I am a head coach at Newark Science and have coached there for years. I teach LD during the summer at the Global Debate Symposium. I formerly taught LD at University of North Texas and I previously taught at Stanford's Summer Debate Institute.

The Affirmative must present an inherent problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.

This paradigm is for both policy and LD debate. I'm also fine with LD structured with a general framing and arguments that link back to that framing. Though in LD, resolutions are now generally structured so that the Affirmative advocates for something that is different from the status quo.

Speed
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, super clear tags are especially important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

For policy Debate (And LD, because I judge them the same way).
Same as for LD. Make sense. Big picture is important. I can't understand spreading dense philosophy. Don't assume I am already familiar with what you are saying. Explain things to me. Starting in 2013 our LDers have been highly influenced by the growing similarity between policy and LD. We tested the similarity of the activities in 2014 - 2015 by having two of our LDers be the first two students in the history of the Tournament of Champions to qualify in policy and LD in the same year. They did this by only attending three policy tournaments (The Old Scranton Tournament and Emory) on the Oceans topic running Reparations and USFG funding of The Association of Black Scuba Divers.

We are also in the process of building our policy program. Our teams tend to debate the resolution with non-util impacts or engages in methods debates. Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it.

I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.

Important: Don't curse in front of me. If the curse is an essential part of the textual evidence, I am more lenient. But that would be the exception.

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

LD Debate Judge Paradigm. (Sometimes I judge PF, too.)

Updated for Jan/Feb 2013!

Preferences:

1. TYPES OF ARGS: I will listen to and consider any type of argument, no matter how unorthodox or unusual, so long as it:

a. Respects the format of LD (time limited one-on-one debate related to the bi-monthly topic.)
b. Is not intentionally rude, offensive, or without any easily recognizable redeeming educational/social value*.

If, however, the argument you make is:

a. Trivial, without rigor, or poorly thought through, and dealt with as such by your opponent;
b. Neither topical or LD-theoretical*;
and/or
c. Never justified via warrant/impact/link*...

I am not likely to vote off of it.

*Narratives may fit these categories. Please do not ever read a case that describes graphic crime in front of me. Medical stuff is totally fine. (Review: Domestic violence narrative? bad. Describing MDRTB? fine.)

I like very observant, insightful cases and refutation that presents not just an advocacy, but a carefully constructed world-view. I believe values/standards analysis are important, but I leave it up to the debaters to decide how they wish to handle them. I believe there must be something to which you link and impact back to, however, so that I can sign my ballot one way or the other. I will frequently comment on the quality of arguments made, both in-case and in-round, but I will only vote off material which is actively "in play" in the round. So:

2.STRAT: Establish your position/advocacy. Link. Impact. Weigh extensively. Tell me why I should vote for you. If you do not tell me what to do with a given point "x", I will not vote off it unless there is literally nothing else for me to vote off of. Do not assume that I will auto extend drops, or that I will impact/link/weigh cross applications for you. It's your job to tell me why you win. If something is important to my ballot, please tell me so, and spend time on it.

3. I have never-not-once-ever decided a round on PRESUMPTION, even though I came close once.There's always something better to vote on, even if it's skills. I do try to advance the better debater. 99.6% of the time that's also the winning debater.

4. SPEED is absolutely fine so long as you enunciate card author names. If you're unclear, I will pipe up and tell you so. I use "CLEAR!" as an all-purpose shout of existential angst, though, so it could mean you're stumbling, gasping, too high pitched, or mumbling. If I call clear, you should probably err on the side of repeating a sentence, as I don't/can't shout and flow at the same time. If I tell you you're too high pitched or squeaky, please don't take offense. I took two semesters of graduate speech pathology classes at Columbia. I am as equally annoyed by high pitched female voices as I am annoyed by high pitched male voices. Speaking too loudly at too high a pitch, especially if you're dehydrated, can permanently damage your vocal cords.

5. REGARDING THEORY: I gut check, but I have voted off theory a few times this year, and I am becoming more sympathetic towards well-structured theory. I think our community is slowly settling into a reasonable use of theory following two or three years of really cruddy shells and confusing rounds. The following represents my views on mediocre or bad theory:
98% of the time when people run theory, I find that there is no actual abuse. I dislike people who run theory counter-interps when they easily could have run an "I meet." To me, this constitutes THEORY BAITING. Baiting theory is an ocelot thing to do. Please just win on substance if you can meet the interp! I am sympathetic to "I meet." I am not very sympathetic to ground arguments, unless you explain to me why the only ground left to you is really, really ridiculous. I do think NIBS are for pens, not cases, but I will entertain multiple burdens that equally constrain both debaters. I will gut-check, but if you ask me to gut-check, I will also call cases and read everything super carefully. I am also a super cranky person when I have to read cases before signing a ballot, so invoke my own personal opinion at your own risk. I will accept and evaluate both "drop the debater/RVI" and "drop the argument" debates, but I prefer "drop the argument" and will default to that if you either don't give me a voter or forget to extend it. All that having been said, if you feel you HAVE to run theory against someone or something, go ahead and do it.

On the other hand, I love a good T debate and will happy listen to you guys bat definitions back and forth. Bad T debate is highly discouraged. If you don't know the difference, look up the structure of T shells online.

6. Other thoughts: I might be embroidering ("sewing") during your prep or cx. Ignore this. Busy hands = quiet mind. Try it sometime.

Please don't say, "Aracelis, I've read your paradigm, and you don't like to hear X," during a round. It creeps me out, it probably creeps your opponent out, and it's just... well, creepy.If you want to talk about my paradigm, do it before the round.

I love topic lit. I read large amounts of topic lit to help my team. If you lie about topic lit, I will know, and I'll be unhappy, even if it won't effect my vote. On the other hand, a deep command of topic lit is always impressive, so demonstrating technical mastery + deep understanding is the ideal way to earn yourself higher speaks.

7. Speaks: I don't hand out 30s often. Don't be offended. My typical range is 27.5-29.5. I will go lower for bad behavior. Solid rounds usually earn a 28 or 28.5 tie. Someone who is obviously better can expect a 29. At 29.5 and 30, you're showing me superior time allocation, amazing strategic organization, deep knowledge of the topic, and the sort of transcendent explanation of Truth that causes me to feel like your speech has contributed something to society. You should shoot for that goal, but not be disappointed if you fall short. Annoying, pathological, or just plain old weird vocal/inhalation habits will get you docked speaks unless I can detect that whatever you're doing is wholly involuntary (lisping, r/l/w issues, spasmodic dysphonia, post-infectious laryngitis...) I have a pretty good ear for the difference between voluntary/weird stuff you picked up at camp.

