Georgia Northern Mountain District Tournament
2022 — GA/US
Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideKhushi Afre
(she/her) - Northview (AI, AY) '21 - khushiafre25@gmail.com
Background: I had 6 TOC bids in policy debate my senior year and 11 career bid rounds.
General: Do whatever you want but if it helps, I really liked the K when I debated (mostly familiar with afropessimism, axiology, psychoanalysis, any iteration of academy, coercive mimeticism, cybernetics, settler colonialism, biopolitics, and capitalism). That being said, I think it's important judges stay tabula rasa and I try to honor that to the best of my abilities.
I'll pretty much vote on anything so long as it's ethical and debated well.
Updated for ’24-’25. If there’s anything not covered in here (tried to be as extensive as possible), just ask, but if it’s something like “are you good with counterplans” I might be v sad.
For GA State: not lay, for preffing purposes - I don't have many stylistic/presentation preferences, other than that I'm bad for cheap-shots and 1AR/2NR/2AR restarts/grandstands. I do prefer policy/K-oriented styles of debate, but you should debate however you like in front of me.
- Weighing is wonderful and a good shot at earning high speaks. I also appreciate line-by-line, solvency debates, and impact calculus.
- Something that annoys me: most of your "roadmaps" aren't helpful for me - I flow Case top-down (regardless of paper/excel sheets) and Neg positions on one sheet each (ex: 2 sheets for a DA and CP). Tell me which sheets in which order, not "the line by line" or "the rebuttal." I also get moderately annoyed when I have to jump between flows repeatedly. I do not flow "framework" or "weighing" separately in most instances.
About: 4 years of LD in a GA HS (local first then circuit), UGA ’24, ’24 (M.Ed. if it matters to you, it probably doesn’t). Have judged on the circuit and locally since 2021. Familiar enough with the resolution to know what you’re talking about, not familiar enough to know all the intricate ptx DAs. Do whatever you do best—would rather see good theory debates than bad K debates, etc.
- Pronouns: they/she.
- Yes, I want to be on the chain (chansey.agler@gmail.com), speechdrop and fileshare on tab are fine; I won’t look at google docs, PDFs are inadvisable
- Fine w flex prep
- Pls don’t try and shake my hand after the round thx in advance; ask me for permission before recording an RFD
Speaks:
- Speed is fine if you’re clear, be extra clear (start slower) when it’s the first round of the day or of the tournament, appreciate slowing down on advocacy, interp, ROB, standard/criterion texts—more signposting is good, I usually need a few seconds to switch flows—audibly saying “onto the DA” and pausing for a second in the 1AR, for example, is helpful
- Speaks are based off of efficiency, strategy, and clarity, not arbitrariness—playing behind the scenes to try and balance historic gaps in speaks, lowering them for split 2NRs
- I typically average ~28.5 relative to the pool, would usually prefer not to disclose them immediately after the round
Prefs Cheat Sheet:
Ks, Policy: 1
Philosophy*: 2-3 (*not fantastic for tricks disguised as phil)
Traditional: 3
Theory: 4
Tricks: 4
TL;DR: collapse, weigh, common sense is important, read complete arguments, do more link work
Top-level/must knows:
- Will vote on most arguments, better for policy and K arguments (method debates and clash rounds are fine). Experienced w/ philosophy but LD’s execution is hit-or-miss. Theory or tricks-heavy strats need to be complete arguments and have actual warrants. Meaningful, resolvable, complete arguments are good, hail marys are inadvisable regardless of style.
- Explanation, weighing, clash, and judge instruction are crucial. Do more resolving interactions btwn things. Yes tech > truth in that I resolve rounds based on the flow, am open to a lot of args (would prefer to see what you’re good at), but truth matters in the sense that args start at zero and go up from there and I’m not abandoning all common sense, if I didn’t understand it, I can’t vote on it.
- Most judges give awful RFDs—not listening to the round, ignoring arguments made besides what they like/don't like. Trying very hard not to be like that but there is a greater range of uncertainty in my decision when I have to do more work—explaining, doing link weighing, and resolving clash mean I can echo the 2NR/2AR and avoid decisions I am unhappy with, fine with questions but aggression/postrounding are nonstarters.
- Not a fan of frivolous/‘tabula rasa’ nonsense since I think what we do is and should be meaningful, the closer an arg gets to abhorrent or contrary to debate’s intent (think “flat earth”), the likelier it is I won’t evaluate it. Will not evaluate arguments generated exclusively by AI (unless it’s a performance about AI or something ig?).
- Not voting on -isms or discriminatory args, this includes args from hate orgs (ex: the heritage foundation). Will eval impact turns like spark, wipeout, and extinction good (read: as negative util/preserving value) but I understand why many aren’t receptive to these. Not evaluating things like ‘warming good.’ Threshold for responses is always lower the worse/edging on abhorrent the arg is.
- CX matters, you must be able to explain args to win on them, CX should never be 3 min of “what was your first contention…wouldn’t you agree…”
- Independent voters can be persuasive in the age of reading off docs and just not understanding engagement, in the age of widening ideological gaps, and the age of increasing accountability. Not everything rises to the level of independent voter, but speech acts do matter.
- Accessibility is important—lmk accommodations directly if possible, most emails go to my spam (this happened in a round), misgendering/racism/other -isms in round lead to loss of speaks and/or the ballot if egregious. I take misgendering very seriously. You and your opponent have the right to point it out and make it instant DTD, even if it happened in the 2AR. Advocating for this is exhausting. If there’s an issue of similar nature, let me know in whatever way possible.
- weigh <3
Lincoln-Douglas
Policy
- Probably most comfortable judging this, fair game for most things, though I will say I prefer topic DAs (esp w/ specific links to the plan) to generic ptx, not wild about tangential extinction impacts (do we really need to read ‘extinction’ on a topic like “standardized tests?”)
