Midtown HS Carter King Speech and Debate Tournament
2021 — NSDA Campus, GA/US
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Experience & Education
Carrollton HS Speech & Debate '08-'12.
CHS S&D (Assistant Coach) '12-'16.
BS Political Science - University of West Georgia '16
Master of Public Policy - Georgia State University '20
Okay with speed. I'll tell you to slow down if I need you to.
PF: I prefer that PF stays as close to it's original intent (theory, jargon, etc.) as possible - i.e., I should be able to judge this round as a layperson with no prior knowledge of the high school debate space. If you're going to spend a considerable amount of time between speeches calling for cards please weigh every card you've asked for.
LD: I appreciate as much of a straightforward framework and/or case debate as you can give me, and I prefer to avoid writing a ballot on theory if at all possible.
Handshaking: Even before current viral concerns, I wasn't a fan of hand shaking. If you feel the need for post round physical contact, I will either accept a light fist bump or a full hug of no less than 5 seconds in duration. Alternatively, you can just wait for my decision.
Overview: I am the debate coach at Houston County High School a suburban (closer to rural than urban) school 2 hours south of Atlanta. We don't travel outside of the state much. I am a big advocate of policy debate, but, the vast majority of tournaments we attend no longer offer the event. So, we have switched to PF/LD debate.
I flow. If I am not flowing, there is a problem.
Speed okay. If I am not flowing, there is a problem. The most likely reason I would not be flowing is, that the sound coming out of your mouth is not words. If this happens, I will most likely close my laptop or put down my pen until I can recognize the sounds you are making.
Disclosure Theory: I am a small school coach. My teams are not required to post their cases online. I don't like it when teams lose debates to rules those teams didn't know were "rules". If disclosure is mandated by the tournament's invitation, I will listen. I also, will not attend that tournament. So, just don't run it. Inclusion o/w your fairness arguments.
PF: I judge on an offence/defense paradigm. Logic is good, evidence is better. I'm the guy who will vote on first strike good or dedev. Tech over truth, but I will not give a low point win in PF, and try to stay true to the speaking roots of PF. F/W is the most important part of the debate for me. It is a gateway issue that provides the lens through which to view my decision. I have done a moderate amount of research, but I probably haven't read that article. I may be doing it wrong, but I like logic when judging a PF round. I don't think you have time to develop DAs or Ks, but have no other objection to their existence. Jeff Miller says to answer these questions if judging PF... - do you expect everything in the final focus to also be in the summary? Yes. At least tangentially. The first final focus of the round needs to be able to predict the direction of the the final speech. If it's not in the Summary it gives an unfair advantage to the second speaker. - Do second speaking teams have to respond to the first rebuttal? No, but its a good idea. It makes for a better debate and I will award speaker points will be awarded for doing this. - Do first speaking teams have to extend defense in the first summary? If you want to extend defense in the final focus. - Do you flow/judge off crossfire? Cross is binding, but it needs to be made in the speech to count on the ballot. That being said, at this tournament, damaging crossfire questions have provided major links and changed the momentum of debates. - Do teams have to have more than one contention? No. - does framework have to be read in the constructives? Responsive F/w is allowed but not advisable in rebuttal only.
LD: For me, this is policy light. I understand it, but I try not to be influenced by a lack of policy jargon in the round. IE I will accept an argument that says "The actor could enact both the affirmative action and the negative action." as a permutation without the word perm being used in the round. I tend to view values and value criterion as a framework debate that influences the mechanisms for weighing impacts. I am a little lenient on 1ar line by line debate, but coverage should be sufficient to allow the nr to do their job. I will protect the nr from new 2ar argument to a fault. I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments like "extinction good" or "rocks are more important than people".
tl;dr: Spend a lot of time on F/W. Impact your arguments.
Policy Debate: (Having this in here is a little ridiculous. Its kinda like, "back in my day we had inherency debates. No one talks about inherent barriers anymore...)
I am human, and I have made mistakes judging rounds. But, I reserve the right to dock speaker points for arguing after the round.
I have few problems with speed. If you are unclear, I will say clear or loud once and then put my pen down or close my laptop. I love 1NC's and 2ACs that number their arguments.