LAST BUT NEVER LEAST,

Please don't be an ocelot. The word "Ocelot" also has limited assonance with a word that describes mean people. In the literal sense, an Ocelot is a small predatory cat. In the metaphorical sense, an Ocelot is what you shouldn't be. Win without being small, predatory, and catty.
And, have fun and make friends. :D

I am currently the Director of Debate at Collegiate School, where I have now coached for three years. Evidently I'm doing something right, because the people at Big Lex awarded me the Michael Bacon Coaching Award this year (2013) Previously, I coached for half a season at Brooklyn Technical High School. I have also previously judged for Bronx High School of Science (but who hasn't?) and as an independently hired judge at various round-robins and tournaments. I taught at a camp for three summers: '04, '05, and '06, and I debated on Long Island/locally in the Northeast for three years: '00-01 to '02-'03. 

Hi, I'm John. I debated policy for the New School for 2 1/2 years, from fall of 2010 to fall of 2012. During my debate career I mostly argued kritiks, defended an advocacy rather than a topical plan, and refused to switch sides. Although there is nothing I totally refuse to vote on (so far), I probably vote for the kritik more often than most judges.

I tend to have a very high threshold on T and FW. On T, I default to resonability, and the neg will have to tell a clear abuse story to get my ballot. This means not just clearly identifying what the aff did wrong, but why it's important (with impacts). I tend to value education as a standard very highly in T debates.

On FW, if the 1AC includes a justification for their non-topical advocacy, then it's up to the neg to respond with offense against the aff's methodology and/or reasons to prefer topical affs for educational/political reasons. Arguing that the aff broke the rules, stole the neg's ground, or will always be able to defend that their principles are good is unlikely to get you far.

CP/DA debate: I'm more receptive than most judges to the argument that probability of impacts is at least as important as magnitude. I see very little value in debates where I end up weighing two far-fetched nuke war scenarios against each other. To paraphrase Boston College DoD John Katsulas, if you got up in front of Congress and argued that we must pass comprehensive immigration reform or humanity will go extinct, you would be thrown into a loony bin.

I debated LD on the local and national circuit for Westlake High School in Texas, graduating in 2013. I coached Scarsdale High School, and currently coach for Walt Whitman High School.

I will vote on any argument so long as the conclusion follows from the premises–my primary aim is to operate under the shared assumptions held by both debaters, so I will avoid "defaulting" on any framing issue at all costs and will detest being forced to do so. I will evaluate arguments as they are presented on the flow, so I will always prioritize explicit over implicit comparison made between arguments. If you'd like me to be on an email chain, send everything to mgorthey@gmail.com.

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

I am on the planning committee for the Texas Debate Collective and the director for NSD Philadelphia I'm a MA candidate in American Studies where I'm working on the intersection between Asian-American and Disability Studies. I coach Loyola JC, Bronx Science YW, and Bergen County EL.

Overview

1. The round belongs to its debaters, not the judge, so it's the job of the debaters to tell me who won, not the other way around. I do my best to evaluate rounds in terms of least intervention, which means I search first for weighing as a means to scale what the key issues are, then examine the arguments thereof. The biases and defaults in this paradigm are meant to help you, not to restrict what you want to do.
2. If you use the word "retarded" as an equivalence to the word "stupid" or "bad" without acknowledgement (that is, an apology upon saying it), I will drop you

Evidence Ethics/ Clipping Cards/ etc.

1. Evidence ethics is an argument to be made in the debate round. I will not stop the round because of an accusation of people miscutting or misusing evidence, for there is a fair academic debate to be had.
2. Card clipping: I will review recordings if available. To accuse someone of clipping cards will cause the round to stop. I'll decide using whatever material I have to figure out if somebody has clipped. If I decide a debater was clipping, I will give that person a L20. If the person accusing is wrong, for I have decided that clipping did not occur, I will give the accuser a L20. I have never judged an accusation of card clipping. I'm not as good at flowing as other judges are, and will invariably give somebody the benefit of the doubt that they did not clip cards.

Speaks:

1. I evaluate speaker points on strategy, arg quality, time allocation, and if you are respectful and nice. When did nice become equated with weakness? I am not impressed by overt-aggression or ad hominen styles of debate. Micro versions of this include "You should've listened in lab more!" or "I have no idea what you're thinking!" Come on. If it's nasty to say to somebody outside of debate it absolutely is in the debate round. Kindness should matter more.
2. What I do not factor in, however, is literal speaking clarity, efficiency, etc.
3. I don't consider the number of times I say clear or slow into speaker points
4. I will not evaluate arguments about "not calling blocks" or what not. Similarly, you can't just tell me to give you a 30.
5. I won't give you higher speaks if you end your speech early- nor will I sign the ballot before the end of the 2AR. I don't know why judges do this. This sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
6. I don't find stand up 2ARs or 2NRs perceptually dominant at all

Post- Round

1. I think post-round discussion is valuable. However, if debater A has just lost the round, and in A’s questioning of the judge, opponent B decides to comment and enter into this conversation, I will drop opponent B’s speaker points and get angry in the process
2. If I sit and you are the winner (that is, the other 2 judges voted for you), and would like to ask me extensive questions, I will ask that you let the other RFDs be given and then let the opponent leave before asking me more questions. I'm fine answering questions, but just to be fair the other people in the room should be allowed to leave.

For the chain: blayneatbloomberglaw@gmail.com

Are you a K PF team? Consider striking me! I am probably not the judge for you. See below for details!

I judge for Union Catholic in New Jersey. I judge 20 or so rounds a year, mostly PF with some LD and Policy. I was a policy and parliamentary debater. I've been judging for around 20 years.

Event specific info follows below.

PF

I strongly prefer resolutional debate given the purpose and current state of PF. I won't require the other team to know clash debate, debate methodology, framework, or topicality. I have a strong preference for resolutional debate.

What does that mean for you?

Do you have a soft left case? That's fine! I'm looking a strong link to the resolution, then an impact. I can work with any impact. Structural inequality, structural violence, racism, sexism, ableism -- these are all great things to talk about.

Are you're running a K-alt or a progressive case? Those are tougher. I will not know your literature. Please slow down and simplify. Use ordinary language. Be clear about the alt/role of the ballot. If your advocacy is "resolutional debate reinforces existing power structures (and that's bad!), rejecting the resolution is activism, activism is a better methodology for change", say that. Then, in your framing, explain as directly as possible how the ballot constitutes an act of activism.

