Prime Minister (PM - aka Gov/Prop speaker #1). Presumption applies... if the case is not sufficient on its merit, I will vote Opp and the round is over from that point on. This is rare... but consider this before you decide to run some performative AFF case with no relevant discussion of the resolution.
7) LIkewise, the Leader of Opposition (LO, aka Opp speaker #1) must establish the grounds on which the Gov team has misstepped in its support of the resolution. Once prima facie is met by team Gov, BUrden of Refutation applies to the Opposition. If the opposition doesn't directly clash with the actual case brought by Team Gov, I will vote for Gov and the round is over from my perspective.
(Note: When I say the round is over, I'll usually shut my laptop to signal my decision is entered. You can do with that information what you will. As long as my laptop is open, I'm flowing and writing notes and my ballot is active).

Summary:
Make it easier for me to vote for you than your opponent, and you'll have my ballot. Be clear. Be concise. Focus on case-related arguments. Engage with your opponent and clash. Be polite and courteous. Respect me, my position, and my decisions. Respect your opponent(s). If you have a question about my work in round, feel free to ask. I'm happy to explain. But don't argue with me - in round or afterward. Accept the explanation and move on.

Most of all, have fun. Nothing in our round is worth stressing out about. Someone will win. Someone will lose. Do what you can and be satisfied with your effort, if not the result.

I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: jkieklak@gmail.com; lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

General

You do you. Let it rip. Seriously. A judge does not exist without the debaters, and I view my role as a public servant necessary only to resolve arguments in a round to help empower young people to engage in meaningful discourse. I believe that it is important for me to be honest about the specific things I believe about common debate arguments, but also I find it more important to ensure I am prepared for debaters to persuade me away from those beliefs/biases. Specifically, I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:

1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate. One team probably is not most persuasive/ahead of the other team on every single argument. That needs to be viewed as a strength rather than a point of anxiety in the round. Do not be afraid to explain why you don't actually need to win certain arguments/impacts in lieu of "going for" the most persuasive arguments that resolve the most persuasive/riskiest impacts.

2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive.

3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.

Policy Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway to solving a significant harm that is inherent to the status quo with some advantageous, topical plan action is entirely up to you. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.

Kritikal Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway/relationship to the resolution is entirely up to you. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win framework or a methods debate. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.

Framework

This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of what is good for debate through considerations of education, fairness, and/or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. The internal link and impact are up to you. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I vote for and against framework, and I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.

Off

Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive (beyond just specific to the overall resolution, but also specific to the affirmative and specific cites/authors/ev). In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

• Perms: Be ready to explain how the perm works (more than repeating "it's perm do 'X'"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?

• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate. If I am in your LD pool and you read Nebel, then you're giving me time to answer my texts, update a list of luxury items I one day hope to acquire, or simply anything to remind myself that your bare plurals argument isn't 'prolific.'

• Case Debate: I am particularly persuaded by effective case debate so far this year on the redistribution topic. Case debate seems underutilized from an "find an easy way to the ballot" perspective.

• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.

• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.

• Please do not drop condo or some other well-extended/warranted theory argument on either side of the debate. Also, choosing not to engage and rely on the ethos of extending the aff is not a persuasive way to handle 2NRs all in on theory.

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

Be your best self. My ranks reflect who I believe did the best debating in the round (and in all prelims when I parli).

The best debaters are the ones that offer a speech that is appropriately contextualized into the debate the body is having about a motion. For sponsors/first negs, this means the introduction of framing and appropriate impacts so that the aff/neg speakers can build/extend specific impact scenarios that outweigh the opposing side's impacts. Speeches 3-10 or 3-12 (depending on the round) should be focused on introducing/weighing impacts (based on where you are in the round and where your side is on impact weighing) and refutations (with use of framing) on a warrant/impact level. I value structured refutations like turns, disadvantages, presumption, PICs (amendments), no solvency/risk, etc. The final two speeches should crystallize the round by offering a clear picture as to why the aff/neg speakers have been most persuasive and why the motion should carry or fail.

The round should feel like a debate in that each speaker shall introduce, refute, and/or weigh the core of the affirmative and negative arguments to persuade all other speakers on how they should vote on a pending motion.