I want the debaters to make my decision as easy as possible. My RFD should be very very similar to the first 3 sentences of the 2AR or 2NR.
After a harm is established, I presume it is better to do something rather than nothing. So in a round devoid of offence, I vote affirmative
As a debater and a younger coach, I did not understand nor enjoy the kritik. As the neg we may have run it as the 7th off case argument, and as the aff we responded to the argument with framework and theory. As I've grown as a coach I've started to understand the educational benefits of high school students reading advanced philosophy. That being said, In order to vote negative on the kritik, I need a very, very clear link, and reason to reject the aff. I dislike one-off-K, and standard Ks masked with a new name. I do, however, enjoy listening to critical affirmatives related to the topic. I am often persuaded by PIK's, and vague alts bad theory.
Don't assume that I have read the literature. I have not.
Non-traditional debate: We are a small and very diverse squad, and I (to some extent) understand that struggle. I have coached a fem rage team, and loved it.
I have no particular aversion to theoretical objections. As an observation, I do not vote on them often. I need a clear reason to reject the other team. I will occasionally vote neg on Topicality, but you have to commit. I think cheaty CPs are bad for debate, and enjoy voting on ridiculous CP is ridiculous theory. I still need some good I/L to Education to reject the team.
I enjoy this format. I will adopt a policy maker F/W unless otherwise instructed.
I am a debate coach in Georgia. I also competed in LD and Policy out west. Take that for whatever you think it means.
- LD - Value/Value Criterion (Framework, Standard, etc,) - this is what separates us from the animals (or at least the policy debaters). It is the unique feature of LD Debate. Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it. I am open to all arguments but present them well, know them, and, above all, Clash - this is a debate not a tea party.
- PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.
- Speed - I like speed but not spreading. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. If you spread - it better be clear, I will not yell clear or slow down or quit mumbling, I will just stop listening. If the only way I can understand your case is to read it, you have already lost. If I have to read your case then what do I need you in the room for? Email it to me and I can judge the round at home in my jammies - if you are PRESENTING and ARGUING and PERSUADING then I need to understand the words coming out of your mouth! NEW for ONLINE DEBATE - I need you to speak slower and clearer. On speed in-person, I am a 7-8. Online, make it a 5-6.
- Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
- Casing - Love traditional but I am game for kritiks, counterplans, theory - but perform them well, KNOW them, I won't do the links for you. I am a student of Toulmin - claim-evidence-warrant/impacts. I don't make the links and don't just throw evidence cards at me with no analysis. It is really hard for you to win with an AFF K with me - it better be stellar. I am not a big fan of Theory shells that are not actually linked in to the topic - if you are going to run Afro-Pes or Feminism you better have STRONG links to the topic at hand, if the links aren't there... Also don't just throw debate terms out, use them for a purpose and if you don't need them, don't use them.
- I like clash. Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
- Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.
- Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.
- Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules. Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
- Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, I don't either), who made the most successful arguments and Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with a couple low point wins. I am fairly generous on speaker points. I disclose winner but not speaker points.
- Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.
- Immediate losers for me - be disparaging to the other team or make racist, homophobic, sexist arguments or comments. Essentially, be kind and respectful if you want to win.
- Questions? - if you have a question ask me.
Update for carter king: I won't be up to date with args because this is my first time interacting with this resolution. If you're reading any anti-capitalist case (which I'd love) please actually link and warrant your arguments (exploitation bad? why? pls tie it into your framework and stuff)
I'm a freshman at UGA and I did LD with the Grady team (now midtown) for two years in high school. I don't care what pronouns you use for me. If you've got any questions about anything please feel free to ask me before round! :)
Some miscellaneous stuff:
- I’d like it if everyone would send docs, even if you’re not spreading because I think it’s a good norm to uphold. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
- I will disclose if the tournament allows
- don't be racist or sexist or homophobic and stuff
- I’ll lower your speaks if you run scary arguments against less experienced debaters just to fuel your own ego (that's not to say you can't run advanced arguments, I understand how it's conducive to education. Just refrain from being an butthole please)
- I am tech over truth but I’ll lower the response threshold for arguments that i think suck.
- I flow cross
- Flex prep is fine
- Please don't use role of the ballot as a replacement for framework. post-fiat impacts are not relevant to role of the ballot
- Please signpost and roadmap. This will help you win on the flow.
