Currently serving in the United States Navy in California. Honored to participate as a judge and watch young Americans practice one of the fundamental skills of Democracy. He/Him/His are my preferred pronouns. Unless preference clarified by participants, I will use initials and gender neutral pronouns when referring to specific participants.

Judging is based on participants' ability to clearly state their position, lay out supporting claims in an organized manner, provide insightful questions that diminish strength of opponents' claims, and defend their own position when questioned by opponent. I will do my best to provide comments that help explain reasoning and give feedback for improvement.

Key points:

I will always look negatively at responses that rely on straw person attacks, cherry picking data, unsupported slippery slope, and the greatest offender of all being whataboutism- derailing debate with unrelated issues.

Most importantly, be respectful to each other.

I am an LD coach in the CFL, but I have experience judging all debate events.

Value & Criterion - remember this is LD, not PF. Ultimately I am looking for you to tie all points in your case back to your value structure. Your value structure sets a standard for me to weigh the round. Be sure that your case upholds the standard established in your value structure.

Clarity, Logic, & IMPACT - Keep your arguments concise and to the point. Snowball effects and illogical conclusions will cause me to discount your arguments. I want to see impact!! Why is what you are arguing important? Why should I care? Evidence should be clear and concise, cited and applied correctly to your case.

Structure & Narrative: I like to see a clear narrative throughout your case. Why and how does your offense outweigh your opponents? I like you to give me clear voters that link back into the narrative of your offense.

QUALITY > Quantity - Speed does not win a round with me. Logical, original, well-thought out arguments will win your round. I will flow as you debate, and if I cannot understand you I can not flow your arguments. I can handle some speed, but if you spew out as many arguments as you can or barrel through reading your case, I will likely just drop my pen. A good debater can give clear, logical arguments in the time frame allotted without needing to speed read. Again, QUALITY is better than quantity.

Maturity & Civility - I will take points for arrogance, rudeness, or immaturity. There is never cause to be nasty or unkind to your opponent. If you cannot argue your side diplomatically and respectfully, your lack of professionalism will be reflected in speaker points.

A few notes on flowing....

If you call for a card in round, and then fail to bring it back up, I assume you conceded the point to your opponent. Depending on the specifics of the round I may dock points for this.

I do not flow the author's name of a card. If you continue to reference arguments by using the author's name as a tag, I won't know to which argument you are referring, and I won't be flowing it.

I do not flow CX but I am listening closely and I appreciate when you extend arguments or points from CX into rebuttal

I will use my flow in my decision making, but it will not be the only point of reference for my decision. There is something to be said for your style of communication and delivery as well as the arguments you make.

Hello!

I competed for four years in Congressional Debate for Asheville High School. I qualified for CFLS, reached the semifinal round in the Senate at NSDA Nationals in 2020, and have had a solid local career. I currently compete in British Parliamentary Debate for the University of Edinburgh Debates Union. Additionally, I was the co-captain of my team and have recently worked with novices, therefore, I know what a quality speech looks like.

Here is what I value most when judging a round:

I was a presiding officer throughout all four years of competing, and I recognize and appreciate its value. Therefore, I highly consider presiding officers when looking at rankings. If you preside well, I will likely rank you in my top 8.

I appreciate funny intros, but make sure they’re topical. It's important to not use "canned" intros, or intros that you can pull out at any time that apply to any topic. An example would be the quote "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." We’ve all heard it before, please don’t make me hear it again.

Keep in mind that Congressional Debate is just that - debate. While I do appreciate and consider fancy rhetoric and fluent speaking, I will rank someone who makes clear and valid points over someone whose speech sounds pretty, and I will rank someone who does both of those things along with solid refutation above anyone else. I will also value quality of speeches over quantity. If you are passed over on a bill in some way, you will still be considered with everyone who gave a speech on that bill. Please make sure to be interactive with the chamber, though. I will be looking at engagement with the chamber in my rankings. With that in mind, please do not be afraid of moving to previous question if the debate has become rehashy. I can promise that I will like your speech more if it's an early round, unique speech on the next bill than if it's the fourth affirmation speech in a row. Again, Congress is debate, and when the debate has ended, previous question should be called.

Speaking of, there is a difference between refuting speakers and simply name-dropping them. Refutation is legitimately engaging with the material in someone else's speech. For example, saying “Rep. X said this, but my two pieces of evidence prove why they’re wrong,” is refutation. Meanwhile, saying "Rep. X’s point was non-unique so their point falls,” is not refutation. Furthermore, nothing makes it more obvious that you haven’t been listening to the round than saying “representatives on the negation have brought up [blank].” It’s always more impactful to bring up a specific competitor, but make sure you’re bringing them up for a reason and not just because they were on the opposite side and you need to refute someone.

