Debaters in both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum debate need to stay focused on their resolutions. In LD, proving a philosophy doesn't matter if debaters can't prove their resolution to be true. Whether or not a person has a value or a criterion doesn't matter, as long as that person can prove or disprove the resolution. However, looking at a resolution through the lens of a particular value can be helpful.

Remember, the words in each resolution are there for a reason. Aff/Pro debaters need to defend them. Neg/Con debaters need to prove that they aren't true. Debaters also need to make sure they speak clearly.

Speed isn't a problem as long as a person speaks loudly and clearly. If people have any doubts whether or not they can be heard and understood, then they need to slow down. As a judge, all the evidence and analysis in the world are for naught if a debater cannot be understood.

: My Credentials :] :

I debated LD all four years in South Dakota. I have judged LD and PF now for 4 years.

: General Info for All :

For speed, on a scale of 1(slow)-10(fast) I sit at a 5. If you go faster, as long as you are understandable and clear I won't get upset.

Don't be rude in round. If I see the debate turn into an attack on other opponents, I will vote you down. That is not the purpose of debate.

SIGNPOST. This is necessary for all types of debate I judge, greatly appreciated if I see clear signposting of points and arguments.

: LD :

I am pretty traditional, but if you debate circuit/policy arguments I will still vote for you as long as you make your arguments clear - if I'm judging you at a South Dakota tournament please avoid policy arguments :)

Need to see a value/criterion clash of some sort. That is a big factor in my decision and who best links to morality.

I will vote on line by line, but for the last Affirmative speech I prefer hearing Points of Crystallization or clear Voters. Tell me exactly why you win.

: PF :

As long as you give straight forward explanations of your points and arguments, you should be good. Don't give 'fluff' information, I can tell if you are not responding to an argument or an opponent's point.

Give me main Voters during your summary and final focus (this should be self explanatory but sometimes people don't do this).

: Policy :

I know the layout and arguments, but I am not well versed in critiks or higher level tech arguments. I have a very basic understanding of when I debated it my freshman year. However, if you make arguments clear I will still vote on them.

Here are the basics:

If you have specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round. I prefer you wait to do this until both teams are present, so everyone is on the same page.

I competed primarily in LD in Nebraska in the mid 1990s. So I'm probably a bit older than most judges. Since then I have been a volunteer speech and debate coach while in college, and a head coach of a more-or-less rural school in Nebraska. I've coached a variety of events and styles within those events with successful PF, LD, CX, and congress competitors.

Things that probably matter most to you as a debater if you see my name in your round:

I like creative, critical thinking based on relevant, topical literature.

I think debate should be about the resolution at hand. I have picked up teams/competitors who argue outside of the resolution, but those instances are rare and your argumentation, delivery, and rationalization as to why we should have a round about your content or method needs to be near flawless.

I prefer debates that deal substantively with the evidence and arguments that support each debater's position. Consequently, comparatively weighing impacts, evidence, frameworks, etc. is very important. If you don't do that in the round, I'll have to do it on my own and decisions then become a bit more arbitrary. Debaters who identify the primary areas of clash in a round, and tell me why they are winning those areas generally get my ballot. Tell me the story of your advocacy, and sell me on that story.

I used to not be a fan of running plans/counterplan, disads, or other policy style arguments, but the resolution styles and argumentation is becoming more clear here. I'm still not sure how a counterplan functions when there isn't a specific plan in the AC, though. In general, I default toward a tradition value/criterion structure and weigh the round through that lens. I don't think you have to win the framework to win the round; if you have access to the opponent's framework and your arguments impact better there, you win. Finally, I'm not very likely to vote for your argument that says my decision in this round is going to impact the world, the debate community, or other in round impacts. I enjoy a lot of the literature that surrounds K arguments; but framing it with an in-round impact isn't very persuasive to me. If you have a theory argument that your opponent is excluding you from the round for some reason, make sure you articulate that clearly.

In PF, the likelihood of my voting on a plan/counterplan position is pretty small. If you run one and your opponent argues that PF isn't the place for those, you'll probably lose the round at that point. Of course there is plenty of room for creatively constructing arguments on both sides of most resolutions -- so you should do that. Aside from that, I'm not a fan of soundbyte-y type arguments that seem to frequently appear in PF. I would like some clear arguments based on evidence and analyzed comparatively to your opponent's arguments. Show me where there is clash and tell why you win there.

Hi, I'm Christopher, I debated in LD in the 2020/2021 season and did Inform in 2020/2021 and 2021/2022. For debate, I don't have a ton of preferences, just keep it civil, don't attack your opponents personally, no discrimination or hate speech, etc. I'm fine with people talking quickly, as long as you enunciate (especially on Zoom!). 

LD:

I prefer Aff/Neg and Pro/Con debates to K's, especially at the novice level. I put a lot of weight on the value/criterion debate for LD, so please don't ignore it. 

P.S. Extra speaker points if you run pragmatism. Just saying.