Speed is fine, but please don't spread. What's too fast? If you adjust your breathing to accommodate your speed, that's too fast.

If you're familiar with truth v. tech, I'm in the middle. I vote off the flow, but I don't have to vote for "bad" arguments (i.e., arguments lacking warrants, evidence, analysis, and/or impacts) even if dropped. Presentation matters. Line-by-line is great, but by the end of the round, I need a clear sense of your position and why it wins.

Use the flow to structure speeches. Let me where you're at on the flow, provide helpful labels for your arguments, tell me when you're cross-applying. If you're kicking an argument, it helps if you tell me.

I will not vote on disclosure theory absent a mutual agreement. If both teams consent to disclosing prior to the round or to flashing files prior to the round, then, during the round, one team breaks the deal, i'll listen to theory.

Nothing is sticky. 1st speech = case, 2nd speech = case, 3rd speech = respond to 2nd speech, no need to extend case. 4th speech = defend your case, attack other side; anything not extended in this speech is dropped.

In rebuttals, please collapse. Make choices; don't go for everything. Focus on your best offense and defense.

You can lose arguments and win the around. Don't be afraid of conceding, just mitigate or outweigh. If you write an honest ballot for me, you are more likely to get a favorable decision and high speaks.

In crossfire, be a pro. Share the time. Ask brief questions, give brief answers. Be friendly, be helpful. I dislike leading questions in cross. Make arguments in your speech, ask about them in cross. If your opponent's answer is "I'm sure you'll tell me," you've asked a bad question.

Last thing: don't run "as many as 900 million people could fall back into poverty in the event of an economic shock like the Great Recession," unless you have a card showing that 900 million people fell into poverty between March 2020 and today.

Policy

Don't spread. I can't keep up. If you want the ballot to address your arguments & strategy, slow down.

I prefer policy arguments to critical arguments, substantive arguments to theory, and real world impacts to terminal impacts, but argue what you want.

On Ks, I won't know your literature. Start simple. Tell me your thesis, make your alt clear, and build up from there. If you dive right into the evidence, I will be lost. I am more likely to vote for your K if I understand what your alt means in the real world. Good alts specify an action that's being taken, who is taking the action, and when they take that action. If you provide examples, that's very helpful.

For T, I default to reasonability.

Collapse in rebuttals, don't go for everything. I prefer depth to breadth.

I know this sounds very conservative, but it's not that bad. These are preferences not requirements. My comfort zone is traditional policy, but I'm up for whatever. I've voted for Ks, K affs, and CP theory. If you go this route, you'll just need to invest more time in explaining how it works. It'll be fine.

LD

For circuit LD, I’m a lay judge.

You could do worse. My background is policy. I flow, I’ll listen, and I’m open-minded. Brave tournament directors put me in LD/PF bid rounds. Plus, I enjoy debate. I want to buy your argument.

Even so, let me emphasize: I AM A LAY JUDGE.

We all want an awesome round.

However, I’ll be frustrated if I don’t understand what’s going on. You’ll be frustrated if you get a weird decision.

That’s definitely not awesome.

Keys to getting a good ballot:

* Slow down. If you spread, I will get lost.

* Talk about the resolution.

* Go easy on theory. I’m the wrong judge for RVIs. I’m okay for T. There are better judges for condo/fiat/counterplan theory, but I can get through it.

* Use plain language. I will not know your lit or your jargon. Walk me through it.

* Clash. You don’t need evidence. Understand the arguments. Put some thoughtful analytics on the flow.

* Talk about details. Is your framework utilitarianism? Tell me what’s good. Tell me how to figure out whether it really is for the greatest number. Is your T intep reasonability? Give me a way to measure reasonableness. Is your theory impact fairness? What is fairness? How is it measured?

And last of all, in LD, I prefer to truth-test the resolution. Aff talks about why the res is true. Neg talks about why it isn’t. Framework matters some, case impacts don’t really matter, and the question at the end of the round is: who did the better job of proving the truth or non-truth of the resolution?

That said, you give me a plan, I turn into a traditional policymaker policy judge.

If you want me to use a different standard, give it a shot. To do so, I need rules for applying your standard.

Jake Shaner

Debate Coach, Stuyvesant High School

Columbia University ‘14

Davis High School (Utah) ‘10

 

Policy Debate

 

I am a skeptical person. If you want to play to my preferences, then clash with your opponents, make strongly warranted arguments, and tell me why you deserve to win (aka role of the ballot/why you meet it best). My ideal debate is between an aff that is both strong in its foundations and unique in its approach to the topic, and a neg strategy that employs creative reads on arguments applied specifically to the 1AC.

 

I want to hear you debate how you debate your best - if that's a politics disad, then throw down a good story of Congressional horse-trading; if that's impact turning hegemony, then explain why multipolarity is better for stability (or better yet, why Chinese hegemony is better for world peace. I would love to hear that debate). I'm totally okay with you sitting down before time is up if there is nothing new left to say or you are just done.

 

I want to hear what you are good at. I like judging debates because I like to be persuaded, not because I like to hack for the politics disad, conditionality, passive nihilism, Consult Japan, or whatever other argument you only find in a policy debate. My interest in an ongoing debate has almost nothing to do with what the titles of my flow pages are, and everything to do with the execution and knowledge of the debaters themselves.

 

 

Speaker points -

 

Although this is just an approximation, I would bet that my 25/75 percentile in speaker points is a 27.3/28.5. For me, points below 27 demonstrates a lack of meaningful participation or logical thought, and points above 29 mark a debater who was effective, persuasive, and strategic. If I can't understand the text of your cards, you will be hard pressed to get higher than a 28.5, no matter how well the rest of the debate goes for you. I strongly believe that I should be able to follow the debate from start to finish without having to call for cards just to piece the debate back together.

 

 

Argument preferences -

 

Defense - I really, really like defensive argumentation - solvency deficits, internal-link takeouts, all of it is quite useful and extremely underutilized. I will vote aff/neg on presumption. I do not find the argument that ".01% risk of nuclear war means we must pass the plan at all costs" to be persuasive at all - not to say I won't vote on it but a smart debater will easily persuade me with a "this is a ridiculous framing of the issues" line of thought.

 

Impact Turns - these debates often promote the most clash and force debaters to think about the issues that they advocate. While I think defense is key to check argumentative stupidity, impact turns are often produce the most exciting, comparative debates. I want to see these debates, and you'll probably get higher speaker points as a result of the clash that they produce.

