My Email: isaacappelbaum404@gmail.com

Origin Story:

Hi! I'm Isaac. I am a junior at George Washington University in D.C. and competed in Congressional Debate and Extemp for four years at Pennsbury High School in Pennsylvania. I competed extensively on the national circuit, obtaining 11 bids to the TOC and I was lucky enough to place/final at tournaments like Harvard, Princeton, Sunvite, Blue Key, Barkley Forum (Emory), Durham, UPenn, and Villiger.

Now that I've given some of my background as a competitor I can discuss what that means in terms of what I like to see as a judge. In my opinion, this can best be summarized like this;

Congress:

stick to 2 points

don't speak too fast

try to get to 2:50-3 minutes

arguments flow in linear way and flow broad to narrow with a terminalized impact (human beings should be your impact)

use refutation after 1st cycle

I like well 2 well developed arguments over 3 poorly constructed ones

Stick to legislation what does the legislation do, not what it won't do if that makes sense

LD:

Don't spread

cite good sources stated clearly

present links clearly

be realistic

PF:

Don’t spread (speak so quickly I can’t understand you)

use good sources (try not to use news articles, stick to research) state them clearly

arguments flow in linear fashion (I should be able to see where you go from point A to point B to point C)

give me a human reason to vote for your side (this means establish the human impact why the issue directly impacts a human person)

no theory please (stick to arguing the facts, data, and information of the issues at hand in the motion)

Please sign post arguments (tell me that you are about to make a big point before you do)! I need this for flowing purposes

Speech:

Because I never did speech I only know what I know and that is that if you immerse me in the narrative thread of your speech, meaning you speak well and beautifully, and I truly can imagine you acting out all these parts (or in OO you are sincere with your performance) generally the person who achieves that will be ranked 1 on my ballot, or close to it as possible. Think of suspended belief.

I am  from TN and am looking forward to judging debate. Please make sure to speak on the slower side and clearly so that I can understand your arguments. Make sure to speak loudly and make eye contact as it helps me understand you better as well. Please be polite .

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Parker De Dekér (He/Him), I'm a Student at Columbia University in New York where I study Latin American & Caribbean Studies and Cognitive Science and I work as a Research Advisor at the Bahamian Mission to the UN and IDB. I'm also the Assistant Coach for Congress at Taipei American School, and do a lot of committee and organizational work throughout the Speech & Debate Community.

While in High School, I got some variety of exposure to any and every event that our community has to offer, so rest-assured I come from an experience background where I'm happy to see you run whatever you want, as long as it's respectful and has a place in the round.

Congressional Debate

Repetition & Refutation: The recurrence of similar ideas in the first two cycles of debate is okay; subsequently, I either want to hear new points that highlight the issues brought forward to focus on achieving a resolution or I want to be listening to you refute your opponent's points. I respond to engaging speeches with dynamic responses to specific arguments mentioned earlier in the round and points of note referenced by the speaker’s name; it demonstrates you are actively listening to others and formulating new material as the round progresses. A memorable speech that I can flow assists me when filling out my rankings upon completing the round.

Speaking: I am comfortable with spreading; however, this is a Congressional debate, and spreading is non-sensical when getting your point across, especially if you are trying to emphasize or embolden certain points. I prefer to see open, engaging dialogue over a flurry of nonsensical interjections. I enjoy speakers that show a genuine passion for what they are talking about.

As the round goes on and the material becomes more repetitive, I WILL flow less of what is presented. If you are debating in a later cycle and still want a place on my ballot, you need to fight for it, that comes by distinguishing yourself stylistically. Refute your opponents' arguments, weigh the round, and if you are one of the final speakers PLEASE CRYSTALIZE. I will give you higher speaker points if you attempt on crystal speech and do okay, rather than give a constructive one with no refutation and do great. In my opinion, crystallizing the round is a difficult task; if you do it well, I'll remember you!

Decorum: As a judge, I appreciate your ability to respect your PO, Parliamentarian, Competitors, and Judges with formal language and modest amounts of well-timed humor. It is your responsibility to ensure you monitor time signals and adhere to PO policies.

Equity and inclusion are integral points in how I judge a round. I expect to hear demonstrated efforts to make a round more inclusive for others through the usage of correct terminology, proper pronouns, etc. Explicit acts to infringe upon a person's identity, including, but not limited to, their race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, religion, or other such disregard, will result in an immediate drop in ranking status.