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

• Arguments are claim, warrant, impact/justification and data when necessary. Speeches with arguments lacking one or more of these will not ever be rewarded highly, no matter how eloquent the speech. It is always almost more persuasive to provide data to support a warrant.

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

• Presiding officers should ensure as many speeches as possible. The best presiding officers are direct, succinct, courteous, organized, and transparent. Presiding officers shall always be considered for ranks, but ineffective presiding is the quickest way to a rank 9 (or lower).

• More floor debaters are experimenting with parliamentary procedure. Love it, but debaters will be penalized for misapplications of the tournament's bylaws and whichever parliamentary guide is the back up.

• Nothing is worse in floor debate than repetition, which is different than extending/weighing.

• Decorum should reflect effective communication. Effective communication in debate often includes an assertive tone, but read: folx should always treat each other with dignity and respect.

Arkansas Debate

Woo Pig. I am not here to force you to capitulate a paradigm that you find in someway oppressive to what your coach is teaching you to do. I will drop you for clipping/cheating, and I do not reward (and will rank low in congress) bad/no arguments even if they sound as rhetorically smooth as Terry Rose and Gary Klaff singing "Oh, Arkansas."

I'm a first year judge.

I ask that you watch your own time, though I will be keeping track as well.

I don't mind how fast you speak, but I do ask that you enunciate. I expect you to have thoroughly researched your position and to use sources and analysis in your presentation. Convince me that you are right.

Congressional Debate-- I'll keep it simple. . .

1) I'm looking for an actual debate (not reading statements written weeks in advanced). The authorship speech and the first speech in opposition do not need to directly address what has already been said. The rest of the speeches do need to respond to what has been said. Please directly reference what you are addressing (e.g. Senator Smith said, ". . ." I respectfully disagree because. . .). Your argumentation should have a direct link to either voting "yes" or "no" on the bill or resolution. I'm looking for good warrants for your claim. Don't just read a quote from someone (even an expert) and assume I agree with the quote. Give evidence that your opinions are the correct ones (i.e. statistics (cite the actual study), arguments from history, detailed explanations, etc.). If you are citing a major news organization, tell me if you are citing an actual news article or an editorial (e.g. Don't just say, "The New York Times argued that. . . "). Your arguments should demonstrate that you have a basic understanding of the social sciences (especially economics). I tire of arguments that assume the legislative body has a magic wand that can do anything (e.g. raising minimum wage to $50 an hour while making inflation illegal). There are no solutions, only tradeoffs. Explain to me why your tradeoffs are better than the alternatives.

2) I'm looking for uniqueness. I'm a social studies teacher. If I learned something from your speech, you are more likely to get a higher score. If I'm thinking, "I knew all of this already," you are more likely to get a lower score. If you are piggybacking on an argument already made, I am expecting you to add to that point (not just repeat it).

3) I'm looking for a demonstration of good public speaking skills. The reason I favor congressional debate over policy debate is that this form of debate makes you learn useful communication skills. Watch members of Congress speak. Listen to real lawyers argue before the Supreme Court. They do not spread. They do not just read cards. I want to see the entire public speaking skills set. . . fluent delivery, excellent nonverbal communication, appeals to ethos, pathos, logos.

LD--

I would be considered a "traditional" LD judge.
You are debating values. I want to know the paramount value and the criteria used to assess the value. There needs to be clash on the value and criteria unless you mutually agree on the same value/criteria. Your arguments should flow from your value and criteria.

Things to avoid. . .
1) Kritics-- No Kritics in LD
2) Spreading-- You should speak no quicker than a moderately quick speaking rate
3) Ignoring the value/criteria debate-- you need to win this first before you do anything else
4) Presenting a plan-- I want to hear about the morality of this situation. I don't need to know how your going to actually have a policy to achieve that value. "Nuclear weapons are immoral" and "the United States should practice unilateral disarmament" are two totally different types of 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:

Preferences:

-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.

Speech must be clear and understandable if reading quickly. I appreciate when rounds stay topical however I am open to theory as well as other types of arguments.

Clear, concise, logic and interesting.