 

Topicality- Absent argumentation presented against this, I probably lean towards competing interpretations, but I don't think that I should define what the impact of the interpretation on debate is - that's the job of the debaters. As such, I have found that I rely heavily on evidence comparison in the definition debate. If you are going for topicality in the 2NR, please note that I think context, quality, and authorship really matter in your definition debates, and I think quantity is never a replacement for the above. Additionally, though I feel like this should be obvious, I don't think a topicality 2NR should be anything but topicality.

 

Counterplans/theory - A few notes-

1. SLOW DOWN. I did not judge a single theory debate last year where I was able to flow everything that was said by each team. I am not a typing/writing automaton, no one is. I can't believe that debaters are still making theory their fastest debates. No judge that I have ever talked to has said to me, "You know what I want to hear more of - those super fast theory debates." I guarantee you will be happier with my decision if you make a coherent theoretical objection than the disconnected, blippy, mangled phrases that I'm trying to scribble before moving onto the next set.

2. Tell me why I should reject the team, or I'll default to rejecting the argument, unless its conditionality. I can be convinced process counterplans are okay to test the affirmative, but tread lightly when it comes to the more ludicrous ones (aka Consult ___).

3. I think I lean aff very slightly on conditionality. I don't think that multiple counterplans are bad, and a counterplan and a critique are probably not too much for a 2AC to handle. However, at a fundamental level, I have an issue with the neg being able to defend multiple contradictory worlds. This doesn't mean I am a sure vote for the aff in a condo debate - like I said above, one CP and one K, or two CPs, is probably not abusive in most situations. I just think its important from an ethos-level for you to know that I am sympathetic to claims about affs needing to defend against 3+ contradictory positions.

4. If you do go for a counter-advocacy in the 2NR, make it explicitly clear that I should consider the status quo as well or else my RFD will be plan vs. counter-advocacy. Consequentially, you must do the work for me to consider the status quo in addition to telling me to consider the status quo to have me vote neg.

 

Disads - This is mostly about the politics disad - like everyone else, I think that other well-research and well-executed disads are important and interesting arguments.

The politics/election disad could be an educational tool, if used correctly, to learn about Congress, presidential powers, whip-counts, etc. However, the only thing I've learned from judging these debates is that no one knows a thing about what they are talking about, including and especially the authors of the evidence cited in these debates. If you want to win on politics in front of me, I suggest spelling out a causal chain that is at least a little logical. If you want to beat a politics disad in front of me, attack the link; for instance, will lifting the embargo on Cuban oil actually kill the attempt to raise the debt ceiling? I would love to hear a politics disad that makes sense, but I doubt one exists, especially in the present.

 

Critiques - I am well-versed in nearly all K lit that is used in debate. I expect that I will know what you are talking about in any given debate. However, like I said above, this does not mean that this is what I particularly care to hear, nor does it mean that I will give you extra leeway to throw jargon and shoddy analysis around. Be specific, be thorough, and be persuasive.

 

Non-traditional arguments - I do have my own opinions as a participant and community member about inequality in debate and structures of power, but as a judge I seek to be a critic of argument first and foremost. I think these arguments are best presented with passion and experience tied into well-researched literature. However, I will evaluate them as I would any other argument in a debate where one team wins and another loses.

 

Paperless notes - Prep ends when the flash drive exits your computer. I tried giving teams until they had saved the speech to their flash drive this year, but it increased the length of the debates considerably. If you or your partner continue to prep, I will start prep again. Giving the non-speaking partner the speech is either part of prep or can happen after the other team has got the speech and the speech is starting. Should a computer die in the middle of a speech, I'm perfectly willing to stop and give the team a reasonable amount of time to fix the computer or, preferably, to grab their partner's computer. However, should a computer freeze during prep time, I will not stop prep time - I see it as no different than if you can't find that link turn you desperately need as a result of making a mess with your paper.

 

 

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

 

My experience from 7+ years in policy debate strongly informs my judging philosophy - I think that plans, counter-plans, and critiques are probably all good. I also have a pretty extensive background in philosophy, especially in continental philosophy, from my academic work. I did a little LD in high school, but I am pretty new to judging. I will make myself open to all arguments and styles, and I have no problem voting on any argument. That said, I think that there are a few things that I will take into a debate with me:

 

1. Role of the judge -  I view myself primarily as a critic of argument, in that I decide a winner and a loser based on the arguments the debaters present to me. I am much more comfortable in a well-impacted, clearly-framed debate where I am given reasons by the debaters to vote for or against the arguments. I'm unlikely to be persuaded by exclusionary framework arguments based on some kind of preservation of a norm, unless a strong defense is made for why that norm is good outside of it being the norm.

 

2. Speed vs. Clarity - fast debates are good. Clear debates are better. If you had to choose one or the other, SLOW DOWN. Even top-level LD competitors have major clarity issues, and you will undoubtedly be in a better position if I can understand your argument.

 

3. Theory - I did not judge a single theory debate last year where I was able to flow everything that was said by each team. I am not a typing/writing automaton, no one is. I can't believe that debaters make theory their fastest debates. No judge that I have ever talked to has said to me, "You know what I want to hear more of - those super fast theory debates." I guarantee you will be happier with my decision if you make a coherent theoretical objection than the disconnected, blippy, mangled phrases that I'm trying to scribble before moving onto the next set. I am thoroughly unpersuaded by theory landmines. If that is your strategy for winning, expect to get low speaker points whether you win or lose the debate.

 

4. Depth over breadth - there isn't all that much speaking time in a single debate, I would prefer to see you exhibit your strongest critical thought rather than your most proliferated arguments. I have a slight distaste for conditionality, in that I feel a lot of sympathy for affirmatives who have to defend against contradictory positions. That said, I don't feel any sympathy for affirmatives who get out-strategized or out-teched. Take that for what you will.

 

5. Paperless notes - Prep ends when the flash drive exits your computer. I tried giving teams until they had saved the speech to their flash drive last year, but it increased the length of the debates considerably. If you continue to prep, I will start prep again. Should a computer die in the middle of a speech, I'm perfectly willing to stop and give the team a reasonable amount of time to fix the computer. However, should a computer freeze during prep time, I will not stop prep time - I see it as no different than if you can't find that link turn you desperately need as a result of making a mess with your paper.

I debated Policy in the national circuit for Science Park High School for three years and Public Forum for the remaining year. Since then I have judged for LD, Public Forum, Parliamentary and Policy.