Presiding: As an experienced Parliamentarian (and High School PO) I'm very familiar with the intricacies of presiding. If you are running against someone as the presiding officer, I hope you are decently experienced. If you are stepping up to preside, I will take that into account when filling out my rankings; however, if you say you are an experienced PO, list a whole bunch of tournaments you've presided at, and then still fail to provide efficient presiding, I'm going to consider that a bluff, and include comments about it in your RFD. Even if I'm not the parliamentarian, I will still be keeping track of precedence and recency and your employment of Roberts Rules of Order. I consider efficient, organized, and experienced POs equivalent to quality speakers and will rank my POs on the same level during the round. I appreciate a well-run chamber where all parties are held to the highest standard and will make a note of those who rise to the occasion.

Public Forum:

I will flow everything in the round, even Cross-Ex, so if your opponent asks a question in cross-ex and you don't carry that argument through the round, I'm going to believe that you either weren't paying attention in Cross or you are not responding to the question; however, if you are the one answering the question and your counter never appears later in the round, I'm also dropping it from the flow. I encourage you to run whatever you like; however, I enjoy progressive arguments in PF. Yes I know, a public forum is supposed to be very accessible, and I agree. Still, it should also be a learning opportunity, so responding to abuses of the debating environment (T-Shell), introducing frameworks (I wish I didn't have to mention this, but I do), moral imperatives and interpretations are all appreciated. That said, if you are trying to run a T-Shell in JV or Novice, I will be a little concerned; save this for varsity. In terms of speed, I've competed in almost every debating style, so I am very familiar and comfortable with spreading; however, I'm not a big fan of spreading in PF, so fast paces are okay, spreading to a point that puts your competitor and a disadvantage will be labeled as abusive, please don't do this.

What I Love to See: Impact calculus- it is the most important thing to me; please weigh & please tell me how to vote so I don’t have to intervene in any capacity. I also like to see super high respect for your opponent. This is such an underrated part of PF that is not nearly as present in LD or Policy, and it totally should be.

A few things I hate in rounds:

- Swearing, I wish it were obvious but you would be surprised. This lacks professionalism if it is not needed to make points. Same goes for using basic filler such as like, um, literally, err, but, stupid, etc. If you use these, your not going to get a 30 from me for your speaker points.

- "Stealing" prep- if you need prep take it, if you are sitting for more than 15 seconds without telling me that you are taking prep, having tech issues, etc, I'm going to start the prep clock.

- Experienced debaters being overly hard on novices- we want to keep them in the activity, don't discourage them by running super dense over the top arguments- you will probably win if you just run a standard argument simply by being more experienced.

-Straight Theory Arguments: Are done to death, and aren't making either debater better. If it wins, I'll still pick you up, but I would prefer to see educational rounds.

-Do not run a "fairness" argument that you couldn't prep against your opponent, and then you have a case completely against your opponent. This demonstrates that you lied about the fairness argument; I'm dropping it.

-DEBATE SHOULD ALWAYS BE INCLUSIVE! The usage of any verbiage or dialogue that is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, anti-semitic, islamophobic, nativist, xenophobic, classist, or abusive will result in an immediate loss of the round, and a speaker score below 20, this is not tolerated while I am a judge.

Lincoln Douglas & Policy:

1. I will be flowing all of the debate, but I appreciate it when you slow down on the authors and taglines, even if you are spreading. I'm very comfortable with spreading, but I ask that you put me on the email chain parker.dedeker@gmail.com

2. Even in complex debates in LD and CX, I want to see the debate a clear storyline that properly compares the resolution to the context of the squo, and explains how arguments within the round interact with one another. I'm a huge lover of Phil. debate, but not framework debate. I don't want to make it to the 2AR and still be arguing about what the Value/VC is for the round. If there is no way for you to adopt the same value for the res then just provide a holistic approach to explaining how your args can suffice both values and criteria for the round.

3. Do what you do best. While I do not believe that affirmatives have to be topical, I am often more invested when you approach the aff case with new and innovative arguments that still engage with the topic.