- Powertagging and misrepresenting phil isn't an automatic loss, but I won't flow those arguments.
- post-fiat K’s are great, love to see them but please make sure you can explain what youre arguing. I'd also like it your alt is well-fleshed out instead of being super vague.
- Phil is great. I’ll be super excited if I get one of these debates. It’s very common in novice debate to see debaters who don’t understand their frameworks or who just read a line or two of a random framework with no justification. Don’t do that. Warrant your arguments. I also much prefer that you concede your opponents framework if yours is very similar - it’s a big waste of time to read basically the same thing your opponent read when you could be using that opportunity to make more impact args.
- LARP is all great but with two stipulations: If you want to use util, defend it as a moral theory instead of just reading fifteen seconds of a card saying that “thats what the US government uses as a framing mechanism”. Second, I’m wary of plans because I’m not always confident that very specific policy actions affirm “ought” Rememberrrrrr LD is not solo policy....
- I’m not the biggest fan of tricks. I’ll be especially frustrated if you use them to “outsmart” debaters who don’t have the training you do and therefore aren’t familiar with the technicalities of debate. I’ll have a very low response-threshold on these.
- Pre-fiat K’s are ok too but I’m more comfortable voting off of them when there’s a clear weighing mechanism and impact for my vote. Make me understand the material impact of my vote. If not, you can't impact. Also, be patient with me. I'm from the georgia LD circuit
- In terms of theory, I will vote off of it but I’ll always default to reasonability - theory is asking the judge to intervene in a round, and I will only be comfortable doing so when there is blatant abuse. T is fine, I'll be receptive to it. RVI's might be ok, but you'll have to spend some time explaining why they're good.
- Politics DAs, Virilio speed ks, disclosure theory, and spikes are all things i dont like. probably dont do this in front of me
If you've ready my whole paradigm and still have questions feel free to text me @ 4044414249 or email me at the address above
Literally, anything goes. I vote for the world that seems more fun to live in so construct your voters around that. Also, I HAAATE living in the SQUO so if that's your advocacy you have work EXXXTRA hard.
Speed - "Go ahead, TRY and be too fast, I'll take the challenge" is what I'd usually say but internet speeds being what they are just be clear thanks.
Complex Phil - If it's a common author go ahead, if not pls start an email chain
Theory - I don't care about abuse until you convince me I do.
Topicality - Tell me why topicality is good or bad, THEN tell me if you are topical or not.
K's - Run em, pre-fiat and off topic K's are the best! (make sure you have an alt)
CP's/Plan Affs - Yes I'll gladly vote on it, but be prepared for Theory/Topicality
Speaks - Speak well to get a 28, Last two points are for making me genuinely interested in your speech or making me laugh
Seating - Ughhhh, yes you can sit for speeches, yes you can look wherever you want, no you may not ask me about this before a round.
Misc - Tricks good, Flex prep is fine, Content Warnings good, Cursing is fine (if it's relevant), Cross-ex matters, and Pronouns matter.
Any Questions? Ask in the round.
I am currently in my third year as a Varsity LD debater at Midtown High School in Atlanta, Georgia. Any pronouns are fine. Make the round fun. You can contact me for any questions. (email@example.com)
I do not like spreading, but if you must, please share the doc.
I will vote on pretty much anything provided that I understand it and it is not openly racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.
I like trad debate, but if you are doing it make sure that you have a clear value and value criterion WITH JUSTIFICATIONS. Explain to me why your contention level impacts matter under your own framework and why your framework is preferable to your opponents.
I do not like utilitarianism. I find it is often misused and boring to judge. It is not a value, and I will be very likely to vote against it if there are little to no warrants or if your opponent is running a different framework. Run at your own risk.
Trix, friv theory, spikes are all bad. 1 NIB is okay.
K is good as long as it is clear and understandable. Links are a must. Really make it as clear as possible because I probably don't know about your pre-fiat heidegger k aff.
Theory is fine as long as there is actual abuse. I do not vote on disclosure theory, and I default to reasonability.
LARP is fine. Make sure your disads have strong link chains because I am veeerrrrrry likely to not buy that extinction comes from the aff breathing. Also the whole util stuff above still applies. CPs and PICs are okay but I will vote on theory if the aff makes the arg. Make sure there's a net benefit. IF YOU POWERTAG YOUR CARDS I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN.