As a judge I feel that my only obligation is to give both sides an equal opportunity to present and defend their arguments. I will not do any work for either side, what is not said is not assumed and will not be considered. I will vote on any winning argument. (theory, K, etc.)

LD debater for Ridge High School for 2008-2012. Have judged across CX, LD, PF.

Speed: I judge sporadically, so keep that in mind when spreading - clarity is important regardless of the speed. I will yell "clear" twice, after that it is up to you to determine if I am flowing.

Casing: No preference in the type of argumentation (K, Theory, LARP, stock) you run in front of me, however, if you are running something that skews away from the stock, please spend the time to explain the argument, interactions of the argument on the flow, impact, and weighing.

Theory: If no justification, I assume competing interpretations. However I am open to whatever framework that is justified in round (e.g., reasonability, RVI). Just be clear on how you want the ballot to function.

Feel free to ask specific questions before the round - I tend to find that more fruitful.

Debate Paradigm

Paul Wexler Coach since 1993, Judge since 1987 Debated CEDA,College Parli, HS LD and Policy, College and HS Speech Current Affiliation: Needham High School Coach (speech and debate) I coach a little with Arlington HS (Massachusetts)
Previous Affiliations: Manchester-Essex Regional, Boston Latin School, San Antonio-LEE, College of Wooster (Ohio) (competitor) , University of Wisconsin (Madison)(coach): Debate and Speech for Irvine-University HS (CA) (competitor)

Coach: All debate events (LD, PF, WSD, Congress) plus spectrum of speech events.

Novice Paradigm is here first, followed by PF, and then LD (though much of LD applies to PF and nowadays even policy where appropriate)- Congress and Worlds is at VERY end.

I put the novice version first, to make it easy on them. Varsity follows. LD if below PF (even though I judge a good deal more LD than PF).

PLEASE NOTE SECTION BELOW REGARDING DISCLOSURE BY NEEDHAM AND ARLINGTON HS (MA) TEAM MEBMERS!

Novice Version (all debate forms)

I am very much excited to be hearing you today! It takes bravery to put oneself out there, and I am very happy to see new members join our community.

1)The voting standard ( a way to compare the arguments made by both sides in debate) is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

2)I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals/final focus/, will receive 'one-sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

3) As noted above, be sure to weigh your arguments compared to the arguments made by the other side. That means " We are winning Argument A - It is more important than the other sides Argument B (even if they are winning argument B) for reason X"

4) Have fun! Learn! If you have questions, please ask. This is an amazing activity and to repeat what I said above, am 'glad and gladder and gladddest' you are part of our community.

To earn higher speaker points...(Novice Version)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

Exhibit the ability to use CX /crossfire effectively ( This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.)

To earn lower speaker points (novice version)

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making arguments which offend, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or classist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)Use cases obviously not your own or obviously written by a super-experienced teammate or coach. Debate is a place to share your ideas and improve your own skills. Channelling or being a 'ventriloquist's dummy' for someone else just cheats yourself. Plus, for speaker point purposes, you are not demonstrating you have mastered the skill of communicating your OWN ideas, so I can't evaluate them.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4) For outrounds and flip rounds, please especially note section marked 'outrounds' at end

PUBLIC FORUM

I've judged it and coached it since the creation.

I default to voting on the whole resolution. I vote for whichever side shows it is preponderantly more desirable That may include scope, impact, probability, timeframe etc.

Most of what I say under Lincoln-Douglas below applies here, regarding substance as well as theory/and Ks. The differences OR key points are as follows.

1) I judge PF as an educated layperson- i.e. one who reads the paper (credibile news sources) but doesn't know the technicalities of debate lingo.

As such your 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

1b) I shall ignore 'theory' arguments completely (in PF, I will also ignore 'education' theory arguments, as well as 'fairness'-- '. Frame those arguments in terms of substance if you opt to make them, if there is a connection you will be fine). Theory arguments as such shall be treated as radio silence on my flow. I will also default to thinking you are uninterested in doing the work necessary to understand the topic, and that you are publicly announcing you are proud of being ignorant.

If someone's opponent is prima facie unfair or uneducational, say so without running a 'shell'.

1c) I WILL evaluate K's when based on the topic literature. Many resolutions DO have a reasonable link when one does the research

Your rate of delivery should be appropriate to the types of arguments you are making.

2)Stand during the cross-fire times. This adds to your perceptual dominance.

3) Offer and justify some sort of voting standard I can use to weigh competing arguments.

4) On Evidence...

--a)Evidence should be fully explained with analysis. Evidence without analysis isn't persuasive to me. (the best evidence will have analysis as well, which is the gold standard- but you should add your own linking to the round itself and the resolution proper).

4b) In order to earn higher speaker points, I expect evidence use to adhere to the full context being used and accessible. This doesn't mean you can't paraphrase when appropriate, it does mean reciting a single sentence or two and/or taking excessive time when asked to produce the source means you are still developing your evidence usage ability. Of course, using evidence in context (be it a full card or proper paraphrasing-) is expected Note #6 below.

You will also want to make note of the 'earn higher speaker points' in the novice ection above, it also applies to varsity.

--Quantitative claims always require evidence, the more recent the better.

--Qualitative claims DO NOT always require evidence, that depends on the specific claim.

-5)-Be comparative when addressing competing claims. The best analytical evidence compares claims directly within itself.

-6)Produce requested evidence in an expeditious fashion- Failure to do so comes of YOUR prep time, and eventually next speech time. Since such failure demonstrates that organizational skills are still being developed. Being in the 'developing skills' range is, like with any other debate skill, reflected in speaker points earned.

'Expeditious' means within ten seconds or so, unless the tournament invitation mandates a different period of time

-7)-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in summary or final focus are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

8)No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

9) I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during a speech.

10) What I have to say elsewhere in this document about how to access higher speaker points, technical mattters, and how to earn super low points by being offensiv/rude also applies to PF.

Most Importantly- as with any event " Have fun! "If you are learning and having fun, the winning shall take care of itself."

LD Debate -Varsity division

Note on January February 2023 topic. Making arguments grounded in racist appeals (such as claims group X is more prone to criminality) will result in a loss and low speaker points.

Shorter Version (in progress) (if you want to run some of these, see the labeled sections for most of them, following)

-Defaults to voting criterion.

-Theory-will not vote on fairness or disclosure. It will be treated as radio silence. See below for note regarding both Needham HS and Arlington regarding disclosure of cases by team members.