4. Please know what you’re talking about. The easiest way for you to lose a round is to look for an argument that is "irrefutable," "shiny" or non-topical because it sounds good and like an easy win, but then have no tangible way of continuing the argument without sole reliance on the card. When students are well-read/versed on the things that they are reading, and have an ability to care and genuinely understand them, I am easily engaged and feel better positions to vote for you. That being said, being well-read does equate to using complex jargon all the time. This is not really appealing to me, and can also come off as an unfair approach to the round, especially because not every team/school has the resource to equip them with these complexities. If your wording doesn’t make sense or if I don’t understand it at the end of the debate, I will have a hard time evaluating it.

5. Progressive Debate: So this has become a huge debate in recent years on the circuit, and coming from Wisconsin, I'm used to competitors being dropped for running prog, but surprisingly, I absolutely love progressive debate. I will vote for Theory, T debates, Kritik, plans, CPs, etc, but I do not believe that running a progressive approach is a necessarily substantive response to certain arguments. This being established, if you choose to run a Prog case, there are a few things you need to do: prove actual in-round abuse, actual ground loss, and actual education lost for T debates. Establish why the resolution cannot be debated and why you have to run a CP/Plan (your DAs need to be crystal clear and need to be used to set up the case before you move into the CP in the 1NC) or provide me with genuine context about why the philosophy, theory, or kritik holds more validity to be debated over the topicality within the round. While I love prog debate, my caveat is--you need to know your audience. If you have a competitor who is in a position where they cannot respond to your arguments because of their complexity/lack of literature to disprove or position your competitor within the round where they cannot logistically win the round in your own opinion, then I cannot vote for the prog arguments, because it doesn't allow the debate to be educational.

All Events: If you ever need an explanation of your feedback, or want a more in-depth response, email me parker.dedeker@gmail.com I WILL NEVER leave you a blank ballot. If this happens, it is a mistake, please send me an email, and I'll see what I can do.

Best of luck to you in your rounds today and tomorrow. Your speaking will change lives, even if it is just one, I promise.

julianvgagnon@gmail.com please add me to email chains

from planet debate-

this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.

topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.

cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.

das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.

critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.

others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.


from debateresults...

Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.

updated public forum paradigm

coming from policy debate, I generally tend to judge a pf debate in a similar manner: as tabula rasa as possible, based on the arguments made in the debate.

Framework, theory arguments, and/or "voters" would be evaluated first. Then the pro/con contentions and their rebuttals.

Since I come from policy debate, I generally think the summary speech should do a line by line (point by point) response to the 2nd speaker's rebuttals on the contention you're extending.

Often find that summary and final focus speeches do unnecessary impact calculus when both teams have the same impacts and the link should be the focus. Impact calculus is not ALWAYS needed in the last two speeches in the debate.

Howdy, my name is Daniel Gardiner and I'm a political science major from Corpus Christi TX but most importantly I am the loudest and proudest member of the fighting Texas Aggie class of 2026. I competed in debate all four years of high school at the local state and national level having the privilege to attend some really great tournaments like Bluekey, University of Texas, TOC, and more. I have separate paradigms listed for each event I consider myself qualified to judge.

Congress: I did nats circuit congressional debate all across the country and man do I love the event. I think its important to remember that although the event allows for a lot of theatrics and really cool speaking styles it is a debate event. Presentation and argumentation are both extremely significant for my ballot. Present bad arguments that do not have a big impact on the round and I'll probably drop you. For early round speakers I expect you to frame the debate dive deep into the legislation and what it does and really outline the impact of an aff or neg vote. Late round speakers should have a lot of refutation with a mix of new points. Evidence and analysis work together to create solid claims and warrants I expect both in a point. Please be respectful to other speakers and address each other properly when bringing their name up in questions or speeches. With that being said I appreciate all types of AGDs in introductions as long as they are not canned. Never call me sir or Mr during a round I will not drop you for it but I much prefer Daniel or parli depending on my role in the round. For Po's you'll get a good rank from me as long as you do not mess up. If you speak off of a laptop the highest rank I will give you is 6. (unless the room is not super competitive)