PF:

I have judged a little of this, and most of the stuff for LD applies here. Please link in your impacts clearly, especially if you're putting a lot of emphasis on them as voting points.

Inform:

Talk clearly and with expressions! I'm willing to listen to just about any topics with an open mind. I absolutely appreciate humor and awful puns, but they aren't necessary for getting the 1. 

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Speed:

If I am unable to understand what you are saying, especially when you are reading cards, I am not going to flow it. In my opinion, both your opponent and myself need to be able to understand what you and your cards are saying in order for there to be a debate. So if you want to speak fast, then you are most likely not gonna get my vote.

Framework:

I consider framework as a way to view the round. When debating framework, I prefer arguments that pertain to the context of the resolution more so to the arguments against the actual theory. For example, there is a common card to use against KCI that talk about how Kant does not allow for rebellion. However, in the context of space appropriation, rebellions against the government are not topical (or at least of what I have seen) and therefore is not really an argument against KCI in the context of the resolution.

Contentions:

I don't have a preference of what you run for contentions but make sure it makes sense, is clear, and that it aligns with your framework. I weigh analysis more than examples.

Voters:

Make sure to weigh your points under the framework and weigh frameworks in both a vacuum and in the context of the debate.

Extemp:

In the introduction, make sure you filter to your question just like you do when writing a paper. The introduction should provide the general background necessary to understand your speech and also establishes why your topic/issue is important. The introduction should be no more than 1:00-1:15; I more curious about your answer to the question as well as how your analysis supports your arguments than an introduction.

Make sure your main points are clear and distinct. Make sure your presentation in each point is logical and clear in reaching your argument. Make sure your points answer the question as it is worded. If you question has to do if so and so can do something, then you best talk about if they can and not about if they should or would.

Use sources for a purpose and properly introduce them. For citing sources, I expect publisher, date (not just the year or time reference like just last week), and realistically you should be citing the author as you do when writing a paper. After citing your sources, make sure to provide analysis and that the analysis is new. You should not be saying the same thing, in different words, as you made your point and need to move on.

Make sure to have transitions like you do when writing a paper. That is there, should be topic sentence and a concluding sentence that transitions your speech to your next main point.

Your conclusion should only be about 45 seconds and make sure to restate your question and a brief (one or two sentence) summary of each of your points.

I debated in the mid 1980's, almost exclusively inside South Dakota and coached some HS debate while I was attending college in Minnesota. I continued to judge some throughout the 90's. In the mid 2010's, I re-engaged with the activity. In the 2021-22 season, I added a part-time gig, becoming the assistant coach at SF Jefferson.

Policy: I'm a 1980's policymaker, weighing advantages vs disadvantages, but I will certainly vote on stock issues in the real absence of inherency, solvency or topicality.

Debate started changing dramatically in the late 70's and I was in the first wave of spread 1.0, almost laughable when compared to today's spread on the circuit and collegiate level. I believe spread and K's pushed policy debate to an extreme that required the creation of PF. The speed of today's South Dakota PF feels a lot like 1980's policy debate, quick, but nothing close to crazy. I am making it somewhat of a personal mission to keep PF from tipping over the edge.

I outlined my thought on judging policy above.

Public Forum: I am looking for clash -- real clash and sound logical reasoning and quality extension evidence that makes your case. Don't paraphrase. I consider K's and counterplans out of hand. I also place a premium on signposting (anything that can help me keep as organized a flow as possible). Teams that fail to do this leave themselves at a real competitive disadvantage. Weigh impacts and construct a narrative around why I should vote for your side of the resolution. Finally: If your team is 2nd speaker, your rebuttal absolutely has to get back to your Case and counter the attacks made against it!

I value exceptional speaking and rhetorical excellence. I love speakers that can change my perception on issues, speakers who possess a passion for the topic and the activity. If you find a way to be unique and memorable, you will have a significant competitive advantage over 90% of your competition. While speaking skills are not as important as research and argumentation in helping me decide a round, they are often the difference maker in a close round. They are also somewhat of a lost art as PF begins to look and sound more like policy -- which is a shame.

I occasionally judge LD -- it also has been impacted by the spread/K revolution. I am looking for many of the same skills I'm looking for in PF. I appreciate debaters who help me weigh the competing value/criterions and what should take precedent within a particular resolution. Connect your V/C to your contentions. Tell me why we should frame the resolution through your V/C instead of your opponents. I need help connecting philosophy to your contentions -- take the time to explain it to me in a clear and persuasive manner. Don't assume I have a working knowledge of these scholars, because I probably don't or, the few I may have heard or read about, have likely been forgotten.

On a scale of 1/10 for speed, I would consider myself about a 5 In policy debate and a 6-7 in PF/LD. On a scale of 1/10 for openness to alternative argumentation, I would be fairly low on a 1-10 scale. For policy -- quite open to topicality, less to counterplans, and a big hurdle to get my ballot if your case hinges on a series of Kritik arguments. For PF -- I consider myself a local/regional kind of guy. I am open to speed, not spread. I think disclosure theory is bogus (debate is a speech activity -- an argument hasn't been made until a speech is delivered). Don't run K's.