Signposting and roadmaps are appreciated. Answer CX questions please. Be respectful of your opponent.
I will give +0.5 speaker points if you make a Big Lebowski or Top Gun reference.
I am an erstwhile LD/PF debater, and I have been called back to be a judge in this crazy world. Online debating and judging is new for most of us, but I am eager to assist in making this situation more normal-crazy than crazy-crazy. I wish you the best of luck and skill as you debate this year!
Email for evidence chains and whatnot: firstname.lastname@example.org
Ultra Important Ground Rules
In 98% of things, I am a laid-back and low maintenance judge, but I do have a few nonnegotiable rules that must be followed in order to have a fair and fun matchup. These should be common sense, but god knows common sense is in short supply these days.
-Courtesy is the most important thing I consider in rounds. If you do not treat your opponent with respect, chances are that I will not respect you on the ballot. If anyone harms the integrity of the round by being discriminatory, rude, or unprofessional, I will immediately stop the round. You do not have to like your opponent, but you should at least pretend to do so for about an hour. If you have a legitimate problem with the other team, please bring up your concerns before the final focus or final segment.
-Given the circumstances of having to rely on technology for this year's tournaments, tech problems are not rare. If you have had troubles with connections or hardware, please let me know beforehand so we don't have to trouble shoot problems during the round.
-Please, for the love of all that is holy, do not spread (i.e. speed-read). I will not be able to understand you, and that's gonna be rough, buddy. If for some reason you must, I will require you to drop your case in the file share for mine and your opponent's benefit.
-Concision and clarity are key. If I can not follow your arguments or identify your contentions, links, or impacts in my flow, I will probably assume that you are being willfully obtuse which is not a good look. Reminder: Neither PF nor LD debate is about proving that you are the smartest person in the room or showing me that you have the best words; it is about proving that you have the most cogent and sensible argument. This is about communication, not obfuscation.
-Do not, do not, do not introduce new contentions in rebuttals, summaries, or final focuses. That is called playing dirty. Likewise, please refrain from introducing new constructive evidence in the last half of the debate round; defending evidence does not count.
-I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative minutia.
-If you do plan on running a K argument, please let me know before the round starts. If you are, I will probably require you to drop your case in the file share for the benefit of myself and the other team. Likewise, theory arguments are cool (really!), but they must be constructed in a clear and cogent manner. I should not have to work to understand what you are saying.
-Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment. That ain't debate, friend-o.
-Don't assume that I am a genius. Signpost your contentions and your cards, if possible.
I'm a freshman at the University of Michigan studying Math, I did LD 17-18 and Policy 18-20 so I'm still new at this, if you think I messed up please tell me why you thought so. I have no topic knowledge.
I use whatever pronouns you want.
put me on the chain: email@example.com
I will auto vote down racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. good args. I will stop the round for racism/sexism/homophobia. You will get zero speaks and I'll talk to your coach.
Tech over truth- ill read ev if you tell me to, but that makes me more willing to be interventionist
I probably default to reasonability more than others, theory is asking me as the judge to intervene, the only non-interventionist way would be to be reasonable. Still tech over truth but keep that in mind.
Any speed is fine
Having done both policy and ld, I realize how bad lds co-option of policy is. Policy is a dying horse for a reason - lets not kill LD too please. Plans are probably not a thing, no way that policy action affirms ought, neg only gets fiat if aff fiats a plan, Ks are fine but I need to know what the alt does, see policy ideas on both. I am more willing to be interventionist about this stuff.
I am familiar with most common LD frameworks, and have read a substantive amount of philosophy so I probably know what you're talking about. This is a double edged sword: if you lie I will know.
Your coaches may not have explained this to you or you may have not heard of this... we are doing email chains, I want to see your evidence during the round... your opponents should be able to see your evidence during the round, you dont have to send analytics, just cards, so have a card doc ready for the round.
Have fws or else I vote neg on presumption.
Please dont read theory unless abuse happens. RVIs are maybe a thing but liek, do you really wanna spend the debate talking about a flimsy theory arg?