LD: Lincoln Douglas debate is definitely one of the hardest events to find major success in so props to you guys for picking up the event. I competed in LD at the local and state level but nothing beyond that. First things first I expect to be on the email chain every time there is one if the competitors are both okay with not seeing the case that's fine with me just remember that if you choose to speak fast. I am okay with spreading it will not doc speaker points for me as long as you slow down for taglines and author names. If you are competing against someone that would prefer you not to spread please consider that before you start the round the last thing we wanna do is scare people away from the activity, prioritizing the ballot above someone's well-being is not cool and I will reflect that in your speaker points. I get that rounds can be frustrating but please be respectful in round do not swear unless it is specific to the literature you are using. Finally on the argumentation side I will evaluate any argument that is not offensive. Racism, sexism, homophobia I will instantly drop and not flow the rest of the debate. I hate K's that have no link to the topic or your opponents case. If your running a competing model of debate strategy I will try to fully consider it but no promises. I personally appreciate theory arguments like T and condo so feel free to run them. Framing is important but if you have no offense as long as your opponent does a decent job establishing that they will probably win my ballot. LARPing is fine. Performance aff is fine just explain the significance of it in the 1AC not the 1AR. I do not like music in the background while I am flowing it distracts me and I'll start dancing when I should be judging. Finally I would say this for all of you that see me my name before judging. I would much rather debate/judge a traditional round than a progressive round because I believe they are more fun and less stressful. That does not mean you have to go trad but I thought y'all would like the heads up. Have never voted for disclosure and do not plan on it.

PF: I will judge PF almost the same way I judge LD with a few exceptions. K's are a no for me! (There's not enough time to explain the alt can't convince me otherwise.) I like framing in PF! I have voted for limited theory in PF but mostly just T.

Extemp: I competed in FX at the local level and DX at all levels. I try to keep up with significant news findings in both national and international news so do not BS or lie in round about a situation or crisis that is in your question chances are I'll catch it. With that being said things that lack objective truths such as "whether or not US impact in the Middle East has been positive" I will listen to multiple viewpoints as long as you have evidence backing your claims. Examples of good evidence for me include thinktanks, empirical studies, and experts regarding the field in question. Bad evidence includes opinion pages, encyclopedias, or highly controversial sites that generally misrepresent information because of bias. The most common ones I see presented too much are progon.org, Fox News, and CNN. Stick to neutral sources like NPR, Politico, or Carnegie. I am not afraid to vote people down for lying about sources if you forget an article do not BS and say some generic site like CNN I traditionally fact check all sources unless I miss the name of one. Dates, as long as you are close to the publishing date don't worry about it. I love great citations that explain author qualifications or how research is conducted.

OO: I have no competitive experience in OO but I have briefly coached the event and have had the privilege of being on a team with one of the best orators in the country. What I look for in a piece is something that has a very real impact and something that is relatable! That covers a significant number of topic areas so what will distance yourself from other speakers in the room for my ballot is presentation and analysis. I pay super close attention to tone, I love a speaker that can take me on an adventure using conversational tactics and then moving from conversational to funny, serious, compassionate, and other areas. I know this is not debate but I do expect at least some qualified evidence to back your claims. I do not think there is a 100% accurate formula in terms of speech structure but I tend to support speeches with a simple problem solution format as I think it makes the most sense for this type of event. Finally, I will always vote up the speaker that makes me think about the squo and what is wrong with it. If I have to question my actions or other people's actions as a result of the speech and the speech also gives me a way to solve those actions or lack of actions then you are in the right direction. OO's should not be interp pieces I do not like you pretending to be a character or having overly dramatic transitions.

Email: gardidk367@gmail.com

Madison West '22, Swarthmore College '25 (econ/math).

I've worked for: Madison West, Vel Phillips Memorial, Strath Haven, Palo Alto, JR Masterman

VARSITY PF:

TL;DR: I was a circuit debater in high school, but I haven't debated for 3 years. I broke at TOC Gold my senior year, so can evaluate a tech round easily. However, I find that teams have the most success with me when they lean slightly more flay than they would with an average tech judge. Tech over truth but I admire appeals to truth when done well. Proud hack for evidence ethics. Below are some areas where I may deviate from circuit norms.

- Fairness > Education > Winning. Anything you do that is discriminatory will get you dropped and get your speaks tanked. PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE.

- If you're a small school and you're up against a team from a big prep school, I am a judge you want. I debated a lot on the national circuit, but I went to a public school that barely funds its debate program. Unlike a lot of judges who consider themselves "flow," I don't care if you use the same useless circuit buzzwords I use and I'm really not impressed by people that read 5 poorly warranted turns in rebuttal that one of their 15 coaches wrote for them in a prepout.

