UPDATED January 2024:

I haven't been judging LD for a while; I've mostly been judging PF for the last 3 years. I've almost certainly left things out of this paradigm - if you have more specific questions that aren't covered here, email me at serena.e.fitzgerald@gmail.com.

Generally:

I competed primarily in LD in high school (graduated 2015) and NPDA in college (graduated 2018). I've been a (mostly) full-time debate coach since.

I base win/loss only on the content of the arguments; speaker points are based on a combination of rhetorical performance, strategic vision, and technical skill.

Speed is fine, but I'm somewhat rusty, so I might "slow" or "clear" you. I'll call for cards if there is a dispute over their content, but I won't rely on a speech doc to cover for mudmouth or sloppy spreading.

I don't vote off of "arguments" made in cross, only in timed speeches.

Weighing, framing, and evidence comparison are all incredibly helpful since it a) makes my job easier and b) allows you to control which arguments I evaluate first. Absent debaters' arguments, I generally default to evaluating procedurals first, kritiks second, and policy arguments last.

I'm fine with "sticky defense" but I generally won't evaluate anything unless extended in the last speech; and if it's extended through ink I won't evaluate it.

Specific arguments

LARP/policy/util debate - I'm an econ and political science major, so I'm a fan of really specific, nuanced arguments in those fields. I'm comfortable judging really obscure or squirrely contentions, since they liven up the tournament a bit.

I am willing to engage in a lot of warrant comparison if the debaters don't do it for me in order to weigh whether a DA/ADV is more probable, so having specific, solid warrants in your evidence (rather than broad claims) will likely help you.

Kritiks - I'm a big fan of good K debate, and creative, interesting philosophical arguments or frameworks will probably boost your speaks.

I have a relatively high threshold for frame-outs. I find myself more comfortable either voting on substantive solvency arguments based in the critical literature, or granting a weighing mechanism that substantively benefits your critique, than an outright "don't evaluate their case at all" framework. The other two options might be more strategic ways to cross-apply your framework cards in front of me.

In college and high school, I mostly read Ks focusing on Marxism, anti-colonial writers like Fanon and Friere, and poststructuralist authors like Foucault and Guattari. Puar, Mbembe, and Butler are some of the contemporary philosophers most influential over me. For other theories, you may want to read an overview if you are collapsing to it, to make sure I understand your thesis accurately. (It's probably helpful even if I have read that author before, since you might be emphasizing a different part of their work.)

Theory/ Procedurals - I default to competing interpretations. I'm pretty neutral about most theory debates and I'll vote for most interps (yes, including shoe theory) as long as you win on the flow.

I find that compared to other judges, I'm not as rigid about the phrasing of theory arguments. If someone substantively makes a "we meet" argument but doesn't formally flag it as such, I will still evaluate the content of the argument and apply it to the theory. However - this is imperfect, and I may not always know what you meant a particular argument to refer to, so it is still always best to flag your arguments and signpost clearly.

I don't have a very high opinion of IVI's as they are usually read; the existence of theory in debate does generally seem like the best way of deciding and enforcing the "rules" of debate. However, I find they're usually more persuasive when they incorporate more substantive arguments (especially if it dovetails with the thesis of the case or other arguments presented) - for example, many of the responses that critical affs develop to topicality are very interesting.

I am a new judge, but I have been teaching academic writing to middle and high school students for over 20 years. There are many similarities between essay writing and case writing.

Not only do I enjoy a cogent argument, but I also really enjoy a good verbal sparring match. Maybe it's the Irish in me! Many a great debate happened around the dinner table, and we 5 children could argue that black was white as long as we could show evidence for that. A great debate cannot only be substantial in terms of evidence, it also relies on strategic attacks on the opposition.
To mis-quote Sherlock Holmes “the game’s afoot!” Fact and diversion are twinned in a good debate.
I want to hear great evidence and astute attacks, great logic and great use of logical fallacies, strong offence, and brilliant defence.

Show that you know how to employ all of the above appropriately.

I am also a true geek. I collect dictionaries, so dazzle with precise vocabulary, active verbs and attitudinal modifiers.

Finally, talking fast on its own is not a useful skill. I appreciate your need for speed, but please be sure to enunciate, and use good phrasing rhythm, so that I can understand you perfectly. If I can’t tell what you are saying, then of course it will affect my judgement.

Let’s go!

heyoo ✰

- signpost

- frontline in 2nd rebuttal

- extend turns in sum

- collapse on 1 argument pls

- weigh

- plz no spreadinggg

- NO THEORY OR KS PLSSSS

- i stop flowing at 10 seconds grace time

Public Forum

Most importantly, have fun and enjoy the tournament!

But..

Since it is an online tournament, please try to talk slower than you normally would do at in-person tournaments. I flow on paper and listen to cross-fires as well.

Some things I look for:

• make sure your cases are well structured and easy to follow
• if you have a framework, make sure you link it to your contentions
• contentions should have either logic or evidence to support your claims
• please include impacts in your case
• if you are refuting to opponent's case, make sure you let me know which contention/argument you are refuting to and explain your logic or include evidence to support it
• try to weigh your impacts and clearly explain why your impacts outweigh your opponent's
• please refrain from adding new contention at summary speech
• I should hear voters at final focus. Tell me why your team won!

Coming from a dominantly PF/Parli background, I'm comfortable with most things so long as debaters let me know beforehand.

Want to spread?

A-okay, just let me know.

Off time roadmap?

A-okay, just let me know.

Self time prep?

A-okay, just let me know.

Anything else?

Just let me know and we can talk it out.

The only things that I'm nitpicky about are intelligibility when speaking and timing for crossfire. Otherwise, it'll be round-by-round what I'm looking for in the debaters. Don't worry about what you think I'll want to see as a judge, just do your thing.