- Fine with specific plans and PICs, not fantastic for either extreme of the nebel T debate
- Tag and ev quality both matter—incoherent args (tags like “No China war” followed by a long card are as bad as a card highlighted to incoherence) are incoherent (this is a massive problem in LD rn and policy args are imo most affected by this), you only get credit for what’s flowed, do more ev weighing
- I think inserting re-highlighting is fine if it’s from portions of ev already read, must be aloud if it’s a different portion even if from the same article
- I think zero risk is a thing, CX can do a lot of work here too
- Like good impact turns, ev quality is necessary, innovation makes for some interesting debates, stale impact turns like the same version of spark every round are bad
- Yes internal link weighing—contest probability, timeframe, etc., makes my ballot easier when both sides impact to extinction
- 1NC needs to do more competition work in LD, love good perm debates but 10 “perm do both” analytics aren’t it
- Judge kick seems bad, 2NRs should learn to make strategic choices, won’t not eval it but definitely receptive to “it’s arbitrary”
- Case debates are great debates, do more solvency/link turns and not just 1 min of impact D after spraying 6 off (2NRs on case are always welcome btw)
- In LD, you should still warrant util/SV in the 1AC—the 1NC should always go for an NC if this isn’t the case
- If evenly debated, ground > limits for T; Aff on CP competition, Neg on CP theory; condo good; semantic controls pragmatic
- “You get ptx” or “we want ptx” isn’t great as an explanation of models for T, other than that, good for T interps that delineate models of debate and go for topic lit/controversy, 2AR must extend case if T was the 2NR, if you’re reading “X school’s Aff is the TVA,” explain what that means
- Not very moved by tournament dates, popularity, etc. for T—popularity doesn’t make an Aff immune to T as a germane criticism, though functional limits are persuasive
- Bad for plan flaw unless the plan text is meaningfully different from real implementation (“this isn’t how that law works in practice” = fine, “US meaningless/no period” = please no)
Kritiks
- Very solid or very weak rounds based on the work you do to make it great, honestly much better for a more technical K debate though I do understand that performances are important too
- I try to be familiar with a decent variety of lit but I do not guarantee I know the intricate details of your lit base (most familiar with queer theory), you should still explain args as if I do not have a base understanding, have voted from things like psychoanalysis to a simple cap K and back, you do you if you can explain it
- Not familiar with denser critiques of IR, happy to judge these but I’m unlikely to understand it without the 1NC doing some work here
- Have devoted a lot of focus in particular to queer and trans lit—don’t go for it just to go for it, higher threshold to win it when “state bad” is your only link, these lit bases are indebted to Blackness in their resistance strategies (this seems most relevant in methods debates)
- Ks of discourse – be reasonable, policing is bad, racism and other forms of abhorrent discourse are also bad
- Non-T Affs are completely fine, just have a relevant ballot story and do ‘something’ (don’t care what that ‘something’ looks like though—very low threshold here)—I do also enjoy creative visions of affirmation and like Affs that innovate
- FW teams are getting away with murder. Blitzing 13 "ballots don't impact subject formation" is much less persuasive than developing "clash outweighs" and collapsing to that in the 2nr.
- Presumption and case pushes are good against K affs (more than a few short analytics)—a lot of teams fall short in explaining what the Aff does, what it endorses, ballot key, etc.—doing work at these levels treats the Aff like an Aff and makes for better rounds than “fiat is good because I prefer policy debates”
- Have judged a bit of K v. K rounds, K aff v. cap K is usually straightforward but otherwise, do a lot more “turns/solves case” and work on the perm than just “root cause,” resolving work is key—the two Ks aren’t usually a criticism of the same thing so perms that demonstrate interactions or resolve “perms in a methods debate” are more convincing than 5 brief versions of “perm do both”
- Not a fan of the “perm double bind”
Independent Voters
- I tend to view these as pressing concerns that must override substance, I think debaters are oftentimes too quick to throw out “auto-drop” or “repugnant” warrants without explaining DTD implications, but I also think problematic discourse is terrible—very receptive to things like misgendering as an IVI, less to things like “this is independent” if it’s a reps turn or something that should be resolved substantively; I find that many independent voters fall short of DTD and seem more DTA—for example, “legal definitions bad” seems like DTA
- Theory args (condo, CP legitimacy, etc.) =/= independent voters, idk why these are lumped together ngl
Framework (Policy v. K)
- Policy teams that go for “ToP doesn’t explain everything, prefer particularized methods on this issue” along with “state engagement good on this issue” do much better than those that rely on generics
- Aff FW v. K: a) start resolving “weigh case” vs. “debate is about discourse” much earlier, b) “extinction o/w” is overused and avoids clash, c) I honestly don’t usually understand most “procedural fairness” args on their own and so impacting the deficit to fairness is necessary
- T-FW—a) not great for “planless” Affs that still defend the rez in LD (e.g., a Kant AC), b) state engagement being better for movements and solving case is really enjoyable, “rez is worth debating” is good if applicable, c) 1-off FW strategies that devote most of the 1NC time to answering the Aff are honestly really enjoyable because of depth of clash (but spending like 5 min on FW is probably a mistake)
Philosophy
- Pretty familiar with analytical ethical phil, limited familiarity with continental, quicker to understand the former (if it’s like Levinas I can probably understand what you’re saying but if it’s really esoteric then you should err on the side of overexplaining esp in CX), I like good FW debates but bad ones usually hurt my head
- Kinda like policy v. phil, judging a lot more of this than I used to, though I would prefer more normative reasons to reject a FW than truth-testing or canned induction fails
- Explain your theory of ethical good, explain the application of Kantian ethics instead of just going “that’s coercive, can’t do it”—I’ll listen to things like “taxation always bad” if that’s the logical conclusion of your FW, but that rarely seems to be the case—I think CX is important in these debates
- Won’t hack for epistemic/ethical modesty but I also won’t disregard high risk of extinction purely bc there’s clash at the framing level
- Not huge on phil ACs that also read a util advantage or phil ACs/NCs that get super tricky
- Unlikely to vote on FWs I can’t explain back to you or that are extremely circular to the point of uselessness—performativity and constitutivism warrants are often culprits here
- I do not want to hear source Kant. If other cards are outdated and constantly need bracketing for things like gendered language, perhaps it is time for revision
- TJFs: a) I understand the necessity for them in circuit contexts, though they usually don’t make sense unless util is in play, b) most TJFs are poorly warranted, explain why analytics or carded offense are good/bad, c) phil ed loss? maybe? idk that’s for you to decide
- Impact-justified frameworks are probably bad
- AFC/ACC: this is debate. clash is a thing and good and args that deny clash make me sad.