- If you go to a privileged school, are facing an underprivileged school, and spend the round commodifying the issues of underprivileged schools in an unnuanced disclosure/paraphrasing shell, your speaks will be capped at a 26 and I will be very tempted to drop you for it. If your entire strategy for winning rounds is to weigh extinction impacts over everything else, your speaks will be capped at a 28.5 unless you present some type of interesting nuance in the weighing debate.

- I reserve the right to intervene if I dislike your theory, and I am much less receptive to theory at local circuit tournaments. Not only can local circuits make rules about disclosure or paraphrasing; individual schools generally have the credibility to introduce such rules at summer coaches' meetings. Local circuit teams running theory need to explain why the round is uniquely better than those meetings to adjudicate what the norms and/or rules of this activity should be.

- I won't flow you off a doc.

- Weighing should be done early.

- Collapse early. To that end, don't read a whole new contention in rebuttal for no reason.

- "If you pronounce “Reuters” as 'rooters' or "nuclear" as 'nook-you-ler' I will be sad." –Sorin Caldararu, my brilliant debate partner.

- I'm a pretty liberal guy but I'm not a big fan of teams who run random leftist academic theory for a ballot.

---

JV/Novice/Middle School Paradigm:

- There are essentially three parts of debating: making arguments, responding to arguments, and weighing arguments (i.e. comparing your arguments and with those of your opponent). Ideally, you should start by mostly making arguments, and by the end you should mostly be weighing arguments that have already been made. You can make that very clear to me by saying things like "now I'm going to respond to my opponent's argument about ______."

- An argument usually has to involve saying something will cause something else. Say we're debating whether the government should create a single-payer healthcare system. If you are on the aff, saying "healthcare is a right" isn't really an argument. Rather, it's a catchphrase that hints at a different argument: by making healthcare single-payer, the cost doesn't change whether you go to the doctor or not, making people more likely to get care that improves their quality of life and could even save lives. The difference between the first argument and the second is pretty subtle, but it's important for me as a judge: saying "healthcare is a right" doesn't tell me how single-payer gets people healthcare, and it also doesn't tell me who I'm actually helping by voting in favor of single-payer. The second argument answers those questions and puts those answers front and center. And that makes it much easier for me, as a judge, to vote for you.

- To that end, I'm not a fan of new arguments in late speeches. It makes the debate feel like whack-a-mole: a team makes one argument, but once it's rebutted, they present another argument, which then gets rebutted, and so on.

- Generally, I find logic to be more compelling than moral grandstanding. For example, if we're debating if it should be legal to feed kids McDonalds and you argue that it shouldn't because McDonalds is unhealthy, it doesn't help to say stuff like "they're basically stepping over the bodies of dead children" in a speech. It sounds like overkill and makes me not want to vote for you as much.

- Tell me your favorite animal to show me you've read this for an extra speaker point. The WDCA hates fun, so I sadly cannot give you your extra speaker point if you are in Wisconsin. I also won't give you an extra point in varsity because I feel like that's unfair.

---

Policy/LD: If I am judging you in policy or LD, I might have a slight bias towards a more PF style of debate. Read my PF paradigm since most things will apply. I find the ideas and concepts in policy and LD interesting and worthwhile even though I'm not inclined to participate in those styles of debate. Just keep it under 300wpm, use PF-level lingo, and keep in mind I can sort of flow spreading but I can't flow it as well as an actual policy or LD debater. I'm probably more down for progressive debate than most PF judges, especially in those events. I know I can be a hard judge to adapt to for circuit policy and LD, so I'll cut you some slack with speed and clear you like 10 times before I stop trying to flow.

---

BQ:

I judge BQ exactly like I judge PF, but obviously framework matters more because it's philosophy. Just read the PF section. It all applies.

At the top, I would greatly prefer if you sent me case docs so I could follow along during round and easily reference arguments and specific cards at my leisure. Sending those tosusom.hait@gmail.comas early as you can before round it would be optimal. Outside of that, do include me in the email chain if one is made.

Throughout High School I competed primarily in PF on the national circuit. I went to NSDA twice in PF, was a State Champion in the event, and competed in multiple nat circuit tournaments.