-Education theory on the topic's substantial, topic-related issues OK but if frivolous RVIs are encouraged.(i.e., brackets theory, etc ) I will almost always vote on reasonability.

--Will not vote on generic skepticism. May vote on resolution-specific skepticism

-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in rebuttals are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

-It is highly unlikely I shall vote on tricks or award higher speaker points for tricks-oriented debaters

-No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

-Critical arguments are fine and held to the same analytical standard as normative arguments.

-Policy approaches (plans/CPs/DAs) are fine. They are held to same prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds- That also means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence better be recent. If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds' you should opt for a different strategy.

-Narratives are fine and should provide a rhetorical model for me to use to evaluate approach.

-If running something dense, it is the responsibility of the debater to explain it. I regard trying to comprehend it on my own to be judge intervention.

As I believe debate is an ORAL communication activity (albeit one often with highly specialized vocabulary and speed) I (with courtesy) do not wish to be added to any 'speech document ' for debates taking place in the flesh or virtually. I will be pleased to read speech documents for any written debate contests I may happen to judge.

Role of ballot - See labeled section below- Too nuanced to have a short version

To Access higher speaker points...

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

exhibit the ability to listen.(see below for how I evaluate this)

exhibit the ability to use CX effectively (CX during prep time does not do so) This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.

To Access lower speaker points

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)have your coach fight your battles for you- When your coach browbeats your opponents to disclose or flip- or keeps you from arriving to your round in a timely fashion, it subliminally promotes your role as one in which you let your coach do your advocacy and thinking for you.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest. Running theory as a default strategy is a most excellent and typical way of doing so, and in public at that.-- (But there are other ways).

Longer Version

1)The voting standard is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

I strongly prefer debaters to focus on the resolution proper, as defined by the topic literature. I tend to be really, REALLY bored by debaters who spend the bulk of their time on framework issues and/or theory as opposed to topical debating.

By contrast, I am very much interested in how philosophical and ethical arguments are applied to contemporary challenges, as framed by the resolution.

You can certainly be creative, which shall be rewarded when on-topic. Indeed, having a good command of the topic literature is a good way to be both.

My speaker points to an extent reflect my level of interest.

2) I evaluate a debater's ENTIRE skill set when assigning speaker points, including the ability to listen. See below for how I assess that ability.

3)One can use alternative approaches to traditional ones in LD in front of me. I am receptive to narratives, plans, kritiks, the role of the ballot to fight structural oppression, etc. But these should be grounded in the specific topic literature- This includes describing why the specific resolution being debated undermines the fight against oppressive norms.

4) I am NOT receptive to generic 'debate is bad' arguments. Wrong forum.

5) Specifics of my view of policy, critical, performance, etc. cases are at the bottom if you wish to skip to that.

ON THEORY-

I will not vote on...

a)Fairness arguments, period. They will be treated as radio silence. - See famed debate judge Marvin the Paranoid Android's (which I find optimistic) paradigm on this in 'The Debate Judges Guide to the Galaxy.' by Douglas Adams.

"The first ten million (fairness arguments) were the worst. And the second ten million: they were the worst, too. The third ten million I didn’t enjoy at all. After that, their quality went into a bit of a decline.”

Fairness debating sounds like this to me.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE)

And complaints about having to affirm makes the arguer look and sound like this from 'Puddles Pity Party'

Instead, tell me why the perceived violation is a poor way to evaluate the truth of the resolution, not that it puts you in a poor position to win.

b) I will not vote on disclosure theory, it shall be treated as radio silence. The following sentence applies to both Needham HIgh School and Arlington High School. I have assisted a little with Arlington High. Both Needham and Arlington High Schools, by team consensus, do not permit its' members to disclose except at tournaments where it is specified as required to participate by tournament invitation. I find the idea that disclosure is needed to avoid 'surprises' or have. a quality debate to be unlikely.

c) I will vote on education theory. In most cases it must be related to the topic literature. However, I am actively favorable to RVIs when run in response to 'cheap' , 'throw-away' , generic, or 'canned' education theory. Topic only focused, please.

d)Shells are not always necessary (or even usually). if an opponent's position is truly squirrelly ten seconds explaining why is a better approach in front of me than a two or three minute theory shell

e) I am highly unlikely to vote on arguments that center on an extreme or very narrow framing of the resolution no matter how much framework you do- and 100% unlikely based on a half or full sentence blurb.-

'Extreme' in this context means marginally related to the literature (or a really small subset of it)

ON BLIPS AND EXTENSIONS

I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals, will receive 'one sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

OLD SCHOOL IDIOSYNCRASY- THE IMPORTANCE OF LISTENING

1) On sharing cases and evidence,

Please note: The below does not apply to the reading of evidence cards, nor does it apply to people with applicable IEPs, 504s or are English language learners.

1) I believe that listening is an essential debate skill. In those cases where speed and jargon are used, they are still being used within a particular oral communication framework, even if it is one unique to debate. It makes no sense to me to speak our cases to one another (and the judge), while our opponent reads the text afterwards (even more so as the case is read) and then orally respond to what was written down (or for the judge to vote on what was written down). If that is the norm, we could just stay home and email each other our cases.

In the round, this functions as my awarding higher speaker points to good listeners. Asking for the text of entire cases demonstrates you are still developing the ability to listen and/or the ability to process what you heard. That's OK, this is an educational activity, but a still developing listener wouldn't earn higher speaker points for the same reason someone with developing refutation skills wouldn't earn higher speaking points. My advice is to work on the ability to process what you have heard rather than ask for cases or briefs.

As I believe that act of orally speaking should not be limited to being an anthropological vestige of some ancient debate ritual, I will courteously turn down offers to be added to any speech documents, except at contests designed for such a purpose.

Asking for individual cards by name to examine their rhetoric, context etc, is acceptable, as I don't expect most debaters to be able to write down cards verbatim. I expect those cards to be made available immediately. Any time spent 'jumping' the cards to an opponent beyond minimal is taken off the prep time of the debater that just read the case.

I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during the 1AC)-

On Non Debater authored Cases

I believe two of the most valuable skills in debate, along with the ability to listen, are the ability to write and research (and do both efficiently).

I further believe the tendency of some in the debate community to encourage students to become a ventriloquist's dummy, reading cases authored by individuals post-HS, is antithetical to developing these skills. Most likely it is also against most schools' academic code of conduct. I reject the idea that students are 'too busy to write their own cases and do their own research'

Therefore

I will drop debaters -with minimal speaker points- who run cases written by any individual not enrolled in high school.

