I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card.

Timing

You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if not argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts. Performance is important here.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true. I have a fairly low threshold to vote on "psychoanalysis is unscientific nonsense" arguments because....well, they're kinda true.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

Email: jameshbrock@gmail.com

Handshaking: Even before current viral concerns, I wasn't a fan of hand shaking. If you feel the need for post round physical contact, I will either accept a light fist bump or a full hug of no less than 5 seconds in duration. Alternatively, you can just wait for my decision.

Overview: I am the debate coach at Houston County High School a suburban (closer to rural than urban) school 2 hours south of Atlanta. We don't travel outside of the state much. I am a big advocate of policy debate, but, the vast majority of tournaments we attend no longer offer the event. So, we have switched to PF/LD debate.

I flow. If I am not flowing, there is a problem.

Speed okay. If I am not flowing, there is a problem. The most likely reason I would not be flowing is, that the sound coming out of your mouth is not words. If this happens, I will most likely close my laptop or put down my pen until I can recognize the sounds you are making.

Disclosure Theory: I am a small school coach. My teams are not required to post their cases online. I don't like it when teams lose debates to rules those teams didn't know were "rules". If disclosure is mandated by the tournament's invitation, I will listen. I also, will not attend that tournament. So, just don't run it. Inclusion o/w your fairness arguments.

PF: I judge on an offence/defense paradigm. Logic is good, evidence is better. I'm the guy who will vote on first strike good or dedev. Tech over truth, but I will not give a low point win in PF, and try to stay true to the speaking roots of PF. F/W is the most important part of the debate for me. It is a gateway issue that provides the lens through which to view my decision. I have done a moderate amount of research, but I probably haven't read that article. I may be doing it wrong, but I like logic when judging a PF round. I don't think you have time to develop DAs or Ks, but have no other objection to their existence. Jeff Miller says to answer these questions if judging PF... - do you expect everything in the final focus to also be in the summary? Yes. At least tangentially. The first final focus of the round needs to be able to predict the direction of the the final speech. If it's not in the Summary it gives an unfair advantage to the second speaker. - Do second speaking teams have to respond to the first rebuttal? No, but its a good idea. It makes for a better debate and I will award speaker points will be awarded for doing this. - Do first speaking teams have to extend defense in the first summary? If you want to extend defense in the final focus. - Do you flow/judge off crossfire? Cross is binding, but it needs to be made in the speech to count on the ballot. That being said, at this tournament, damaging crossfire questions have provided major links and changed the momentum of debates. - Do teams have to have more than one contention? No. - does framework have to be read in the constructives? Responsive F/w is allowed but not advisable in rebuttal only.

LD: For me, this is policy light. I understand it, but I try not to be influenced by a lack of policy jargon in the round. IE I will accept an argument that says "The actor could enact both the affirmative action and the negative action." as a permutation without the word perm being used in the round. I tend to view values and value criterion as a framework debate that influences the mechanisms for weighing impacts. I am a little lenient on 1ar line by line debate, but coverage should be sufficient to allow the nr to do their job. I will protect the nr from new 2ar argument to a fault. I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments like "extinction good" or "rocks are more important than people".

tl;dr: Spend a lot of time on F/W. Impact your arguments.

Policy Debate: (Having this in here is a little ridiculous. Its kinda like, "back in my day we had inherency debates. No one talks about inherent barriers anymore...)

Procedural:
I am human, and I have made mistakes judging rounds. But, I reserve the right to dock speaker points for arguing after the round.
I have few problems with speed. If you are unclear, I will say clear or loud once and then put my pen down or close my laptop. I love 1NC's and 2ACs that number their arguments.
I want the debaters to make my decision as easy as possible. My RFD should be very very similar to the first 3 sentences of the 2AR or 2NR.
After a harm is established, I presume it is better to do something rather than nothing. So in a round devoid of offence, I vote affirmative

The K:
As a debater and a younger coach, I did not understand nor enjoy the kritik. As the neg we may have run it as the 7th off case argument, and as the aff we responded to the argument with framework and theory. As I've grown as a coach I've started to understand the educational benefits of high school students reading advanced philosophy. That being said, In order to vote negative on the kritik, I need a very, very clear link, and reason to reject the aff. I dislike one-off-K, and standard Ks masked with a new name. I do, however, enjoy listening to critical affirmatives related to the topic. I am often persuaded by PIK's, and vague alts bad theory.

Don't assume that I have read the literature. I have not.

Non-traditional debate: We are a small and very diverse squad, and I (to some extent) understand that struggle. I have coached a fem rage team, and loved it.

Theory:
I have no particular aversion to theoretical objections. As an observation, I do not vote on them often. I need a clear reason to reject the other team. I will occasionally vote neg on Topicality, but you have to commit. I think cheaty CPs are bad for debate, and enjoy voting on ridiculous CP is ridiculous theory. I still need some good I/L to Education to reject the team.