Traditional LD
- I started trad and understand it, I only vote off the flow (not “who spoke better”), if you only have lay experience, just be aware that I understand the topic, debate, and a variety of styles—it doesn’t mean “read something crazy for the sake of it.” Unless definitions of words are relevant to the debate (aka topicality), just debate substance. The Aff is not bound to a “plan,” but solvency is a germane question, and you can’t just say “it’s LD.”
- The 1NC must engage with the Aff, not doing so means I’m voting Aff because the Neg has the burden of rejoinder, 1NCs are weirdly orienting themselves to very little case coverage nowadays
- I do not want to hear cases that read like an essay
- Yes I disclose, ask questions in-person
- Ev comparison, weighing, and analysis are good in these rounds—it is not enough to say “x matters,” tell me why x/y matters more, don’t just restate things, grandstanding is unhelpful
- FWs should have warrants and not be “upholding my side of the rez,” explain why util or Kant or whatever is true
-Do not read "constitutionality" as a framework. Reconsider reading something often construed to antiqueerness in front of a queer judge.
- If there’s no clash at the FW level, just concede FW and move on, two people can agree on a metric and disagree on the best action under it, I guarantee I will be happier if I see an in-depth DA + case debate in trad than bad FW debate
- Trad v. circuit: circuit teams should explain their args (esp in CX, not explaining means I’m skeptical of your understanding of the arg), simplifying is good (1-off, case for Ks and 2-3 off w/o procedurals for policy = good), not penalizing trad teams for not understanding circuit norms like disclosure, not penalizing circuit teams for playing the game (ex: if it’s a late prelim/elim and you go 5-off, more sympathetic than early prelims)
- Say the name of the card before what you cut, don’t paraphrase ev, made-up ev = auto-L, brackets that modify meaning = L
- Shenanigans like “they had no value/criterion” if they conceded FW or did something like reading a K will not make me happy (pls don’t mansplain LD to me…)
- “they were abusive” – what’s abusive, do I drop the argument or the debater, how do I rectify this, why do I care (theory >>> “this is abusive” with no warrant/impact)
- Trad debaters can respect in-round safety too, this does cost ballots (overt racism and antiqueerness has made a resurgence in locals again), will penalize this stuff even if there’s not an argument made
- No set lens on the rez (Aff should do something but idk what “something” is), debaters’ dismissal of things like Ks =/= reasons to reject on my flow, if you think Affs should debate the topic, argue they should—read T-FW and not NCs that don’t engage
- Yes, I’m fine with CPs, but most “counterplans” in lay rounds don’t make sense to me tbh—pls endorse a singular, counter-course of action w/ actual ev that the CP solves Aff offense—don’t read an abstract counter-claim—I won’t vote on CPs I don’t understand
Theory
- Have judged a reasonable amount of theory, highly dependent on execution, needs more weighing btwn standards and i/l weighing to fairness/ed—resolvability is key and otherwise I tend to defer to substance and/or presumption—deficits to fairness are rarely weighed (ex: neg flex vs. PICs stealing Aff offense)
- Better for policy theory than LD-style strategic/friv theory, make the abuse story and model clearer (condo always bad? what’s allowed?), if I can’t draw the line btwn speeches, unlikely to vote on it (10 second condo args don’t make for good 3 min 2Ars)
- DTA + reasonability are often persuasive, beating back paradigm issues in general is often persuasive
- Bad for friv and abstract theory, clear and specific interps are easier for me to eval, won’t eval stuff abt opp’s appearance or similar, use common sense, not very good for “URL theory” or “punching theory” or other things circulating rn
- Combo shells are both arbitrary and strategic against spiky affs
- I prefer that you do explicitly extend uncontested paradigm issues but that you not be annoying abt it
- Don’t use theory to shut out tough convos
- Not a fan of “must include links to circuit debater” or the like
- Lots of shells = usually unstrategic, more than 2 and I usually question your strategic decisions
- Not flowing new 2AR theory args unless the 2NR was abusive (“strike it from the flow” will suffice too)
- Have voted for RVIs in the past, not entirely opposed to voting for them per se but I think substance is usually easier to resolve given the lack of weighing or resolving done in these kinds of rounds, and RVIs are usually not well-warranted or extended
- Misdisclosure is tough, I need: a) SLOW DOWN and tell me what was ASKED FOR and what was GIVEN—I eval screenshots from both ends, b) standards that tie into this difference, c) DTD warrants (why not drop an analytic if that’s what you’re indicting?)
Disclosure
- Disclosure is good on balance but I’m not huge on disclosure theory esp when the violation gets more contrived—as of late I think reading disclosure theory is a mandate for equality over equity and I’m pretty receptive to exceptions to the rule, policy v. policy is where I am most persuaded by it and K rounds least so
- Don’t need to disclose performances or similar materials (narratives probably fall under this umbrella)
- Not voting on this at a local. Y’all haven’t figured out how to format a doc, let alone use the wiki.