See Lucas Baileys paradigm, hes an ld judge I agree with on most stuff. If you dont know, ask me before the round.
Its affs burden to prove t, inherency, and solvency, not negs burden to prove otherwise.
Probably go for one advantage, it makes it easier for me to write the ballot for you
Read or don't read a plan i don't care, but like, please talk about the topic (or don't see thoughts on fw).
do or dont read a plan i dont care but know this:
Procedural fairness is prob an impact. I think if we didn't care about the competitive nature of debate parents and teachers would not want anything to do with it. I dont think convincing me that its an internal link to education is the right strat, just tell me why education outweighs, which it definitely can.
small schools da flows neg lol
its a lot easier for me to vote aff on fw if the aff does something/talks about the topic
I need case/neg position lists to vote for either side
tva doesnt have to do the aff/solve it 100%, thats neg ground. tell me why the tva means you can't read whatever philosophy you are reading
U/Q: the date of the cards is important to me, but not as important as to some judges. If you can find a warrant in your card that shows why yours still matters, ill consider it over the date.
link: please explain these well, or else I can't assign high risk
Impact: I love non nuke war impacts; spices things up.
Thumpers are great, just explain why that instance has something to do with the aff
If you read an obscure DA, make sure I understand it, if your school found a weird cool new politics da, the 2nr needs to be really good about the story.
I am way more receptive to cp theory than most judges. The counterplan is probably cheating lol. If the cp has not historically functioned as the neg has put it or it is actually bad for debate, the aff should call them out. Do not be afraid to go for states bad against states. That being said, the impact is probably reject the arg. Please dont word pic unless the language is legitimately abusive. Analytic cps are something I am weary about, I don't know what that means though.
Ill judge kick unless you tell me not to, judge kick is condo. Condo prob good but dont overdo it
!!!I am a believer that you should not read a K you don't understand, I hate when people stick a K in the 1nc and then in cx they can't explain it. Please know your ev and the theory behind it. (Don't read cap without understanding the labor theory of value, don't read security without understanding cosmo, don't read agamben without understanding the state of exception, etc.)!!!
I am getting more and more weary of ks of reps where the alt is reject discourse, etc. on that note, the pik needs to be explained very well for me to vote on it, on a truth level, i dont get how you can k the affs impacts and then do the aff.
I am getting tired of K teams reading essays with little to no clarity and not sending the analytics in the speech doc. I am not one to be like "i think they said that ill grant it to them" when the 2nr is "they dropped link 7 of 12". I will give the other team leeway when answering spread through analytics.
Please dear god dont spread through your prewritten blocks that use words no one knows the meaning of. Using big K words(libidinal economy, ontology, juissance, resentiment, subjectivity, hyperreal, anything deleuze, etc.) will make me angry, especially if you're saying them just to confuse your opponent. Don't be that person. I will know and your speaks will suffer.
If reading something nebulous, you need to explain the link so that I may understand it. On the other hand, aff should cx the k for understanding before its cxed for argumentation.
Don't spread through 8 links in the rebuttal, it will be hard to flow and i'll understand little, choose good ones and extend well.
Impact: do what you want just be clear and understandable, see thoughts on link, if the k is of reps, i dont get how using those words causes post-fiat violence if fiat is illusory
Alt: Again, I'd like you to be clear, and have material change. I am very receptive to vagueness bad theory.
Framing: I like real world impacts, if aff wants to go for policymaking best for change, that's good, if aff wants to go for weigh the plan for education, that's good to. Vice versa for the neg. BUT, fairness is probably an impact, see above.
do what you want, but its a lot easier to vote for an interp with 20 affs than 1.
Please include me in the email thread: firstname.lastname@example.org
Talk as fast or as slow as you like. Use any strategy you like. Always respect everyone's person and dignity.
My face shows what I'm thinking. If you're uncertain whether I'm following your argument, please connect the dots for me.
Judged middle school debates from 2015 to 2018. Connected to the Grady HS debate team through my niece, who debates policy with the Grady Jesters.
Personal philosophy: trying hard to follow stoicism, but sometimes lapse into nihilism.
BA in psychology from Georgia State University (Atlanta), 1978; MBA in international business from Regis University (Denver), 1999.