Parliamentary debate:
I enjoy this format. I will adopt a policy maker F/W unless otherwise instructed.

I am a debate coach in Georgia. I also competed in LD and Policy out west. Take that for whatever you think it means.

• LD - Value/Value Criterion (Framework, Standard, etc,) - this is what separates us from the animals (or at least the policy debaters). It is the unique feature of LD Debate. Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it. I am open to all arguments but present them well, know them, and, above all, Clash - this is a debate not a tea party.
• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.
• Speed - Debate is a SPEAKING event. I like speed but not spreading. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. If you spread - it better be clear, I will not yell clear or slow down or quit mumbling, I will just stop listening. If the only way I can understand your case is to read it, you have already lost. If you are PRESENTING and ARGUING and PERSUADING then I need to understand the words coming out of your mouth! NEW for ONLINE DEBATE - I need you to speak slower and clearer, pay attention to where your mike is. On speed in-person, I am a 7-8. Online, make it a 5-6.
• Email Chains Please include me on email chains if it is used in the round, but don't expect me to sit there reading your case to understand your arguments - pchildress@gocats.org **Do not email me outside of the round unless you include your coach in the email.
• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
• Casing - Love traditional but I am game for kritiks, counterplans, theory - but perform them well, KNOW them, I won't do the links for you. I am a student of Toulmin - claim-evidence-warrant/impacts. I don't make the links and don't just throw evidence cards at me with no analysis. It is really hard for you to win with an AFF K with me - it better be stellar. I am not a big fan of Theory shells that are not actually linked in to the topic - if you are going to run Afro-Pes or Feminism you better have STRONG links to the topic at hand, if the links aren't there... Also don't just throw debate terms out, use them for a purpose and if you don't need them, don't use them.
• I like clash. Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.
• Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.
• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules. Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
• Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, I don't either), who made the most successful arguments and used evidence and reasoning to back up those arguments.
• Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with a rare low point win each season. I am fairly generous on speaker points. I disclose winner but not speaker points. Even is you are losing a round or not feeling it during the round, don't quit on yourself or your opponent! You may not like the way your opponent set up their case or you may not like a certain style of debate but don't quit in a round.
• Don't browbeat less experienced debaters; you should aim to win off of argumentation skill against less experienced opponents, not smoke screens or jargon. 7 off against a first-year may get you the win, but it kills the educational and ethical debate space you should strive for. As an experienced debater, you should hope to EDUCATE them not run them out of the event.
• Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.
• Rule of Debate Life. Sometimes you will be told you are the winner when you believe you didn't win the round - accept it as a gift from the debate gods and move on. Sometimes you will be told you lost a round that you KNOW you won - accept that this is life and move on. Sometimes judges base a decision on something that you considered insignificant or irrelevant and sometimes judges get it wrong, it sucks but that is life. However, if the judge is inappropriate - get your advocate, your coach, to address the issue. Arguing with the judge in the round or badmouthing them in the hall or cafeteria won't solve the issue.
• Immediate losers for me - be disparaging to the other team or make racist, homophobic, sexist arguments or comments. Essentially, be kind and respectful if you want to win.
• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

Procedural Stuff

Call me Blake or BD instead of Judge, I don't like feeling old

Email chain: blako925@gmail.com

Please also add: jchsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Add both emails, title the chain Tournament Rd # Your Team vs. Other Team ex) Harvard Round 4 Johns Creek XY vs. Northview AM.

1AC should be sent at round start or if I'm late (sorry in advance), as soon as I walk in the room

If you go to the bathroom or fill your waterbottle before your own speech, I'll dock 1 speaker point

Stealing prep = heavily docked speaks. If you want to engage your partner in small talk, just speak normally so everyone knows you're not stealing prep, don't whisper. Eyes should not be wandering on your laptop and hands should not be typing/writing. You can be on your phone.

Clipping is auto-loss and I assign lowest possible speaks. Ethics violation claims = round stoppage, I will decide round on the spot using provided evidence of said violation

Topic Knowledge

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE.

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I debated in high school, didn’t debate in college, have never worked at any camp. I currently work an office job. Any and all acronyms should be explained to me. Specific solvency mechanisms should be explained to me. Tricky process CPs should be explained to me. Many K jargon words that I have heard such as ressentiment, fugitivity, or subjectivity should be explained to me.

Spreading

I WRITE SLOW AND MY HAND CRAMPS EASILY. PLEASE SLOW DOWN DURING REBUTTALS

My ears have become un-attuned to debate spreading. Please go 50% speed at the start of your speech before ramping up. I don’t care how fast or unclear you are on the body of cards b/c it is my belief that you will extend that body text in an intelligent manner later on. However, if you spread tags as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If you read analytics as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If I do not flow an argument, you’re not going to win on it. If you are in novice this probably doesn't apply to you.