In novice or JV rounds I will drop debaters who run cases written by a varsity teammate.

Further, if I suspect, given that debater's level of competence, that they are running a position they did not write ( I suspect they have little to no comprehension of what they are reading) I reserve the right to question them after the round about that position. If said person confirms my suspicion about their level of comprehension, they will be dropped by me with minimal speaker points.

THAT SAID my speaker points will reward debaters who are trying out new ideas which they don't completely understand yet- I think people should take risks, just don't let yourself be shortchanged of all that debate can be by letting some non-high school student - or more experienced teammate- write your ideas for you. Don't be Charlie McCarthy (or Mortimer Snerd for that matter)

Finally, I am not opposed to student-written team cases/briefs per sae. However, given the increasing number of cases written by non-students, and the difficulty I have in distinguishing those from student-written positions, I may eventually apply this stance to any case I hear for the second time (or more) at a tournament. That day has not yet arrived however.

ON POLICY ARGUMENTS (LARPING)

I am open to persons who wish to argue policy positions as opposed to voting standard If that framework is won.

Do keep in mind that I believe the time structure of LD makes running such strategies a challenge. I find many policy link stories in LD debate, even in late outrounds at TOC-qual tournaments, to be JVish at best. Opponents, don't be afraid to say so.

Disadvantages should have clear linkage to the terminal impact, the shorter the better. When responding, it is highly advantageous to respond to the links. I tend to find the "if there is a .01% chance of extinction happening you have to vote for me" to be silly at best if there is any sort of probability weighing placed against it.

Policy-style debaters assume all burdens that actual policy debaters have, That means if solvency -(or at least some sort of comparative advantage, inherency, etc. is not prima facie shown for the resolution proper, that debater loses even if the opponent does not actually give a response while drooling on their own cardigan. (or your own, for that matter).

That means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence should be super-recent. Otherwise, I may decide you don't meet your prima facie burdens, even for 'inherency' which virtually nobody votes on ever. Why? The same reason one shouldn't read a politics DA from October 2022

Side note: If your OPPONENT does so, please be sure to all call them out on it in order to demonstrate CX or refutation skills. (I once heard someone ignore the fact a politics DA was being run the Saturday AFTER the election, it having taken place the Tuesday prior.... I was sad.

I do have some sympathy for the hypothesis-testing paradigm where up-to-date evidence is not always as necessary- if you sell me on it. Running older evidence under such a framework may or may not be strategic, but it WOULD meet prima facie burdens.

If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens', or 'hypothesis-testing' you should opt for a different strategy. - Do learn what these terms mean if interested in LARPing, or answering LARPers.

I am also actively disinclined to allow the negative to 'kick out' out of counterplans, etc., in face of an Aff challenge, during the 1NR. Think 'Pottery Barn'- to paraphrase Colin Powell- "You broke the argument, you own it."

ON NARRATIVE ARGUMENTS

In addition to the 'story', be sure to include a rhetorical model I can use to evaluate the narrative in the course of the round. if you do so effectively, speaker points will be high. If not, low.

One can access the power of narrative arguments without being appropriative of other cultures. This is one such approach (granted from a documentary on Diane Nash)

ON CRITICAL ARGUMENTS

I hold them to the same analytical standard as more normative or traditional arguments. That means quoting some opaque piece of writing is unlikely to score much emphasis with me, absent a complete drop by the opponent. And even if there is a complete drop, during the weighing stage I could easily be persuaded that the critical argument is of little worth in adjudicating the round. When debating critical theory, Don't be afraid to point out that "the emperor has no clothes."

In the round, this functions as debaters coherently planning what both they and their sources are being critical of, and doing so throughout the round.

Identifying if the 'problem' is due to a deliberate attempt to oppress or ignorant/incompetent policies/structures resulting in oppression likely add nuance to your argument, both in terms of introducing and responding to critical arguments. This is especially true if making a generic critical argument rather than one that is resolution-specific.

Critical arguments all take place in a context, with the authors reacting to some structure- be it one created and run by 'dead white men' or whomever. The authors most certainly were familiar with whom or what they were attacking. To earn the highest speaker points, you should demonstrate some level of that knowledge too. HOW you do so may vary, your speaker points will reflect how well you perform under the strategy you choose and carry out in the round

In any case, be sure to SLOW DOWN when reading critical arguments.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT-

I believe that debate, and the type of people it attracts, provides uniquely superior opportunities to develop the skills required to fight oppression. I also believe that how I vote in some prelim at a tournament is unlikely to make much of a difference- or less so than if the debaters and judge spent their Saturday volunteering for a group fighting out-of-the-round oppression Or even singing, as they do in arguably the best scene from the best American movie ever.--

I tend to take the arguments more seriously when made in out rounds with audiences. The final round of PF in 2021 at TOC was important and remarkable. In fairness, people may see prelims as the place to learn how to make these arguments, which is to be commended. But it is not guaranteed that I take an experienced debater making such arguments in prelims as seriously, without a well-articulated reason to do so.

Also bear in mind that my perspective is that of a social studies teacher with a MA in Middle Eastern history and a liberal arts education who is at least tolerably familiar with the literature often referenced in these rounds. (If sometimes only in a 'book review' kind of way.) But I also default in my personal politics to feeling that a bird in hand is better than exposing the oppression of the bush.

if simply invited or encouraged to think about the implications of your position, or to take individual action to do so, that is a wild card that may lead to a vote in your favor- or may not. I feel obligated to use my personal knowledge in such rounds. YOU are encouraged to discuss the efficacy of rhetorical movements and strategies in such cases.

ONE LAST NOTE

Honestly, I am more than a little uncomfortable with debaters who present as being from privileged backgrounds running race-based nihilist or pessimist arguments of which they have no historical part as the oppressed. Granted, this is partly because I believe that it is in the economic self-interest of entrenched powers to propagate nihilist views. If you choose to do so, you can win my ballot, but you will have to prove it won't result in some tangible benefit to people of privilege.

ON MORALLY OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS

Offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I default to skepticism being in the same category when used as a response to 'X is morally bad' types of arguments.

By minimal speaker points, I mean 'one point' (.1 if the tournament allows tenths of a point) and my going to the physical (virtual) tabroom to insist they manually override any minimum in place in the settings.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or homophobic or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration policy is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally permissible to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.---

Outrounds/Flip Rounds Only

I believe debate offers a unique platform for debaters to work towards becoming self-sufficient learners, independent decision-makers, and autonomous advocates. I believe that side determination with a lead time for the purposes of receiving extensive side specific coaching particular to a given round is detrimental to debaters developing said skills. Further, it competitively disadvantages both debaters who do choose to emphasize such skills or do not have access to such coaching to start with.