Despite this, I don't really like theory and arguments of this nature very much. If you explain it well enough and make me interested I might vote on theory, but don't hold out too much hope. You stand a much better chance of winning if you stick to relevant on case arguments.

I have a pretty high tolerance for speed, but you need to make sure you're clear if you're going to speak at a quicker pace.

I also want to see frontlining occur in the right speeches. (this primarily means 2nd team rebuttal addressing the 1st team rebuttal and not waiting until summary to frontline) If you fail to address an argument at the right time and your opponent says you don't bring up a response, I'm gonna drop whatever argument was attacked without a second thought.

Most importantly, be civil when you debate. Don't try to harass your opponent, intentionally talk over them, or flex that you're some debate genius. Winning one debate round in high school isn't so big a deal where trying to fight the opponent in round. Debate is about discourse before anything else, so act in a way that best suits delivering knowledge.

For LD and Policy, most of the same things apply. Remember to be coherent with clear arguments.

I am a senior in high school with 5 years of experience competing in congressional debate.

I do not tolerate racism, homophobia, ableism, or any other blatant aggression for any reason in the round. If you do any of the aforementioned things, expect to be dropped.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, ask me before the round starts!

Congress:

- Speakers: My highest priority in the round is your content followed by your delivery. I am a strong believer that congress can be a debate event if you chose to make it one, so please do so. I expect to see strong warranting of your points (telling me why your argument is true) and strong impact weighing and analysis (telling me what happens as a result of your argument). If you are not the sponsor/author, I expect to see strong refutation/clash against the opposing side (this is what makes congress debate). If you are passionate about what you are discussing, deliver your speech well, and do all of the aforementioned things, you will rank well with me. Use questioning tactically to point out jumps in the logic of your opponent's speeches and tie it into your speeches. Remember to remain calm and composed during questioning as well, being overly aggressive does not get the debate anywhere and only makes you look bad.

- PO: Please keep the round running smoothly while adhering to parliamentary procedure. Due to online, time cards are preferred. Your job is to moderate debate seamlessly, while still being the leader of the chamber. Likewise, if you know the answer to a question posed by the chamber, try to answer it yourself before involving the judge. They should not have to get involved in the round unless absolutely necessary.

LD/PF/Policy: For all intents and purposes, consider me a flay judge. I compete in congress so I understand argumentation. Overall, I want you to explain everything clearly and walk through everything clearly. The clearer you make the reason to vote AFF/NEG the clearer my ballot will be. I should not have to do the work for you to cross-apply your contentions and refutations to your opponent's case. Please do not try to run theory or tricks, I don't understand them. I have some muddled of Ks so if you want to give that a try go ahead.

- Please pay attention to pronouns provided via the Tabroom blast prior to the round. If the tournament does not provide this, ask your opponent before round.

- Speed: We are online. Adjust accordingly. I can tolerate fast speaking but remember your computer microphone may not be able to. At the start of the round, please ask me for my email and add me to your email chain with your case. This will make the round clearer.

- CX: This is the only time you get to directly interact with your opponent. Make the most of it. Don't spend the entire time clarifying something they said.

- Prep time: Prep time starts when you start prepping. I don't count emailing docs as prep time.

- Novices: Please don't be afraid to ask me any questions about debate or my paradigm before the round starts! I promise I don't bite. I'm a firm believer that while speech and debate is a competition, it should still be an educational experience for everyone.

Updated 4/1/25 for Last Chance Qualifier

It is a privilege to support the speech and debate community and I do not take this privilege lightly. I value your voice and want to engage with you and your critical thinking and creativity.

"Debate doesn’t simply just change lives—it makes lives better. It gives us a space to grow, to give back, and to find the best people by our sides." Jeff Miller

Note: The vast majority (80%+) of LD judges are parent/lay/community most who have judged less than 10 rounds. Thus slow, simple and a single argument well developed are recommended as well as the comments below. The LDers I find most persuasive are orators and I wonder how Aristotle would evaluate the typical circuit LDer or local LDer who is a circuit LD wannabe. Rhetoric is the artful use of all the available means of persuasion. Excessive complexity, reading cards, debater math, extinction impacts, and counterplans are not persuasive.