- New Affs bad is not my favorite arg but I’ll hear you—go for better warrants over generics, skip “can’t engage” if you put a lot of answers on case, “new Affs justify some level of Neg abuse” >> DTD, the joke “I prepped for “it’s new”” was maybe funny once in like 2019
Tricks
- I honestly do not understand TT as much as you probably want me to if I’m in the back, ELI5 for most arguments that aren't ethical paradoxes (will vote on things like trivialism, it's just that debaters rarely explain it in a way that can pick up my ballot)
- Okay-ish for things like ethical paradoxes and maybe epistemic ones (one-card “skep Ks” are a nonstarter but gettier problems can be cool), not big on strategies designed to avoid clash—not a fan of sweeping theory spikes or “disregard the flow” that are tricky in nature, much worse for theory tricks than things like paradoxes
- Warrants are key, if I can't explain it back to you based on what was said in-round, it doesn't get the ballot
- If permissibility/presumption are triggered, I would prefer that you also explain why either one affirms and then ELI5
- If you want paradoxes to take out a framework, you have to devote time to them
- Bad for crazy logic paradoxes, I cannot flow a million Ps and Qs or understand an equation in the context of an LD round
- Slews of analytics are hard for me to flow, slow way down if the 1AC/1NC is loaded
- I evaluate all speeches in a given round, the exceptions do not usually come from tricks
Evidence Ethics (all events)
- I'll eval both theory and ev ethics challenges, the latter stops the round and winner gets a W, loser gets low speaks, theory plays out like any other theory debate
- If it's an ev ethics challenge, everyone needs to be silent and I’m looking over everything, if coaches/debaters try and sway this after the challenge, it’s an auto-L
- For clipping: I tend to not flow off the doc—this means I need a recording and definitive proof (beyond just a line or so)
Misc Stuff
- LD Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence – I have no defaults on theory (make arguments), permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, though presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy – it is MUCH easier to convince me that presumption affirms than permissibility
- I don’t care if you sit or stand—just be clear
CONFLICTS:
All entries – Sequoyah HS (GA), Perry HS (AZ), Ivy Bridge Academy (GA), Dean Rusk MS (GA)
I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.
Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm
What I Like
I've gotten a few notes from debaters that my paradigm is mostly about what I don't want to see, rather than what I do. In an attempt to remedy that, here is what I enjoy in a debate round.
Evidence Debate - I love when debaters actually engage with the internal warrants of their opponents evidence and arguments. Point out contradictions between pieces of evidence, expose evidence that is too specific or too general to apply, call out evidence that is just claims rather than warrants. Any engagement with evidence beyond "my opponent's evidence is wrong because my evidence is right" will greatly increase your chance of winning my ballot.
Meaningful Framework Debate - I love when debaters pick and choose their battles on framework and clearly impact the results of the framework debate to how I should evaluate impacts in the round. You will not lose my ballot solely for conceding your opponent's framework. Not all rounds need to have a framework debate, even with different values/value criteria, if those frameworks evaluate impacts in roughly the same way or if both debaters have the same impacts in the round (eg, people dying). Debaters who recognize that and focus on the areas of framework that will actually change how I judge arguments, then follow up with an explanation of what I should look for in evaluating the round based on that change will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.
Internal Consistency - I love when debaters commit to their positions. Many arguments, especially the more unusual philosophical arguments require commitment to a whole host of concomitant beliefs and positions. Embrace that. If someone points out that utilitarianism requires defending the interests of the majority over the minority, be willing to defend that position. If someone points out that Kantianism doesn't permit you to lie to a murderer, don't backtrack - explain it. Don't be afraid to say that extinction does not outweigh everything else. Conversely, if you argue that prediction of the future is impossible in order to answer consequentialism and then cite scientific authors to support your claims, I will be much less likely to believe your position. A debater who is committed and consistent in their ethical position will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.
Argument by Analogy - I love when debaters use analogies to explain or clarify their own positions, or to expose inconsistencies, absurd statements or flaws in their opponents arguments. I think analogies are underutilized as a method of analytical argumentation and debaters willing to use analogies to explain or undermine arguments have a much better chance of winning my ballot.
Comparative Weighing - I love when debaters specifically compare impacts when weighing in the round. Rarely does a debater win every single argument in the round and weighing significantly assists me in making a decision when there are multiple impacts for both sides. While I like weighing arguments in the vein of "This argument outweighs all others in the round" more than no weighing at all, a more specific and nuanced analysis along the lines of "this argument outweighs that argument for these reasons" (especially when it explains the weighing in the specific context of the framework) will give a debater a much better chance of winning my ballot.
Disclosure
I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card in which case I will ask to see evidence after the round.
Speed
I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.
Flex Prep
No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.
LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no action, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate. As with other arguments, I will evaluate a LARP round but will have a low-threshold to vote on evidentiary arguments, link/brink severance, and framework exclusion.
Evidence Ethics
I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if no argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.
Arguments
Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.
Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.
Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world or in debate. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts. That said, I will vote on pre-fiat Ks - a good metric for my preference is whether your link is specific to the aff's performance in this round or if it could link to any affirmative case on the topic (or any topic). If you're calling out specific parts of the affirmative performance, that's fine.
Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.
Topicality: Totally fine to run. I have a slight bias towards genericist positions over specificist ones, eg "a means any" rather than "a means one".
Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA because it doesn't link to the aff.
Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.
Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts because performance cannot be erased.
Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.
Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to risk of offense.
Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true and the alts are often unclear. I will vote on them but run at your own risk.
Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.
Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments. I don't believe that disclosure as a norm is beneficial to debate and I see it used to exclude non-circuit debaters far more often than I see debaters who are genuinely unable to engage because they could not predict their opponent's arguments.
Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.
Speaker Points
Since I've gotten some questions about this..
I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.
25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.
26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.
27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.
28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.
30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.
Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.
While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.
Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.
Judging style
If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.
Public Forum Paradigm
Frameworks
I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.
Topicality
I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".
Theory
Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.
Counterplans
No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.
Kritiks
No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.
Burden Interpretations
The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.
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
~~~
PF: I prefer that PF stays as close to it's original intent (in terms of the use of debate 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.
My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)
Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I think it is especially important to make sure cases are comprehensible. I look at speech docs if something only if evidence is questioned. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed. Please keep all this in mind if you normally utilize speedy delivery.
Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.
The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing and I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.
Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.
In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.
I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!
I am fine with almost any speed (don’t spread). I will evaluate my ballot on the basis of cost benefit analysis unless I am given reason in the round vote otherwise - I do not flow crossfire, so if it is important, mention it in your next speech. On a different note, I like to see arguments that have real world impact, so in addition to statistics, I want to know how these statistics effect people// in other words, paint a picture, dont just tell me stats.
Background about me: I am a former pf debater 4 years, and I currently debate at Yale University.
Please treat me like a lay judge.
I will vote on arguments I find more persuasive
**I am functionally retired from debate as of May 2024. I may come back to judge as favors every once in awhile. This will hopefully be rare. Be warned :)**
Put me in email chains or feel free to email me questions: JamieSuzDavenport@Gmail.com
I probably should do an overhaul of my paradigm; it will likely not happen. Seriously just AMA if it will help you going into the round.
Education/Debate Experience:
MPA-MSES @ IU Dec ’23, hoo hoo hoo Hoosiers. CX GA '21-'24.Please note this is an environmental science degree. I have a very low tolerance for climate denial or global warming good and would recommend not going for those args.
BA: IR, Fr, Arabic @ Samford, May ’20, ruff ‘em, CX and novice coaching
HS: LD in GA, ‘16
Misc:
A note: I won't read cards unless instructed or seeking clarity (and if this is the case, I will be grumpy). All comments will be typed in the ballot and am open to questions immediately following the round and via email afterward. I do my best not to intervene or let personal biases cloud my judgment. I do have a deep appreciation for friendly competition and will generally be happier while giving out speaks or making decisions if I think the people in the round embodied that spirit. Conversely, am not afraid to have a come-to-Jesus meeting for unnecessary antagonism.
For eTournaments: I'll need a little more time than normal to adjust to your style of speaking/spreading because online anything gets tricky. Try to keep that in mind for your speeches so my ears can adjust. I'll default to having my camera on.
Zoom debate: PLEASE double-check your mic settings so that background noise suppression is not on. Zoom decides that spreading is background noise and it messes with the audio.
Overall:
Do what you want. I'm pretty go-with-the-flow and will try to adapt to what the round is versus making you adapt to me. The main thing to consider with me is my personal debate experience and potential knowledge gaps because of it. I'm not a great judge for high theory because I simply don't get it and it takes more explaining for me to understand and take it seriously (@ Baudrillard, semio-cap, etc.). There's some k lit that I'm not fully versed in but I try to keep current on major issues. Otherwise go nuts but make good choices.
2AR/NR: I more and more find myself telling debaters to tell me a story so I think I should put it in here. Whether you're going for a K, FW, DAs, extinction - whatever - start the speech telling me what your scenario is and why it's preferable to the other team. This is especially true if going for a perm or in a KvK debate, having a nuanced explanation clearly at the top of the speech frames the rest of the lbl and interactions you go for.
This was formerly organized by each event that I judge but that was getting unmanageable and ugly. If you have specific questions about anything event-specific or otherwise, just email or ask before the round starts.
Theory
Topicality/FW - I'll default that fairness is k2 education – if you want a different standard to be my primary metric, just tell me to do the thing. Might need more explanation of how I can apply the standard but that’s mostly for the atypical ones. Err on the side of over-explaining everything. Please please please explain your (counter)interp and what standards I should apply to favor yours - if there are a bunch of standards, which one do I evaluate first? Why? To reiterate: err on the side of over-explaining everything.
Fiat - I'll imagine it's real for policy v policy debates but more than willing to be sus of it, just tell me why.
Condo – dispo is an archaic interp and I think you can get better offense from other brightlines (2, what they did minus 1, etc.). I’ll vote on dispo but it’ll take more for you to win it than you need to do. Generally, think condo gets to its extremes when in the 3-4+ area, but new affs could change that yadda yadda, do what you want.
Other theory – whatever, just make the interp/counter-interp clear and tell me what to do with it.
RVI’s – please strike me or pref me real real low if this is your thing. I just don’t like it. This is one of if not the only hard-line I draw on content. They’re a time suck to play weird chess instead of engaging in the substance of the debate. Also, the majority of the time, horribly explained/extended.
Content
No huge preferences here
Cross-ex - I don’t flow cx unless something spicy grabs my attention and it’s usually obvious when that happens based on my reaction. Bring it up in a speech to remind me. Open cross, flex prep, is fine – I for real check out for flex prep.
Card clipping – you’ll lose. Might report it to tab/your coach if I’m feeling zesty that day.
Silliness
Love a good joke, wordplay, or reference. I currently am trying to incorporate “slay”, “yeehaw”, “gaslight gatekeep girlboss” and more into my regular debate vernacular. Feel free to also use these and I’ll at least laugh, maybe boost speaks, who knows – depends on how much of a silly goofy mood I’m in.
I want to hear clear impacts in summary and final focus with a strong explanation for why you have won the round. Make your logical links clear and don't assume that I'm familiar with your cards or evidence. Extend your most important arguments, and tell me how I should weigh the round. The quality of your rhetoric is more important than the sheer amount of information you can throw at me. Don't rely too much on speed. If I can't understand you, I can't flow your arguments, and if your opponents can't understand you, we can't have an exciting debate. I don't flow cross, and I will not make my decision based on anything new presented in final focus.
If you're running an email chain, please add me: Andrewgollner@gmail.com
he/him
About me: I debated one year of PF and three years of policy at Sequoyah High, and I debated three year of college policy at the University of Georgia. I was a 2N that generally runs policy offcase positions but, especially earlier in my debate career, I ran many critical positions. I'll try to be expressive during the round so that you can discern how I am receiving your arguments.
Judge Preferences: On a personal level, please be kind to your opponents. I dislike it when a team is unnecessarily rude or unsportsmanlike. I am completely willing to discuss my decision about a round in between rounds, so please ask me if you want me to clarify my decision or would like advice. You can email me any questions you have.