While judges must do their best to flow debates and adjudicate in an objective matter that rewards the better debater, there is a certain level of debater responsibility to spread at a reasonable speed and clear manner. Judge adaptation is an inevitable skill debaters must learn.

In front of me, adaption should be spreading speed. If you are saying words faster than how fast I can move my pen, I will say SLOW DOWN. If you do not comply, it is your prerogative, and you can roll the dice on whether or not I will write your argument down. I get that your current speed may be OK with NDT finalists or coaches with 20+ years of experience, but I am not those people. Adapt or lose.

No Plan Text & Framework

I am OK with any affirmative whether it be policy, critical, or performance. The problem is that the 2AC often has huge case overviews that are sped through that do not explain to me very well what the aff harms are and how the advocacy statement (or whatever mechanism) solves them. Furthermore, here are some facts about my experience in framework:

• I was the 1N in high school, so I never had to take framework other than reading the 1NC shell since my partner took in the 2NC and 2NR.
• I can count the number of times I debated plan-less affs on one hand.
• As of me updating this paradigm on 01/28/2023 I have judged roughly 15 framework rounds (maybe less).

All the above make framework functionally a coin toss for either side. My understanding of framework is predicated off of what standards you access and if the terminal impacts to those standards prove if your model of debate is better for the world. If you win impact turns against the neg FW interpretation, then you don't need a C/I, but you have to win that the debate is about potential ballot solvency or some other evaluation method. If the neg wins that the round is about proving a better model of debate, then an inherent lack of a C/I means I vote for the better interp no matter how terrible it is. The comparison in my mind is that a teacher asked to choose the better essay submitted by two students must choose Student A if Student B doesn't turn in anything no matter how terrible or offensive Student A's essay is.

Tech vs. Truth

I used to like arguments such as “F & G in federal government aren't capitalized T” or “Period at the end of the plan text or the sentence keeps going T” b/c I felt like these arguments were objectively true. As I continue to judge I think I have moved into a state where I will allow pretty much any argument no matter how much “truth” there is backing it especially since some truth arguments such as the aforementioned ones are pretty troll themselves. There is still my job to provide a safe space for the activity which means I am obligated to vote down morally offensive arguments such as racism good or sexism good. However, I am now more inclined to vote on things like “Warming isn’t real” or “The Earth is flat” with enough warrants. After all, who am I to say that status quo warming isn’t just attributable to heating and cooling cycles of the Earth, and that all satellite imagery of the Earth is faked and that strong gravitational pulls cause us to be redirected back onto flat Earth when we attempt to circle the “globe”. If these arguments are so terrible and untrue, then it really shouldn’t take much effort to disprove them.

Reading Evidence

I err on the side of intervening as little as possible, so I don’t read usually read evidence. Don't ask me for a doc or send me anything afterwards. The only time I ever look at ev is if I am prompted to do so during speech time.

This will reward teams that do the better technical debating on dropped/poorly answered scenarios even if they are substantiated by terrible evidence. So if you read a poorly written federalism DA that has no real uniqueness or even specific link to the aff, but is dropped and extended competently, yes, I will vote for without even glancing at your ev.

That being said, this will also reward teams that realize your ADV/DA/Whatever ev is terrible and point it out. If your T interp is from No Quals Alex, blog writer for ChristianMingle.com, and the other team points it out, you're probably not winning the bigger internal link to legal precision.

Case

I love case debate. Negatives who actually read all of the aff evidence in order to create a heavy case press with rehighlightings, indicts, CX applications, and well backed UQ/Link/Impact frontlines are always refreshing watch. Do this well in front of me and you will for sure be rewarded.

By the 2AR I should know what exactly the plan does and how it can solve the advantages. This obviously doesn't have to be a major component of the 1AR given time constraint, but I think there should at least some explanation in the 2AR. If I don't have at least some idea of what the plan text does and what it does to access the 1AC impacts, then I honestly have no problem voting on presumption that doing nothing is better than doing the aff.

Disads

Similar to above, I think that DA's have to be fully explained with uniqueness, link, and impact. Absent any of these things I will often have serious doubts regarding the cohesive stance that the DA is taking.

Topicality

Don't make debate meta-arguments like "Peninsula XY read this at Glenbrooks so obviously its core of the topic" or "every camp put out this aff so it's predictable". These types of arguments mean nothing to me since I don't know any teams, any camp activities, any tournaments, any coaches, performance of teams at X tournament, etc.

One small annoyance I have at teams that debate in front of me is that they don't debate T like a DA. You need to win what standards you access, how they link into your terminal impacts like education or fairness, and why your chosen impact outweighs the opposing teams.