Lincoln Douglas Short Summary

Quick summary -T W W

Traditional Framework Judge -I base my ballot on value

Warrant your argument (evidence is secondary)

Weigh - if you don't I will and you may not like the result

DO NOT SPREAD - I vote for the slowest speaking debater. Always. Yes, its true.

Don't spread. And if you normally spread and decide not to spread in a round because it's a lay judge (a very wise decision), you are probably still spreading from the perspective of the judge. Slow it WAY down.

I do not vote solvency, progressive, critique, counterplans, reject all extinction impacts and am the most traditional LD judge you will encounter and begin and end my ballot with value - so invest your time on framework. I am very skeptical of C/B/A, utilitarianism and generic, poorly defined values. IE - justice v redistributive justice, restorative justice, procedural, substantive, etc so if your choice is C/B/A, util or a generic value your task is to provide me with rationale that overcomes this skepticism and it is impossible to have me vote any extinction impact. If you hear one in round merely weigh probability and if you don’t I will.

Warranting > evidence

Truth > tech,

Simple > complex

Less > more

The reason my weigh on "research" based evidence is close to 0 - replication crisis.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Long Form

• Delivery: conversational in both pace and tone, connected directly to me through eye contact and a sense of concern with my comprehension, simple rather than complex with no jargon particularly debate jargon and minimal use of evidence. Debaters who choose an alternative delivery lose credibility and I will be skeptical of all analysis presented by debaters who reject this delivery preference. Ted Kim paradigm (scroll to the bottom) says it best.
  
  

• Resolution Analysis: Clear, concise, well-supported analysis of the resolution. You can assume your judge has basic knowledge of the resolution.
  
  

• Argumentation: Simplicity, clarity, and effective are preferred in the comparison/contrast or weighing of competing arguments. I am hostile to extinction impacts and debater math use of which negatively impacts my assessment of the credibility of the team making use of these techniques.
  
  

• Evidence: Quality of reasoning and argumentation over quantity or complexity. Evidence plays a minimal part in my decision and debaters who read cards particularly in rebuttal will be challenged to earn my ballot.
  
  

Click on Frederick Changho paradigm for a clear set of expectations I support and share with the exception of the truth

Click on Scott Wood's paradigm for another paradigm that reflects my expectations, particularly good v bad form.

Super short form - click https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=3556

1. Don't spread. And if you normally spread and decide not to spread in a round because its a lay judge, you are probably still spreading from the perspective of the judge. Slow it WAY down.
   
   

2. Lay judges don't flow, they take notes. You win them over via persuasion, not technical tech>truth stuff. That means simple, clear arguments, delivered TO them, not read at them. This is important, talk with the judge do not read case or rebuttal.
   
   

3. Make your argument to them the same way you would to your friends or relatives. IK, this is point 2 repeated but is it critical.
   
   

4. In fact, a good model for debating successfully in front of a lay judge is to imagine the debate was being conducted in a darkened auditorium talking to general audience that is interested in the topic, doesn't know much and wants to learn more. You would never talk to that audience they way you talk in a debate. The lay judge is a member of the public sitting in that darkened audience. That means presentation, organization, clarity and connection are critical.
   
   

LD - the 2024 National final is worth reviewing. Note speed of debate, clarity in argument and delivery to the audience. Both finalists qualified via the Last Chance Tournament!

Adapt to speed, please. At a late December 2024 tournament 3 of my 4 ballots were default ballots as in each of these rounds one debater failed to adapt, spread their case and lost. I despise this type of ballot as I really am interested in your analysis so don't exclude me from the round.

This topic is - should - so I value philosophical reasoning related directly to your value as you advocate. See below for my view of efficacy and implementation as arguments that I tend to dismiss.

Summary LD Expectations - Next to advice #1 below this is your most important piece of advice: In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your single most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
   
   

2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on value. Clarity in defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
   
   

3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolution analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation. I tend to dismiss all solvency arguments in LD.
   
   

4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate or critique.
   
   

5. Counter plans - these must be directly tied to the resolution and utilize argumentation, evidence and data that would be a part of the research considered by a well prepared AFF. If any of these elements are absent, I will reject the counter plan and ballot accordingly.
   