FOR PF/LD:
I am primarily a policy judge. This means
- I am more comfortable with a faster pace. While I don't like the idea of spreading in PF and LD I can handle a faster pace.
2. I am decently technical. If an argument is dropped point it out, make sure I can draw a clean line through your speeches.
3. I am less used to theory backgrounds in your form of debate, slow down and explain these.
4. Ask me any specific questions you have.
FOR POLICY:
I recognize that my role is to serve as a neutral arbiter without predispositions towards certain arguments, but as this goal is elusive the following are my gut reactions to positions. I strive to ensure that any position (within reason, obviously not obscene or offensive) is a possible path to victory in front of myself.
CP: I love a well written CP which is tailored to your opponent's solvency advocate and that can be clearly explained and is substantiated by credible evidence. If your CP is supported by 1AC solvency evidence, I will be very impressed. Generic CPs are fine, I've read a ton of them, but the more you can at least explain your CP in the context of the affirmative's advantages the more likely you are to solve for their impact scenarios.
DA: Make sure to give a quick overview of the story during the neg block to clarify the intricacies of your position. If, instead of vaguely tagline making a turns case arg like "climate turns econ, resource shortages", you either read and later extend a piece of evidence or spend 10 to 15 seconds analytically creating a story of how climate change exasperates resource shortages and causes mass migrations which strain nation's financial systems, then I will lend far more risk to the disadvantage turning the case. Obviously the same goes for Aff turns the DA. I will also weigh smart analytical arguments on the disad if the negative fails to contest it properly. I'm also very persuaded when teams contest the warrants of their opponents evidence or point out flaws within their opponents evidence, whether it's a hidden contradiction or an unqualified author.
T: I've rarely gone for topicality but I have become increasingly cognizant of incidents in which I likely should have. My gut reaction is that competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, but I have personally seen many affirmatives which stray far enough from the topic to warrant a debate centered over the resolution in that instance.
K: I used to run Ks pretty frequently in high school but I run them far less frequently now. I'm likely not deep in your literature base so be sure to explain your position and your link story clearly.
FW: My gut feeling is that debate is a game and that it should be fair, but I have seen many rounds where the affirmative team has done an excellent job of comparing the pedagogy of both models and won that their model is key for X type of education or accessibility there of. However, I am persuaded that a TVA only needs to provide reasonable inroads to the affirmatives research without necessarily having to actually solve for all of the affirmative. I do find the response that negs would only read DAs and ignore/"outweigh" the case to be effective - try to add some nuance to this question of why negs would or wouldn't still need to grapple with the case.
Non-traditional Aff: I've always run affs with USFG plan texts, but that doesn't mean that these positions are non-starters. I will be much more receptive to your affirmative if it is intricately tied to the topic area, even if it does refuse to engage the resolution itself for whichever reasons you provide.
Theory: I generally think 2 condo is good, more than that and things start to get a bit iffy.
Most importantly, please be kind to your opponents and have a good time.
Jeffrey Miller
Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- Institute for Speech & Debate (2024-present), National Debate Forum (2015-2023), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)
jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)
Last Updated -- 10/8/2024 for 2024-2025 season
Overview
I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is no another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does.
I wear a lot of hats as a debate coach - I am heavily involved in argument creation and strategy discussions with all levels of our public forum teams (middle school, novice and varsity). I work closely with our extemp students working on current events, cutting cards and listening to speeches. I work closely with our interp students on their pieces - from cutting them to blocking them. I work closely with platform students working with them to strategically think about integrating research into their messages.
I have been involved with the PF topic wording committee for the past eight years so any complaints (or compliments) about topics are probably somewhat in my area. I take my role on the committee seriously trying to let research guide topics and I have a lot of thoughts and opinions about how debates under topics should happen and while I try to not let those seep into the debates, there is a part of me that can't resist the truth of the topic lit.
As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.
What does a good debate look like?
In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).
The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.
What role does theory play in good debates?
I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable and I probably err that they silence a majority of debaters.
All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers and "our coach doesn't allow us" is not an answer.
I am not your judge if you want to read things like font theory or other frivilous items.
I am also not persauded by many IVI's. IVI's (like RVI's) are an example of bad early 2000's policy debate. Teams should just make arguments against things and not have to read an 'independent voting issue' in order for me to flag it to vote on the argument. Implicate your arguments and I will vote.
Do teams need to advocate the topic?
Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves.
Links of omission are not persuasive - teams need to identify real links for all of their positions.
In terms of the progressive debates I've watched, judged or talked about, it seems like there is a confusion about structural violence - and teams conflate any impact with marginalized group as a SV impact. This is disappointing to watch and if reading claims about SV - the constructive should also be explicit about what structures the aff/neg makes worse that implicate the violence.
Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).
How should evidence exchange work?
Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order).
Rebuttals should also probably be emailed in order to check evidence being read.
When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.
Evidence should be attached in a document, not in the text of an email. It is annoying to have to "view more" every single time. Just attach a document.
If you send me a locked/uneditable google doc, I will give you the lowest points available at the tournament.
What effects speaker points?
I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.
This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.
I am an Engineer with several tournaments experience at Varsity PF judging. I like a narrative approach where you lay out the framework of your case even if it comes down to a technical RFD. I rely heavily upon evidence-based arguments and impacts. Don't argue that 100's of millions will die by nuclear war if it is a non-unique argument or you have not even presented a good probability we are headed in that direction.
If you have not won me over by the start of Final Focus, you better layout all the reasons why I should vote for AFF or NEG. Lead me to a decision.
The narrative isn't the only thing I consider, but try to be cohesive... i.e. connect the dots.
A few notes:
- You will never lose the round for being a JERK in cross, but I will give you low speaker points. Rudeness or excessive sarcasm is not rewarded here. Equity in all forms is expected.
- Weigh! Weigh! Weigh! I'm not going to catch everything so I need you to give some sort of weighing mechanisms and have valid probabilities for your impacts.