I've judged a lot of NLD lately but most of this holds true for VLD. Long story short, make sure you're debating LD, not 1-on-1 policy. Don't drop your framework; it's what makes LD so special. You need a criterion; it's your measuring stick. Tell me exactly why you win under one of the frameworks; it doesn't necessarily have to be yours. I very frequently hear a familiar laundry list in rebuttals: "I win on scope, I win on magnitude, I win framework debate...". Asserting it doesn't make it true; explain your reasoning. Use your NR/2AR to frame the round for me.

If you have a "minimizing xyz", "reducing xyz", etc. VC, you have a solvency burden, or at least need to demonstrate some harm reduction.

There is a lot of overlap between "students who want to spread" and "students whom I can't understand since they are stumbling over every other word" -- I'm around a traditional 6/circuit 3 on speed. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you. I am a fast talker myself, but I want to actually hear your case and arguments and feel better-informed after the round. Debate should be open to everyone, not just schools with full-time prep teams.

I am a former LD assistant coach and judge with experience in LD, Parli, and BQ. Clash is critical-- don't talk past each other. If your opponent has the most ludicrous case ever known to humankind but you don't attack it, they're probably winning. Open to progressive arguments for sure but you need clash. Fairly familiar with philosophy. Respect your opponent in and after the round.

I'm from Wisconsin (Go Cheesemakers!) where I did humorous and oratory since my school didn't have a debate program. I went to Penn and did parli debate. Lived in South Dakota for three years and now back in Philadelphia.

*updated for State Debate 2023

I did policy debate all 4 years of high school, and have been judging both LD and PF (mostly LD) for roughly 3-4 years now.

Important things in any debate event

I'd consider myself a very "lazy" judge in that I do my utmost to arrive at the decision that requires the least judge intervention. I really love when debaters do all the work for me, telling me exactly what is important in the round and what I should be voting on, especially with strong comparative analysis on why to prefer your arguments/how they interact with your opponent. Conversely, I loathe having to string together debaters' line-by-line arguments for them, and (when possible) will avoid drawing conclusions about the way arguments interact if the debaters do not highlight them for me.

Framing and comparative impact calculus/analysis is so, so, important and very underutilized in my experience - I groan in my head when the debaters finish the round and leave me to weigh impacts such as "a _% increase in innovation" and "a 2 million dollar increase in GDP" against each other without any further deliberation. Without either framing that gives me something to prioritize, or analysis that shows what tangible harms/benefits your impacts bring about, my decision is going to be arbitrary, and probably one that you don't like. When the round comes down to basically any amount of lives lost clashing against something more abstract, I'm probably going to prefer the former because I understand what it entails. "A 20% increase in innovation" and "a 20% increase in innovation that increases quality of life for millions and prevents hundreds of deaths from XYZ" aren't even remotely similar statements in terms of how much they would weigh into my decision.

Speed is fine by me, but on a scale from 1-10 with 10 being the fastest round possible, I am probably somewhere between a 6.5-7. That said, so long as you are signposting and enunciating tags well, you probably won't totally lose me.

I usually do not flow authors, so something like a bit of the tag ("extend that structural violence is moral exclusion") or the signpost ("extend my 3rd point on their 1st contention") is very helpful for me to follow along when you are extending evidence - that said, if you're treating the line-by-line well I probably won't be super lost regardless.

Goes without saying that you should be respectful to your opponent - assertiveness and confidence is fine, hostility and demeaning attitudes/statements are not.

Within the above parameters, go wild - I will listen to and vote for mostly anything that is handled well. Debate is an activity for education and fun so I love seeing creative arguments and strategies!

Finally, I will note that I do my best to set aside my biases in the debate space, but I am pretty strongly left-leaning if you want to pander to me in terms of authors/content.

Lincoln-Douglas

I will ultimately make my decision based on whatever the debaters choose to make the round about, but I really love good framework debate. To me, clash at the framework level is a prior consideration to being able to evaluate anything at the contention level and thus decides how much weight I give to your contentions, if any at all. For example, if a debater wins that freedom is a paramount value over life, impacts that do not explicitly advance freedom will not be considered in my decision making process, unless the debaters directly draw the connection on how their impacts relate.

I especially love seeing offense and turns at the framework level. I see a lot of debaters choosing to largely retreat from their own framework when it is attacked by their opponent, and instead go for the argument that they do a better job upholding their opponent's framework than their opponent does. This is a perfectly valid strategy, but does not provide you the ability to "kick out" of your framework by any means if your opponent is making turns on it. By coming into the round and reading a framework of your choice, you have beholden your position on the resolution to it, and "affirming/negating the resolution upholds a harmful/problematic moral system" is compelling offense in my eyes. As with anything though, be careful not to double turn yourself if you decide to make attacks here.