Update for judging: Been out of debate for a while now, learning the topic lit as I go. This means be clearer on args for evidence or stuff like acronyms. Don't make the mistake of thinking I know what you know. That being said, if you're gonna spread start slower than normal and don't max yourself out.
Note for Online: Try and use a good mic if you can, and slow down on analytics. Send an email chain anyways (email@example.com)
I've done both national circuit and traditional debate, so I'm cool with either style. That being said, I do like circuit debate more. Be accommodating plz and don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. because that's bad and I will talk to your coach.
I'm cool with anything, run what you want and make arguments that you want to make. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible and on that note, I won't do work for you. If the argument is important, address it as such, if [x] is critical, tell me why. Impact and warrant out arguments, far too many debaters aren't doing this. AND PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WEIGH BETWEEN ARGS. Other than that, if you have specific questions ask me in round and I'd be more than happy to answer them.
Quick list of what debate I'm good at judging:
1 - LARP/Trad
2 - K (like the generics (i.e cap, biopower, fem, etc...))
3 - Theory/T (Run it if you want, but just know the more frivolous it is, the more I'll lower my threshold for responses)
4 - K (the less known ones are fine, but you're gonna have to explain the warrants and links a lot more and I mean A LOT more, if I can't understand the K or its implications in round, I won't vote on it. I don't want to discourage you from it, but be wary.)
5 - Trix (I've run them and I know what they are and can evaluate them, I just don't like to)
How to get high speaks:
Be clear, be funny (work in a good South Park reference and I'll add a point)
"If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time- win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes." ~ Stephen Scopa
How to get low speaks:
Be a dick
The Long Version (written while I had absolutely many, many better things to do)
- Unless you have some weird framework links/implications 99% of trad rounds end with util v util frameworks where far too much time is spent. If you realize you have the same or even similar framework as your opponent, it's fine to drop a framework. I feel like people don't really know this, but it saves time for you.
- Substance > V/VC Debate
- CPs, ADV/DAs, Plans, PICs, etc. this is my bread and butter and what I used to do a lot of while I debated.
- These rounds are won with good evidence AND good analysis, one will not cover for the other, but that being said Evidence > Analytics
- WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH
- Be smart in your rebuttals, proper time allocation and a good collapse are key
- I'll listen to impact turns, use them well
- I'll likely have some familiarity with the lit base (refer to the examples above) but don't assume I know everything. It's your job to make things clear for me. If I can't understand it, I won't vote on it
- Contextualize the links to the aff, generic stuff like "state bad" isn't horrible, but just put the effort in and find a specific link
- ROB v FW weighing is super important here, win this you'll probably win the round
- Defaults: Competing interps, drop the debater, rvis, fairness and education are voters
- The more frivolous the shell, the lower my bar for responses (imo just use a good reasonability dump and the shell should lose every time)
- Send counter interps/interps, and slow down for standard names
- Do some standard weighing please
- Paragraph theory is lame :(
- Ehhhh..... I don't want to judge this, but I will if I have to
- Make sure all your stuff is delineated and just admit to what you're doing (it's easier on all of us) instead of being shifty is cross
- Extensions are gonna have to be really good, explain the implication of x spike in the speech and make sure you're slow enough that I can flow it
Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are unhelpful.
Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence.
Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.
Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.
Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track.
Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.
Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).
Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time, etc. Avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.
Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.
My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor ELA, History, and SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.
The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:
--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s first two-minute speech.
--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.
--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.
--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.
--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.
--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum.
--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions.
--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).
General: Hey, I'm Lauren (she/her) I'm a senior in high school, I’ve debate in VLD. I like debates that are clear and/or interesting. Include me in the email chain (Laurenjolie03@gmail.com)
Please signpost/roadmap - Since I'm a flow judge, I really hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. ***If you don't tell me where you are, I can’t flow. Be sure to crystallize, please!
Speed: Don't sacrifice clarity. If I can't understand it, I can’t flow. Slow down on the tags and authors, please. I strongly dislike messy spreading.
CP's: CP's must have an articulated net benefit. I honestly think PICs aren't very fair so I am very easily swayed by aff theory args.
Disads: Impact calc is key and if you don’t clearly extend I won’t weigh! Also, I need to see an internal link. I can't/won't weigh your impacts w/o links.