- I can take speed but do not spread. I will say "clear" or "Speed" twice and then I stop flowing altogether.
- If you go slightly over time that's OK, but keep it under 10-secs.
- 2nd rebuttal must front line.
- Speak up a little, I can't hear well (no, I am not kidding). I will miss most of what you say if you speak to me from behind your laptop. Beware of over-sized lecterns if you need a stand for your laptop.
- Time yourselves, please. Don't steal prep time just because we are ONLINE.
PS: Don't get too comfortable entering the room. After the coin toss, I prefer PRO on my left. Yes, I realize this does not apply in an ONLINE environment.
Head coach at the Vancouver Debate Academy. PF, Worlds, Congress experience; taught all of 'em plus LD, BP, CNDF, and the speech formats.
So, I enter my rounds tabula rasa, meaning that I enter without prior knowledge or experience being weighed. Just because I heard something in a past round or I know something to be true, doesn't mean that I'll weigh it in this round. Now, if you tell me the sky is green, I'll know you're lying. I'm not gonna let y'all walk all over me. But I won't hold what you should've said or should've argued against you. You give me the material, and I decide which I buy more. That's who wins.
Also, don't be rude. You don't have to kill each other to win a debate round!
We Out Here.
Background: I did PF debate throughout high school, and judged after I graduated. Most recently, while I was in law school, I coached the Notre Dame Parliamentary Debate Team, and taught an intro to debate and public speaking class.
Theory: Go for it, if you want, but the argument needs to be clear and concise. Also, in general, I am wary of using theory in PF debate because the topic has been chosen for a reason.
Organization: Please make it clear what contentions you are arguing/rebutting, just makes it easier to flow.
Cross-Fire: Though I do pay attention, I do not flow it—so if something important happens bring it up in a speech.
Summary Speeches: I don't consider brand new arguments raised during the summary speeches. I just don't think it's fair because the other team will not have adequate time to respond.
Final Focus: Supposed to be a summary, give me your voters and make them clear. Tell me why I am voting for you.
Decision: I vote based on the flow, so do not drop arguments, and be sure to offer rebuttals against all your opponents' arguments, and impacts. If the flow/impact debate is not clear, I will consider the quality of the presentation and/or the evidence relied on. However, if the teams agree (or one team offers and the other concedes to) a framework, I will vote based on which team fulfilled the framework.
One last thing: Let's all be respectful, remember we are all real human beings behind the screens.
RAP Paradigm:
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 counterproductive. It's much more helpful to pay attention, and react, to your opponent's arguments than to be writing your next speech during the round.
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. Please do not present evidence from biased sources, e.g., don't quote from Osama bin Laden or Fox "News."
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 public-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 because this is not only easier to follow but also better for you. 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. When refuting an argument, don't waste time by repeating it extensively and thereby reinforcing it.
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, not using all of your time (particularly during speeches but also during questioning) 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 (or after the round has ended), or asserting without specificity that "We won everything" or "They dropped everything," etc. Also, 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.
Questioning. If you want to improve as a debater--at any level--the biggest bang for your buck is to prepare effective questions. Yes, that means having a list of sequential questions prepared in advance, based on anticipated arguments; you can clash by selecting from among these as well as developing additional questions in round.
My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF primarily and judge L-D predominantly. 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 AP courses such as History and ELA as well as SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.
The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. (I try not to judge Policy because I still value persuasive delivery; exchanging cases is no substitute for that.) Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:
PF—
--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 three-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.
--Do not waste my time, and try to extend yours, by overindulging in asking for evidence.
--I'm not a fan of "frontloading," and it makes no sense whatsoever to do so in the 2AC when your side is the first to speak.
--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.
--I flow crossfire and highly value pointed, yes/no-type questions; if your opponent is giving a speech rather than asking a question, you may politely interrupt.
L-D—
--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. The trite pain/pleasure quote is seldom on point and time better spent elsewhere.
--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions. In fact, quite the contrary.
--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”).
--Leave plenty of time (e.g., 2 1/2 minutes or more) in the Neg Constructive for refutation; not doing this is the biggest reason why Negs lose in L-D. Likewise, I'm not a fan of "frontloading" in the 1AR anyway, and do so at your peril unless you leave plenty of time (e.g., 2 1/2 minutes or more) in that speech for refutation.
--I flow crossfire and highly value pointed, yes/no-type questions; if your opponent is giving a speech rather than asking a question, you may politely interrupt.
--Even though you are not required to present a formal, detailed plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.
Congress--
--I worked on Capitol Hill for two summers, once for a Senator and once for a Congressman, when oratorical skills were valued. Please treat the event with respect.
--A good Congress speech is like a mini-Extemp speech: hook; organize and number your reasons; use qualified evidence (quotes, data) in support; circle back to hook.
--Clash is critical, as in any form of debate; unless yours is the sponsorship speech, refer to previous speakers.
--I keep track not only of speeches but also of questions, especially strong ones.
--Do not try to curtail debate prematurely; give others the opportunity to speak.
I like philosophy and theory. I don't like spreading.
Welcome!
I am new to judging but I was a debater in high school and undergrad. I competed in LD, Extemp, and British Parliamentary.
Lincoln-Douglas has a long history based in politics and we all know politicians don’t debate the facts. Because of this, LD is a value debate above all else. Of course, your evidence is important and you can’t win without good cards but, I really believe the round is more rewarding if the main focus is on value. Use all of your time, including prep time, even if you don’t feel like you need it. I don’t flow the specifics of cross-ex because you should bring up the information in later speeches. I will make notes on the quality of your cross-examination so be respectful and ask good questions.
I can deal with spreading but keep in mind that I flow by hand and if I can’t write down your argument, I can’t judge it. One of my favorite things about the debate world is the confidence it brings out in people. Even if you’re nervous, speak clearly and at an appropriate volume. Since we’re online I don’t expect you to stand but I still expect you to present to me.
I will give constructive criticism to the best of my ability at the end of the round.