I also think that Cross-X is an extremely important part of LD, and that rounds can easily be decided by a few clever questions or bad answers - debaters who use this time well will probably be rewarded with speaker points.

Lastly, I'll note that I find non-traditional arguments such as kritiks interesting, and am not opposed to voting on them in principle, but am not as familiar with how they interact with the LD framework so make sure your framing and justification is clear.

Feel free to ask if you have any unaddressed questions!

Public Forum

I did policy in my time as a debater, so I will be flowing and am comfortable with speed as long as you signpost your arguments effectively.

Content matters more than speaking skills to me but both are still important! I'll listen to basically any argument that is well-explained, and I appreciate creative strategies. Framework arguments are interesting but if you plan to win on them be sure to extend it throughout the round, rather than trying to use it as a "gotcha!" drop in the final speech when it was hardly discussed. Overall, I appreciate any work the debaters take to make my decision easier and less arbitrary, so clash, weighing arguments, and overviews of why you're winning the debate/key issues are super important. Lots of offense is probably one of the clearest ways to win my ballot.

Public Forum is the format I am least familiar with, so if there is anything important that is not addressed here you are more than welcome to ask!

Policy - RIP :(

I did policy for all 4 years of high school, and went to nationals my senior year, so I'm fairly familiar with most policy arguments/structure. I've also debated lincoln-douglas once or twice, and I'm somewhat familiar with the format and basic philosophical principles.

In Summary, I will listen to and vote for (almost) anything that is well-argued and explained. While generic arguments are fine and important, I love creative, researched, and specific strategies and will likely reward them. I strongly prefer if the debaters tell me how to evaluate the round, but in the absence of any sort of indication, I would describe myself as a policymaker. Make sure you're making big-picture explanations in the final speeches of clear reasons why you have won the debate, as it makes my decisions easier and less arbitrary.

I will listen to any type of argument (T, DA, CP, K, Theory, etc.) that is clear and applicable to the round. While I am much more experienced in Case/CP/DA debate, I am open to and interested by k and theory debate. Just make sure you explain it clearly, and don't assume I know all of the fancy terminology/mechanics.

I'm not huge on Counterplans/Kritiks that steal the affirmative like Agent/Consult CP's, and nitpicky theory arguments. You will be fighting an uphill battle if you run these.

Speed - No preference, but please slow down/articulate tags. If I can't understand it, I can't flow it, and it most likely won't be relevant in my decision.

Tag-Team CX: I'll allow it, but use it sparingly and only when necessary. If the other team is clearly using it as a crutch, you are more than welcome to call them out on it, you will be rewarded in ethos/speaker points.

T - T is fine and important, but often ran poorly or unnecessarily/filler. It will be easier to convince me to vote on it if you have in-round abuse, but I will vote on potential abuse/definition and standard debate if you argue it well. I probably won't vote on T as an RVI.

Any other questions, feel free to ask me.

As an LD judge, I am very pragmatic. Philosophy impacts the way I may view certain issues but to me, your position must be able to live and brief in the real world. I believe your value must be upheld by your issue contentions, and not just 'tacked on' to have a value. To me, your criteria is part of your analysis. It doesn't have to evaluate both side but help me evaluate and understand your case. I'm not opposed to subsuming a criteria (or value) and using it to your advantage but it is not required. Also, criteria usually doesn't factor much in my decision. My focus is on whether you prove the resolution true (if you're affirmative) or false (if you're negative) and whether there is value in voting for that position. Finally, to me, this is a communication activity so too much speed is not appreciated. While I'll do my best with speed, you jeopardize your persuasion and my ability to flow you. Signposting to help with flowing is also appreciated.

1. Debate background:

1. Judged High school debate for (9 years);
2. Assistant debate coach for 2 years.

2. Judging:

• I love flow and base my judgment on logical arguments, facts, science, etc.
• I deliberate on overall presentation of debaters-- i.e.-- argumentation + delivery

Traditional judge. Many years of experience, but not a fan of speed or kritiks. Approaches rounds as a policymaker unless persuaded otherwise. Speaking skills are important and the flow is important. In Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum rounds, Rhetorical skills and audience communication skills will weight heavily with me. I take old-school, in-depth PAPER notes. Argue “man in the street” to me.

Background

I got my bachelor's in Religion and Philosophy from Augustana University (SD) and now I’ve been teaching speech and coaching debate (mainly LD) for Brookings, SD.

Ethics

Coming from the world of philosophy and ethics, I am particularly picky when it comes to respectful debate. Please keep good ethos form the moment you enter the room to the moment you leave.

SPEECH EVENTS

When it comes to Interp. and IEs, it’s all about delivery (and content where appropriate). Make sure your voice is loud and clear, but be careful in humorous / dramatic pieces. Things like laughter, screams, cries, etc. are often done too loud for a small room. I’ll comment on everything from movement, to clarity, to character and everything in between. For pieces that you’ve composed (orig. oratory, extemp., etc.), I’m looking for cohesive structure, good intros/conclusions, and clear main points that follow the purpose of the piece.