Nothing is more important to me than equity. Inequitable structures and behavior are a huge problem in the debate community, and as a judge, I will take action to ensure that all chambers that I judge are as fair as possible. With that in mind, if you make an outwardly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or ableist comment, I will drop you. I don’t care how well you were doing otherwise, there is no excuse for that behavior. In that same vein, I know that we all love a good, aggressive questioning session, but do make sure that you aren’t speaking over another person. That isn’t fun for the judges to listen to, and it’s not fun for competitors to interact with.

Additionally, when addressing other competitors, make sure to address them as “Representative” or “Senator.” Too many times in this event, I’ve seen men be acknowledged by one of those titles, while women are addressed as “Miss.” I won’t dock points if you forget whether you’re in the Senate or the House, but please address everyone by either “Representative” or “Senator” to ensure equality in the chamber.

Please let me know if you have questions. After a round, feel free to get in contact with me for any additional advice you may want or questions you may have. Good luck!

Parent judge, most experienced with Congress.

I appreciate credibly sourced research, well-constructed arguments, a clear speaking style, and most importantly, respect for your fellow debaters.

Special Section, NSDA Nationals

Welcome! If you’re reading this, then we are definitely going to be meeting each other. I wish you all the best: congratulations on being at Nationals. Below are the Public Forum paradigm, and an expansion of my normal National paradigm (building on the NSDA document you already have).

Public Forum

A lot of what I have in my Policy paradigm (below) applies here. Here’s what to keep in mind:

Audience. Unlike the more technical Policy, I understand Public Forum as Outward Facing whose intended audience is someone reasonably informed. Terms and ideas are expected to be accessible. Rhetoric (diction, vocal presentation) are important factors.

Spread. Keep it rapid and conversational (roughly 150 w.p.m.). Excessive speed violates Outward Facing. Further, with spread, clarity about tags and structure is critical, as is enunciation.

Comparative Advantage. I will compare the two sides relative to advantages and how they meet their Framework (below). I expect both sides to make affirmative cases as to why I should prefer their reasoning. You will not win by solely attacking the other side; your case matters. Be clear about your impacts.

Framework. Show how your case fulfills or meets your framework (this is the core of Comparative Advantage for me). If given time you should explain why your framework is to be preferred.

Policy

In formal terms I follow an open policy paradigm. I'm a realist; I come from politics and extemp. For me, debate deals with the questions and discussions we (community/society) deal with in the public, decision-making space. Of course, all discussions have social locations and thus can be profitably interrogated by critical theory or explored through CPs; just show me why it matters or how it connects to our decision-making.

Leave academic or debate theory arguments outside. I will find them interesting, even entertaining, but not decisive.

Some practical details:

• Impacts do not have to go to catastrophe to be persuasive (especially the N-war move). Plausibility counts.

• I pay attention to how links are made, how the internal logic works. If you call attention to a dropped argument, show me why it matters, otherwise, I will defer to the points of clash.

• Where the argument turns on a key piece of evidence, I may examine to determine how much weight to give it (i.e. reliable, authoritative etc.) I am open to voting on T.

• And last, as a practical matter, I have old ears, so make tags clear. Preferred delivery rate tops out at 180 wpm.

Now for some additional Nationals Specifics/extensions

Off-case: Kritiks
As noted above I am open to arguments that illumine where an argument is (culturally) situated. I tend to treat Ks as a relative of the DA or perhaps a CP

Ks that I am comfortable with:
structural racism, Afro-pessimism
Neo-liberalism , colonialisms
the Foucaldian suite of approaches, including biopower

Other critical theory approaches: be cautious. I will not be able to track you as fast. Practically this means I will lean into the card re: authority.

Meta theory, debate theory — no. I find these involve a host of tacit assumptions that I may or may not be willing to accede to.

Off-Case: CPs
On a continuum of the very focused or limited to the very broad, I lean to the focused side.

as CPs expand, I tend to defer to the Aff

Extensive CPs carry similar burden as the 1AC.

Conditionality — there are strategic reasons to drop a CP, I will accept this within reason. (NOTE on the NSDA paradigm I’m a bit more conservative)

PICs — Use with caution. I hear these as a stepping stone, a way to interrogate the AFF case. The idea of testing the case with a “what about” that isolates an issue… good. When it is a broader form, I want to know how you avoid the DAs of the AFF case

Bright Lines or what’s out of bounds

Abusive behavior in the round (language; overly aggressive CX).

Refuse polarization. Extending abusive behavior to culture. I realize this is a challenge in our polarized culture; stay clear of the easy ad hom attack on “them”.

Cases that advocate violence in order to work.

Arguments that advocate non-democratic solutions. This can crop up in Ks: how does Power not end up in oppressing the many?

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the first time that I've judged an event.