Good luck!
EMAIL: ishitakvaish@gmail.com
Good luck debating! Remember to relax and enjoy the tournament. Debate can be stressful and cause anxiety, so don’t forget it is an education and enjoyable activity. I have debated throughout high school in Varsity Lincoln-Douglas. I am a traditional debater. 4th year at Georgia Tech - Go Jackets!
LD
Framework: This is so important - it needs to be extended in every speech because it ultimately tells me how to evaluate the impacts in this round.
Contention-Level Preferences: I will vote for Kritiks, topicality, and counter plans. However, I have a strong evidence standard and expect to see well cut evidence in round if you plan to read any of these. I may also call to see cards at the end of a round to evaluate the round.
Cross-Ex: I do not listen during cross or voted based on cross. If something comes up in cross-ex that you want on my flow, you need to bring it up during the speech. Cross-Ex is your time to ask each other, but be polite or I will dock speaker points.
Speed/Spreading: Do not spread. If I cannot understand you, then I won’t have everything on my flow due to the lack of clarity in your speech. Clarity always trumps speed.
Stand while making speeches. You can sit or stand during cross. Do not speak rudely to me or to your opponents - it will affect speaker points.
Policy:
I have judged both LD and Public Forum before, but I am relatively new to judging policy. Please talk clearly and avoid spreading if possible. When you send out speech docs, they should match your speech. If you cut a card half way through, say "cut card" and move on to the next. I will not flow cross-ex, so if there is anything important said in cross-ex, then take the time to point it out in the following speech. Finally, if I cannot understand you, I will yell clear, type in the chat, raise my hand, etc. If I still cannot understand, I will stop flowing and judge the round based on what I flowed. Please time yourself. My timer will be the final say, but having your own timer is highly suggested to help pace yourself. Please give a road map before every speech. If you have any questions, please let me know!
Judge Philosophy
Name: Lisa Willoughby
Current Affiliation: Midtown High School formerly Henry W. Grady High School
Conflicts: AUDL teams
Debate Experience: 1 year debating High School 1978-79, Coaching High School 1984-present
How many rounds have you judged in 2012-13: 50, 2013-2014: 45, 2015-2016: 25, 2016-17 15, 2017-2018: 30, 2018-19: 30, 2019-20:10, 2020-21: 40, 2021-2022: 35, 2022-2023:6
send evidence e-mail chain to quaintt@aol.com
I still view my self as a policy maker unless the debaters specify a different role for my ballot. I love impact comparison between disadvantages and advantages, what Rich Edwards used to call Desirability. I don’t mind the politics disad, but I am open to Kritiks of Politics.
I like Counterplans, especially case specific counterplans. I certainly think that some counterplans are arguably illegitimate; for example, I think that some international counterplans are utopian, and arguably claim advantages beyond the reciprocal scope of the affirmative, and are, therefore, unfair. I think that negatives should offer a solvency advocate for all aspects of their counterplan, and that multi-plank cps are problematic. I think that there are several reasons why consultation counterplans, and the States CP could be unfair. I will not vote unilaterally on any of these theoretical objections; the debaters need to demonstrate for me why a particular counterplan would be unfair.
I have a minor in Philosophy, and love good Kritik debate. Sadly, I have seen a lot of bad Kritik debate. I think that K debaters need to have a strong understanding of the K authors that they embrace. I really want to understand the alternative or the role of my ballot. I have no problem with a K Aff, but am certainly willing to vote on Framework/T against a case that does not have at least a clear advocacy statement that I can understand. I am persuadable on "AFF must be USFG."
I like Topicality, Theory and Framework arguments when they are merited. I want to see fair division of ground or discourse that allows both teams a chance to prepare and be ready to engage the arguments.
I prefer substance to theory; go for the theoretical objections when the abuse is real.
As for style, I love good line-by-line debate. I adore evidence comparison, and argument comparison. I am fairly comfortable with speed, but I like clarity. I have discovered that as I get older, I am very comfortable asking the students to "clear." I enjoy humor; I prefer entertaining cross-examinations to belligerent CX. Warrant your claims with evidence or reasoning.
Ultimately, I demand civility: any rhetoric, language, performance or interactions that demean, dehumanize or trivialize fellow debaters, their arguments or judges would be problematic, and I believe, a voting issue.
An occasional interruption of a partner’s speech or deferring to a more expert partner to answer a CX question is not a problem in my view. Generally only one debater at a time should be speaking. Interruptions of partner speeches or CX that makes one partner merely a ventriloquist for the other are extremely problematic.
Clipping cards is cheating. Quoting authors or evidence out of context, or distorting the original meaning of a text or narrative is both intellectually bankrupt and unfair.
There is no such thing as one ideal form or type of debate. I love the clash of ideas and argumentation. That said, I prefer discourse that is educational, and substantive. I want to walk away from a round, as I often do, feeling reassured that the policy makers, educators, and citizens of the future will seek to do a reasonable and ethical job of running the world.
For Lincoln Douglas debates:
I am "old school" and feel most comfortable in a Value/Criterion Framework, but it is your debate to frame. Because I judge policy frequently, I am comfortable with speed but generally find it is needless. Clarity is paramount. Because of the limited time, I find that I typically err AFF on theoretical objections much more than I would in a policy round.
I believe that any argument that an AFF wants to weigh in the 2AR needs to be in the 1AR. I will vote against new 2AR arguments.
I believe that NEG has an obligation to clash with the AFF. For this reason, a counterplan would only be justified in a round when the AFF argues for a plan; otherwise a counterplan is an argument for the AFF. The NEG must force a decision, and for that reason, I am not fond of what used to be called a 'balance neg.'
Email Chains: iyang061002 AT google DOT com
Do whatever you want, I’ve gone for almost everything in my time.
I try to have no argumentative bias (I feel like I do a pretty good job).
Spreading is probably good but go ahead and be trad if you want, no preference
Non-negotiables:
- Have fun
- Try your best