DEBATE

Overall:

I am fine judging however fast you feel necessary; however, go faster than conversational speed at your own risk. However fast you go, your presentation should be clear, understandable, and well structured. If I can't hear or understand it, I don't factor it into the debate or my decision.I also love clear and concise voters / clinchers in your final speeches!

Under the consideration of what’s listed below, I’m willing to listen to and judge based on what you deem important so long as it’s clear, relevant, and uses sound reasoning. As far as K’s, I’m open to listening to them; however, I’ve found them relatively ineffective, especially if they are not run well (you need to make sure they still have connection to the resolution).

LD:

This is my bread and butter. With a philosophy background, I’m pretty familiar with just about any philosopher you could throw my way. Particularly with the more popular philosophers, make sure you know how the philosophy you’re using works. If you don’t, it will show.

When it comes to how I judge a round, LD is a value debate and I think this should be the main focus. Your contentions should be purely to support your framework, not the only focus of the debate (it’s not PF).

PF:

I feel evidence plays a bigger role in PF than in LD, so I’m far more interested in hearing evidence-based reasoning in round. Just like LD, outside of this, I’m willing to judge what you, your partner, and the other team focus on throughout the round, just keep it clear and structured.

If you want to do speech drop/email chain that's fine I guess. My email is katie.jacobs@k12.sd.us

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!

I come from a state with a traditional style of debate. Truth over tech. I don’t mind a bit of speed with signposting but need speaking to be clear.

LD: I try to lean more to a traditional LD judge style. The framework debate is important and I will always appreciate debaters who connect their contention level arguments back to the Value & Criterion. Though my background is in policy, so I will keep a flow and value that in a round. Maintaining focus on the resolution is important as well. I appreciate debaters who weigh out their arguments and give me clear reasons to vote one way or another.

In general I'm fine with speed and can follow arguments as long as clarity is maintained. That being said, my vote never just goes to who has the most arguments. In LD especially, I prefer well thought out and well weighed arguments versus a flood of arguments that may or may not hold merit.

At the core, I don't see a judge as someone who should intervene in the round. This is the debaters space to utilize their own strategies and argumentation. If you can explain an argument and give me reason to believe it matters in the round I will vote for it.

PF: Rounds most frequently come down to how well arguments are weighed out/impact calc for me. If you have framework or resolutional analysis you should be connecting your arguments back to it.

I have no problem following jargon or more advanced debate discussion, but I don't feel like Public Forum debate should devolve into a policy debate round in half the time.

Evidence is important in public forum debate and I do consider that when making decisions. If you are going to criticize your opponents evidence or call out any abuse, I want to see a reason behind it and why I should consider it in my decision making. Just saying "we post date" or "their sources are faulty" won't carry much weight unless you actually show me why it matters

I have not been judging on a regular basis recently, so speed should be kept under control.

I am open to most types of arguments.

Be sure to do the basics.

Be clear on tags and sources.

If you extend the source, add a bit of the tag. (See sentence one)

Explain why the warrants you want to extend matter to the round rather than just telling me to "extend the warrant of our What'sTheirName Card because they're fantastic." Be sure you've said what the fantastic warrants are.

Work to go down the flow logically and consistently. (See sentence one)

In the past, I was comfortable with critical arguments, but they need to be used consistently throughout the round and it's the debaters' responsibility to illustrate how they fit a particular resolution. I'm also fine with the basic social contract theorists, the Kant, utilitarian, and virtue ethics arguments if the they fit.

Work to avoid the "they said, but we said" arguments. Instead, clash with the argument directly and explain why your data, analysis, source, methodology, or first principles are superior to the opposition.

If there's going to be risk analysis, work to win on timeframe, magnitude, and probability not just magnitude. At least try to win two out of three. (Feel free to insert Meat Loaf (R.I.P) reference.)

Please work to sum up the story of the round. Don't ask a judge to think or assume that a judge will make the same conclusions that you have. Explain what to think and why that conclusion is the best option in the round.

LD-

I have coached Public Forum and LD for the past 11 years. I am a "traditional" judge that makes my decision off of the value and criterion. For the value you need to show me why it matters. Simply stating "I value morality" and that is all- is not enough. You need to show how your criterion upholds/weighs that value.

Contentions- need to be won as well. Dropping an entire contention and hoping I forget about it is not a good strat. I like to hear contention level debate as well, but I default to framework debate more often.

Voting Issues- I need these. Make it easy for me to vote for you. Give places to vote and provide the reasoning why. As a judge I should not have to do any type of mental lifting to get myself where you want me to be.

I do not listen to K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's. Keep policy in policy. I want to hear a debate about what is "right". For Ks and performance cases- I have very limited exposure to them so I have no idea how to weigh them or how they work in a round. If you run that type of argument you will probably lose that argument on the flow because I do not have enough experience or knowledge of how they work in a debate round.