K's: I am well enough versed on K lit but I still expect clear articulation of LINK and impacts.
T: I feel like people often waste time with topicality, so I suggest you only run it if it is blatantly untopical. That said, I do believe T is a voter. I am NOT a fan of disclosure theory so run it at your own risk.
I expect to hear voters in the 2AR and 2NR.
Other: Do not be annoying or rude to your opponent. I will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, or any sort of bigotry in round, and I will dock speaks/contact your coach if it gets to that point.
Extra speaks for humor or a good taylor swift reference.
DO NOT POWER TAG I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN
If you have any questions feel free to email me!
I graduated from Columbus High School and did 3 years of LD debate.
Speaks: I speak somewhat fast in debate, so I can handle speed when flowing but do not spread. If you decide/must speak fast or spread, create a speech doc and add me to the email chain @ firstname.lastname@example.org
If you are making an important point, you need to slow down to make sure I catch everything I need to.
1. I am more of a traditional debater. However, I am open to progressive styles of LD, but honestly I don't like/know Theory, K, etc. I am more comfortable with CPs and DAs though. So, keep in mind that I am not too familiar with it so if you're gonna do it, do it well.
2. I vote off the flow. You need to be responding to every argument that's brought up in the round, including their responses to your arguments. Please sign post because it makes my life so much easier. That being said, I don't really flow card names (i.e. Doe 19) so if you're gonna address or extend it in a later speech, use the tagline otherwise I don't know what to do on my flow.
3. The framework debate is the most important thing at the end of the round. If the framework debate is lost or no one wins, then I look towards the contention level.
4. If anything important happens in cross x, make sure you bring it up in speech because I do not flow in cross.
5. Voters in your last speech are very helpful for me to make my decision.
1. I have not debated PF but I have judged plenty of rounds and am very familiar with this style. However, I won't be open to Theory, Ks, etc. So if you must, explain it as if you were talking to someone much younger. As mentioned above, I vote off the flow, so extend any arguments made.
2. If you do present a framework and the other team doesn't, I will weigh all arguments in regards to that framework so keep that in mind.
3. Everything else is the same as above.
Otherwise, if you have any other questions, please feel free to ask or email me at email@example.com !! :)
Hi, I’m Aran Sonnad-Joshi. I’m a varsity LD debater from Midtown High School. I use he/him pronouns. I’d say at least read the first part of my paradigm about general stuff.
I’m fine with both progressive and traditional LD. I vote off of the flow.
I would say tech over truth but arguments that are just long like bad link chains have a lower threshold for response.
Give a roadmap before your speech. Signpost if you deviate from that but you should signpost anyway
Speed: I’m good with spreading but send the document if you’re going to.
Speaker points are going to be based on speaking and how you run your arguments. An average score is 28.5. The floor is 27 unless you’re racist/sexist/homophobic etc.. Bigoted comments are unacceptable and will be addressed through speaker points. I'm not going to give you 30 speaks just because you ask for it. If you reference My Cousin Vinny or Good Will Hunting I’ll give you +.5 speaks.
Include trigger warnings for sensitive topics.
Specific argument stuff:
Framework: Framework is how you weigh the round. Explain how your arguments fall under your framework. If you want to use your opponent’s framework, that’s fine but you have to show how your arguments flow under it.
Plans: I’m ok with plan affs but make sure you can explain how they’re topical
DAs: Impact calc is key for me to weigh your DA. Sketchy link chains have a lower threshold for response. Make sure you have links, I’m not going to do it for you.
CPs: Counterplans are valid. Weigh the net benefits of the cp against the aff.
Ks: Ks are great. I’m familiar with standard Ks and some postmodern stuff. Baudrillard, Virilio, and Agamben are my favorite authors. I’m not too big on identity Ks but I’ll vote off of them. Pre-fiat impacts are cool but there has to be proven benefits to the debate space.
K Affs: K affs are cool but you need a good reason for not debating the topic.
T/Theory: Theory should have a proper abuse story. I don’t like frivolous theory and it has a much lower threshold for response.
Tricks: I don’t like them. Please don’t make me vote off of them.
I am best described as a parent judge. I listen to your arguments and take notes. I will vote on the team that makes the most convincing arguments in the rounds.
Be nice to each other and be respectful.