Barring specific tournament rules/procedures to the contrary, in elimination rounds this functions as

a) flip upon arrival to the round.

b)avoid leaving the room after the coin flip (i.e., please go to the restroom, etc. before arriving at the room and before the flip)

c) arrive in sufficient time to the round to flip and do all desired preparation WITHOUT LEAVING THE ROOM so that the round can start on time.

d)All restrictions on electronic communication commence when the coin is in the air

Doing all of this establishes perceptual dominance in my mind. All judges, even those who claim to be blank slates, subliminally take perceptual dominance into account on some level. -Hence their 'preferences'. For me, all other matters being equal, I am more likely to 'believe' the round story given by a debater who exhibits these skills than the one I feel is channeling their coach's voice.

Most importantly

Have fun! Learn! "If you have fun and are learning, the winning will take care of itself"

POLICY Paradigm-

In absence of a reason not to do so, I default to policy-maker (though I do have some sympathy for hypothesis-testing).

The above largely holds for my policy judging, though I am not as draconically anti-theory in policy as I am in LD/PF because the time structure allows for bad theory to be exposed in a way not feasible in LD/PF.

Congress

To Access better ranks

1) Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, further develop ideas offered previously by speakers on the same side of legislation as yourself, demonstrate opposing ideas are actually reasons to vote for you, etc

2)Speech organization should reflect when during a topic debate said speech is delivered. Earlier pro speeches (especially authorships or sponsorships) should explain what problem exists and how the legislation solves for it. Later speeches should develop arguments for or against the legislation. The last speeches on legislation should summarize and recap, reflecting the ideas offered during the debate

3)Exhibit the ability to listen. This is evaluated through argument development and clash

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may be used be 'real' legislators is the gold standard. (government reports or scholarly think tanks or other policy works. Academic-ish sources (JSTOR, NYRbooks, etc) are next. Professional news sources are in the middle. News sources that rely on 'free' freelancers are below that. Ideological websites without scholarly fare are at the bottom. For example, Brookings or Manhattan Institute, yes! Outside the box can be fine. If a topic on the military is on the docket, 'warontherocks.com ', yes!. (though cite the author and credentials. in such cases)

4b) Souce usage corresponds to the type of argument being backed. 'Expert' evidence is more important with 'detailed' legislation than with more birds-eye changes to the law.

5)exhibit the ability to use CX effectively - This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you or a colleague to expand upon a speech later. Asking a question where the speaker's answer is irrelevant to you- - or your colleagues'- ability to do so later is the gold standard.

6)PO's should be transparent, expeditious, accurate and fair in their handling of the chamber.

6b)At local tournaments, 'new PO's will not be penalized (or rewarded) for still developing the ability to be expeditious. That skill shall be evaluated as radio silence (neither for, nor against you)- Give it a try!

To Access worse ranks

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic or transphobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means I'll look for a reason to rank you at the very bottom of the chamber, behind the person who spent the entire session practicing their origami while engaged in silent self-hypnosis.

2)If among any speaker other than the author and first opposition, rehashing arguments that have already been made with no further development (no matter how well internally argued or supported with evidence your speech happens to be backed with)

3)Avoiding engaging with the ideas of others in the chamber- either in terms of clashing with them directly or expanding upon ideas already made

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may NOT be used be 'real' legislators is the gilded standard. Examples include blatantly ideological sources, websites that don't pay their contributors, etc. This is especially true if a technical subject is the focus of the debate.

4b)In general, using out of date evidence. The more immediate a problem the more recent evidence should be. Quoting Millard Fillmore on immigration reform should not more be done than quoting evidence from the Bush or even the Obama Administration. (That said, if arguing on the level of ideas, by all means, synthesize important past thinkers into your arguments)

5) Avoiding activity such as cross-examination

5b)'Stalling' when being CXed by asking clarification for simple questions

6)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest

7)POs who show favoritism or repeatedly make errors.

What (may) make a rank or two of positive difference

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of others, etc. while avoiding being condescending. Be inclusive during rules, etc. of those from new congress schools or are lone wolves.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged, and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to ranking high without knowing it...)

If I think you have done the above, it will improve your rank in chamber.

World

First, Congrats on being here. Well earned. One piece of advice- Before starting your speaking in your rounds , take a moment to fix the memory in your mind. It is a memory well-worth keeping.

I have judged at the NSDA Worlds Invitational since 2015 with the exception of two years, though I have coached the New England teams each year. I judged WSD at a few invitationals and competed in Parli in college.

While I am well-experienced in other forms of debate (and I bloviate about that quite a bit here) for this tournament I shall reward teams that do the following...

-Center case around a core thesis with supporting substantial arguments and examples. (The thesis may- and often will- evolve during the course of the round)

-Refutation -(especially in later speeches) integrates all arguments make by one's own side and by the opposition into a said thesis

--Weighs key voters. Definitions and other methods should be explicit

Effectively shared rhetorical 'vehicles' between speakers adds to your ethos and ideally logos.

---Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in later speeches are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

--Even succinct POIs can advance argumentation

-Avoid using counterintuitive arguments.(often popular in LD/PF/CX) If you think an argument could be perceived as counterintuitive when it is not, just walk me through that argumentation.

Debate lingo such as 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

--Use breadth as well as depth when it comes to case construction (that usually means international examples as well as US-centric, and may also mean examples from throughout the liberal arts- science, literature, history, etc.- When appropriate and unforced.

If a model is offered, I believe 'fiat' of the legislative (or whatever) action is a given so time spent debating otherwise shall be treated as radio silence. However, mindsets or utopia cannot be 'fiat-ed'.

To earn higher speaker points and make me WANT to vote for you-

-Engage with your opponent's ideas for higher speaker points. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points. (This DOES NOT mean going deep into a line by line, it does mean engaging with the claim and the warrant)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

and needless to say, I'm sure, offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally acceptable (or even amoral) to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.

Again, congratulations on being here!! You have earned this, learn, have fun, make positive memories...

David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging

LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.

I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.

In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. Also, where tag-teaming is permitted, proceed with caution. One or two interjections is fine. More than that diminishes your partner's voice/skill and will be considered in speaker points and, if excessive, the RFD.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 26 unless you're rude and/or abusive.

Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.