Flow- I like to think I keep an ok flow. I don't get authors- but I get signposts and warrants.

Speed- I can handle a quick pace. I do not like spreading- especially when you struggle with it. If you are clear and sign post as you go so I know exactly where you are on the flow. I can keep up. When it comes to value debate and criterion- slow down. Kant and Locke are not meant to be speed read. This may be the first time I am hearing this argument.

Flashing- Make it quick.

Oral Comments- I have been verbally attacked by assistant coaches in the room who did not agree with my decision. This has really turned me off from giving oral comments. However, I will address the debaters and only the debaters in the round. will describe how I interpreted the round and what it would have taken to win my ballot. I am not there to re-debate the round with you but I want to offer clarity to what i heard and what I felt was made important in the round.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum for the past 11 years and believe anyone should be able to listen to the round and decide the winner.

I try to keep a solid flow, but I will not get warrant, authors, dates, if you go a lot of points. I want you to boil the debate down to 2-3 major voting issues that are supported in the round with evidence. Closing speeches need to be weighed and if you run framework, you better be utilizing it throughout the debate and not just in the final focus to why you win the round.

I will not listen to speed, (faster than you describing a great weekend debate round to your coach) k's, counter plans, or disadvantages. If you want to run those- policy is available.

I have 7 years of experience in Lincoln Douglas. Limited experience in public forum and congress. I would consider myself a traditionalist, emphasizing a strong connection between standards and contention level arguments. I can handle a decent rate or speed but I will not flow if you are unintelligible; you can make logical arguments without having to spread.

I am an open-minded judge, willing to hear a wide variety of arguments. Arguments need a logical basis while not being straw-man. Theorists I am most well-versed in are John Rawls, Thomas Hobbes, and several other political theorists. I have a degree in political science, sociology, and public administration. If students make arguments that are false in these areas, I will give little to no weight to them. I will always inform on these mistakes though.

LD - The first thing I look at is value/criterion/framework. Framework is how you craft your moral world; your job is to establish your moral world and convince me we must affirm/negate on the basis of your world's moral system. The winning framework is how I judge the round. Example: If the winning framework tells me that absolute freedom is to be valued over human life, then an argument that Neg contributes to a high death toll holds little weight, because human life is not what we're trying to achieve. SO DON'T DROP THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE; pull it through, and explain to me how the contention level matches with and upholds your framework.

PF - I vote for the team that can best uphold their case through analysis and evidence. If you don't tell me WHY something matters, I don't care - give me impacts! Example: I don't care about terrorism unless you tell me why I should care about terrorism, otherwise you're just throwing out a buzz-word. If you provide framework, the arguments for your case AND arguments against your opponent's case should work in the world of your framework - don't contradict yourself.

BQ - Definitions are SO important. In Big Question, the topic is very vague and broad; you need to clearly define your terms and the context in which you are building your arguments. If you debate against your opponent's definition, give me a good reason to believe your definition instead. If the definitions are similar enough or don't impact the round, you do not have to debate them. For voting, I first look to framing (observations, definitions), then evaluate contention level based on framing. I look for logical consistency. I like examples. I like to know the credentials for your sources.

hi my name is rachel (she/her) i’m excited to judge (almost always)

chahta yakni | šuŋgmánitu oyáte

dowling 23- i am going to be judging a ton of pf for the foreseeable future! i'm excited to learn more about a different style of debate. however, the way that I approach rounds pretty much never changes. i only care about the arguments on the flow, not speaking style. i highly value framework debate and impact weighing, and i expect that debaters try their hardest in every round. my paradigm might not be very helpful if you're a PF debater, so feel free to ask me questions before the round. gl everyone!

apple valley 22- email chains consistently annoy me. if you can use speech drop i would appreciate it very much.

going forward- i'm not going to clarify a position on my paradigm for only 1 debater- if you want to ask questions, i think it's only fair that your opponent gets the same opportunity. if you want to email me beforehand, either cc your opponent or just wait until everyone is in the room.

Quick Guide if you want to pref me

1- Give back the land (Tuck and Yang, not Churchill)

Debord

Orthodox Marx (i have mixed opinions on Stalin and Mao. I think there are probably better critical theorists who articulate their ideas better, but whatever floats your boat. Lenin is fine, but I'm only really familiar with Imperialism:HSoC. If you read Krupskaya I'll be stoked).

SC authors (Locke especially, Hobbes 2nd and Rousseau 3rd)

Rawls

Socrates/Plato

2- Butler

LARP (i think of this in two ways, either structurally or argument-wise. I'm pretty solid on both, although you'll be better off dropping some hyper-specific policy language because it wasn't what I usually went for as a debater)

Spinoza (this is only at a 2 because I genuinely don't think you could ever make Ethics topical).

Hegel- i mean what can you do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

3- Trad/lay (i debated in SD, so go figure).