   

6. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
   
   

7. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. If Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
   
   

8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
   
   

9. Simple is preferred to complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over the many arguments that are complex and/or poorly developed. When I hear: "I have 12 responses to my opponent's first contention, subpoint A" I think, oh no.
   
   

10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
    
    

11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution most importantly your value. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE no cards or debater math.

BTW If you say it and I don't hear it or I don't understand it *(remember I am very old and not so smart) it will not be a part of my decision. It is impossible to be too simple or basic with me, impossible. So, the simpler (and slower) the better. Also, time permitting read Scott Wood's paradigm - I wish it was mine so I incorporate it into this paradigm. Now it is mine. Thank you Scott.

Quickly reflect on how you integrate framework into case construction and rebuttal AND if the debate does not collapse on this essential element of ballot be prepared to, simply summarize, compare and weigh your value to your opponent's and in the simplest (*well warranted) manner explain why I prefer your value. This will be where I begin and end by ballot.

Google LD Paradigm Click

here

Congressional Debate short form

PO ranked, do not read a speech, do not break cycle-ever. See more below.

Public Forum

Collapse in Summary, Voters and weigh only in Final Focus. See below for link to full set of preferences.

IE - scroll to the bottom for details - I LOVE EXTEMP and value analysis over evidence cited and weigh content of speech equal to delivery. One fluency flub in a well developed extemp will not impact ranking.

Lincoln Douglas

Quick summary T W W

Traditional Framework Judge -I base my ballot on value

Warrant your argument (evidence is secondary)

Weigh - if you don't I will and you may not like the result

DO NOT SPREAD - I vote for the slowest speaking debater. Always. Yes, its true.

I do not ballot on solvency, extinction impacts, progressive,/kritik, or counterplan

LD Click here

PF Click here

Congress Click here

IE Click here - I judge to the standard outlined in Welty Wisdom.

What lay judges vote on. I encourage you to read as I am a lay judge as are over 80% of all judges you will encounter.

Why I love speech and debate

Concerns I share about debate

Still scrolling? Good. Paradigm most similar to mine at from tournaments judged this year *(Stanford) Darnov

" I simply do not follow .... speed particularly well, and I find it frustrating that debaters often seem to ignore this (no matter how clearly it's written on my paradigm). keep in mind that if you’re at any any kind of speed above a brisk conversational pace (think of a particularly energetic weatherman, for example), I’m probably not going to be terribly interested in trying to follow the argument." And, as I indicate below, I always ballot for the slowest speaking debater - always. Yes, it is true.

Like Darnov I am frustrated, bewildered, confused, and yes judgmental of debaters who IGNORE the speed admonition - so odd and to quote an Arizona coach - very disappointing.

Hi I'm Roberto,

PF Freshman sophomore year, Congress and world schools jr year

I prefer simple arguments. 1-3 contentions, well explained. Quality>Quantity.

Weighing

I want to see you comparing your arguments (impacts, links, etc...) to those of your opponents. Tell me why your points matter more.

For example, if team A says "According to Forbes Apples are healthier than Oranges", and team B says "According to NYT Oranges are healthier than apples". Try to explain why one study outdoes the other.

Talking Speed

I can handle fast speeds just don't go overkill

Evidence

I like warranting but evidence to accompany that warranting doesn't hurt either.

Fun fact:

Trigger Warnings/Discrimination

Try to include trigger warnings if you are talking about sensitive issues.

I will make sure to judge you purely on what you say and not on your race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc... .

Have fun!

About Myself: I am a high school student and have been doing Public Forum debates for 4-5 years. I do debate at the varsity level however I prefer judging debate tournaments as I find this very intriguing. I prefer judging Public Forum (as I have the most experience in this), however, I am also familiar with and can judge Lincoln-Douglas and Policy debate!

Things I care most about:

• Weighing
• Logic
• Warranting
• Technicality
• Understanding

I do not care about how fast you talk because I can keep up with it, however, your voice must be clear. Because if I cannot understand it then I will not be able to flow.

I expect all debaters to keep track of their own time, however, I will also be doing this. If your team runs out I will allow you to finish your speech however I will not flow anything after the time ends so anything after the time limit is not considered in my decision.

I treat all debaters equally and my decision is based purely on the ability of one to prove their case over the other teams. I hope everyone treats everyone with respect in any debate and I will not tolerate any rude comments or rage toward others during a round.