SOME DnG (I think I get rhizomatic thought, I think I get schizophrenic capital, I don't understand most of the rest of it. Plz be cautious.

Kant- idk man this is run in so many different ways you should just ask.

4- Middle-of-the-road Performance (I have not yet been able to find a debater that clearly articulated how to substantively weigh performance in a round, and I ran performance several times. If you think you can then go off, I'd love to hear it). This includes poems, songs, personal narratives, etc- see "5" for aggressive or emotionally traumatic performance.

"High Theory"- whatever this means, if it's gonna make my brain bleed i'm not a fan.

Chinese Imperial Philosophy: Confucianism, Taoism.

Theory- I'm not a huge fan and I'm bad at flowing it. Like terrible. Please if you do this to me go very slow I will unintentionally drop 50% of your standards. RVIs mostly good. paragraph theory is fine, it just needs clear impacts to the round/debate space.

5- Evola (ill drop you no cap)

Time Cube >:(

skep

social darwinism

badly done death drive (ie "k*ll everyone, nuke war good). Don't justify oppression, don't be rude. Also in here- physical performance or extremely emotional performance. Do not read me trauma-porn.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

here is a list of things that make me go :) in rounds

1. extending the whole argument (claim + warrant) in every speech

2. warrants that you can actually explain tbh

3. evidence comparison (especially using author quals)

4. when u kick ur F/W and turn their case (that’s spicy stuff)

5. when u run a well articulated Kritikal position that ur excited about and that makes me learn stuff ( although it makes me go :/ if it’s clearly commodifying a people group- ex. don’t facilitate a performance you have no stake in)

6. in general if u teach me something that’s great!!!!

here’s a list of things that make me go :( in rounds

1. you have a captive audience in the round, so don't make the round unsafe for anyone (think the -ists and -phobias). if you do so in a manner that i think warrants it, i will

a. drop kick u off the ballot

b. give u the lowest legal speaks

c. talk to ur coach

d. tell ur mom

2. when ur winning and u rub it in the other person’s face- that is rude stop. not gonna drop ur speaks though- its just annoying.

3. don’t run afro pes if ur non black or anything like that- don’t use other people’s oppression as a gimmick y’all the ballot isn’t worth it

if you take each part of the debate seriously then u should be fine- most people mess up the most when they get too confident

ask me if u want more info i’ll tell u how i feel about anything and i’ll give u time to change it if u need to

my email is rdover2@gmail.com if u need it

u get +.1 speaks if u can diss Andrew Myrick in ur speech and it flows well

Hello debaters,

I approach debate with a focus on substance and argumentation, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and effective case development. Here are key aspects of my judging philosophy:

1. Flow-Centric Evaluation:

   • I prioritize the flow as the primary tool for decision-making.
   • Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
   • I appreciate organization and signposting to enhance the flow.

2. Impacts Matter:

   • I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
   • Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.

3. Technical Proficiency:

   • I value technical proficiency in debate. Solid understanding of debate theory and effective cross-examination will be rewarded.
   • However, I do not automatically vote on theory. Make sure to connect theoretical arguments to tangible impacts on the round.

4. Clarity and Signposting:

   • Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
   • Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.

5. Adaptability:

   • I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategy based on the flow of the round.
   • Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to adjust to your opponent's arguments will be recognized.

6. Framework and Weighing:

   • Framework is essential for framing the round, but it should be applied in a way that enhances substantive clash.
   • Effective weighing of impacts is crucial. Explain why your impacts are more significant in the context of the round.

7. Disinclination towards Theory Arguments:

   • I am not a fan of theory arguments. While I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash, relying heavily on theory arguments may not be as persuasive to me.

8. Respect and Sportsmanship:

   • Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
   • I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your speaker points.

9. Evidence Quality:

   • Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
   • Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide, and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.

Hello debaters,

I approach debate with a focus on substance and argumentation, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and effective case development. Here are key aspects of my judging philosophy:

1. Flow-Centric Evaluation:

   • I prioritize the flow as the primary tool for decision-making.
   • Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
   • I appreciate organization and signposting to enhance the flow.

2. Impacts Matter:

   • I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
   • Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.

3. Technical Proficiency:

   • I value technical proficiency in debate. Solid understanding of debate theory and effective cross-examination will be rewarded.
   • However, I do not automatically vote on theory. Make sure to connect theoretical arguments to tangible impacts on the round.

4. Clarity and Signposting:

   • Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
   • Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.

5. Adaptability:

   • I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategy based on the flow of the round.
   • Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to adjust to your opponent's arguments will be recognized.

6. Framework and Weighing:

   • Framework is essential for framing the round, but it should be applied in a way that enhances substantive clash.
   • Effective weighing of impacts is crucial. Explain why your impacts are more significant in the context of the round.

7. Disinclination towards Theory Arguments:

   • I am not a fan of theory arguments. While I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash, relying heavily on theory arguments may not be as persuasive to me.

8. Respect and Sportsmanship:

   • Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
   • I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your speaker points.

9. Evidence Quality:

   • Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
   • Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide, and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.

Ann Tornberg has been a Debate coach for 35 years. She has coached Policy, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum in addition to coaching Speech and Oral Interp.

"I want to be persuaded in LD. I want to be able to evaluate the evidence based on a strong, reasonably paced delivery. Do not speed read in LD if you want high speaker points. As you summarize make sure that you are referring to evidence that has been read in the round. I do my best to take a careful flow. Give direction to your argument and always signpost. Let me know where I should put your argument on my flow. Finally, give me your estimate of the primary VOTERS in the round, but don't be surprised if I find other issues that are just as important to my decision." Ann Tornberg

Numbered points are from the NSDA ballot

1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.

2. Each debater has the burden to prove his or her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.

3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.

4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to him/her as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.

5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his or her opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.

6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.

7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.

I prefer to make my final decision of the voting issues the debaters present in the context of the round.  I do believe the debate is ultimately about the resolution. 

Deliver rate: I prefer typical conversational speed

Framework (value/criterion): Debaters need to tell me how the resolution should be evaluated based on its key value term(s) i.e. ought

Evidence:  Using known philosophical positions might be easier to understand, but are not required.  A philosophical argument does not require evidence, nor do thought experiments.  However, factual arguments require evidence.

Flowing: I write down the key arguments throughout the round vs keeping a rigorous flow.

Plans and Counterplans:  Not acceptable

Pet peeves: I dislike debaters arguing the generic faults of extreme positions on utilitarianism and deontology, rather than talking about the principles and consequences that are specifically tied to the resolution. I have become disenchanted with policy debate and don't like excesses of policy debate creeping into LD debate i.e. speed and kritiks. 

Experience:  I have judged LD since it started which was around 1979.  I was a high school policy debater.  I debated CEDA in college when they did propositions of value.  I have coached CEDA at the college level.  I'm currently an LD coach and have previously coached policy and public forum debate.  

Doing an email chain? I'd love to be on it: amwelter12@ole.augie.edu

Short version

Policy/LD background. Former debater and current coach. I time prep, but you should too. Please don't rely on me to give you 30-sec intervals.

PF - Big fan of disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory, but I'm iffy on most other theory. Don't tell me why your impact is big, tell me why it's BIGGER than your opponents'. I don't need you to win every contention (kicking out is under-rated). I don't need you to win more contentions than your opponent. I just need you to tell me why the arguments you DO win are more important than the other arguments in the round. Impacts are crucial for that. I'm a sucker for "even-if" weighing. Please don't make me judge a round where both teams close for everything, some contentions have links, some have impacts, and none have both. If you call for a card, prep starts as soon as the card is in front of you. Your speaks will take a hit if you steal prep. Your speaks will take a bigger hit if you make blatantly new args in FF (which I won't weigh). 2nd rebuttal should respond to 1st rebuttal. Uniqueness is probably important.

LD - Connect your contentions to your framework (or your opponents') or tell me why you don't have to. Winning framework alone is almost never enough to win the round. It is in your best interest to give me more than one way to vote for you (e.g. "I win and uphold my framework so vote for me there, but even if you don't buy that then here's why I win under my opponent's framework"). I am willing to vote you down for paraphrasing evidence instead of reading/quoting cards if your opponent calls you on it and gives me any explanation for why it's a bad thing to do.

Long version

I prefer topical debates on substance--that's where I've found that I'm least likely to get lost. I also prefer judging debaters who are doing what they love and do best, which doesn't need to be substance or topical. If 10 is top-speed, then I can handle about a 6. I will try super hard to follow the round, but it'll be in your best interest to slow down (substantially so on theory). LD/Policy experience. Always up for a K if there’s a solid link, but not familiar with most K lit. I’ll vote for almost anything with a valid warrant behind it.

Please, ask me anything before the round. I've been judging national circuit LD for the last few years and there are no arguments I'm opposed to on principle (except overtly discriminatory arguments...), but there's a solid chance that I won't have the same understanding of how a round should break down or what's meta. Asking me stuff before the round minimizes this chance.

My default weighing preferences (I can absolutely be convinced away from these):

Pre-fiat K > T = Theory > Post-fiat K > Substance. Condo is fine, running a ton of blips or spikes is sleazy and I'm way less likely to vote for you on those.

I default to truth-testing in general and reasonability on theory. I have a high threshold on theory and probably won't vote on without clear in-round abuse.

Pet peeve: people who say "moral obligation" or "d-rule" with no warrant beyond "x is bad". If you want me to weigh your args as a prior question to your opponent's args, I need a solid warrant for that.

Higher speaks indicate I learned something from you (either about debate or about your argument) and/or that you clashed often and effectively.

Lower speaks indicate that I think your strategy was sleazy (tricks / spikes), or that you were a jerk to your opponent.

I might disclose speaks, but I'll be the one to tell you--please don't ask.