Counterplan

I have no inherent bias against any counterplan. If a CP has a mechanism that is potentially abusive (international fiat, 50 state fiat, PICs bad) then I just see this as offense for the aff, not an inherent reason why the team or CP should immediately be voted down.

I heavily detest this new meta of "perm shotgunning" at the top of each CP in the 2AC. It is basically unflowable. See "Spreading" above. Do this and I will unironically give you a 28 maximum. Spread the perms between cards or other longer analytical arguments. That or actually include substance behind the perm such as an explanation of the function of the permutation, how it dodges the net benefit, if it has any additional NB, etc.

I think 2NR explanation of what exactly the CP does is important. A good 2N will explain why their CP accesses the internal links or solvency mechanisms of the 1AC, or if you don't, why the CP is able to access the advantages better than the original 1AC methods. Absent that I am highly skeptical of broad "CP solves 100% of case" claims and the aff should punish with specific solvency deficits.

A problem I have been seeing is that affirmatives will read solvency deficits against CP's but not impacting the solvency deficits vs. the net benefit. If the CP doesn't solve ADV 1 then you need to win that ADV 1 outweighs the net benefit.

Judge kick is not my default mindset, neg has say I have to judge kick and also justify why this is OK.

Kritiks

I don't know any K literature other than maybe some security or capitalism stuff. I feel a lot of K overviews include fancy schmancy words that mean nothing to me. If you're gonna go for a K with some nuance, then you're going to need to spend the effort explaining it to me like I am 10 years old.

Theory

If the neg reads more than 1 CP + 1 K you should consider pulling the trigger on conditionality.

I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise told.

Define dispositionality for me if this is going to be part of the interp.

Extra Points

To promote flowing, you can show me your flows at the end of a round and earn up to 1.0 speaker points if they are good. To discourage everyone bombarding me with flows, you can also lose up to a full speaker point if your flows suck.

First, my main background is in PF but I do have some experience with LD. I'm a senior at Houston County High School and have done debate every year except senior year. Second, like most judges I expect you to time yourself, and I don't weigh cross, however definitely bring up inconsistencies in your opponents answers during your speech if you see them during cross. Third, don't just mindlessly read the material to me, bring in some emotion too. I want to know that you have at least some deeper knowledge of the topic. Last, this is kind of basic, but make sure you're talking to me when you're convincing me to vote for you and give me a good moral reason why. Make it personal sounding, or really pull at my conscience. Other than that don't be rude, and make sure you're having fun. The worst debate is a boring debate.

I am a college student studying philosophy. I debated 3 years for Midtown High School in Atlanta, Georgia. Any pronouns are fine. Make the round fun. You can contact me for any questions. (peterchaynes03@gmail.com)

I've been hearing that nuclear war is going to happen since 1982. Just because something is said in a round does not make it true. Valid, reasonable positions and evidence are key. The impacts of arguments need to be sound and connected. I am not tabula rasa. If I'm not convinced, I'm not voting for it.

I do NOT want to be on the email chain. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay-writing contest. If I don't hear it, the argument is not being flowed. Spreading is a no. I will only call for evidence if indicts are made.

I like trad debate, but if you are doing it make sure that you have a clear value and value criterion WITH JUSTIFICATIONS. Explain to me why your contention level impacts matter under your own framework and why your framework is preferable to your opponent's.

I do not like utilitarianism. I find it is often misused and boring to judge. It is not a value, and I will be very likely to vote against it if there are little to no warrants and your opponent is running a different framework well. Run at your own risk. That being said, I will evaluate it fairly if it is genuinely run well, and I maintain equally high standards for other frameworks.

Signposting and roadmaps are appreciated. Answer CX questions in good faith please. Be respectful of your opponent.

Prog stuff:

Trix, friv theory, spikes are all bad. 1 NIB is okay.

K is lovely as long as it is clear and understandable. Links are a must and develop your alt. Really make it as clear as possible because I probably don't know about your pre-fiat heidegger k aff.

To steal from a good friend:

I am very unlikely to vote on a K if:

1. You cannot explain your alt well.

2. You clearly do not understand your literature and are just reading from blocks.

3. You have not impacted out why the K means you win the debate - It means nothing to me if you just tell me the 'aff is securitising' in the 2nr.

Theory is fine as long as there is actual abuse. I do not vote on disclosure theory, and I only use a reasonability standard.

LARP is not ok. You are not policy makers. Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

IF YOU POWER TAG YOUR CARDS I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN.

I will give +0.1 speaker points if you make a Big Lebowski or Top Gun reference in round.

I am a 2nd year at Georgia Tech (Go Yackets!) studying civil engineering and sustainability. I debated VPF for three years in both the Georgia and National circuits and was part of the State Championship team while at Carrollton (2021 & 2022).

I prefer for the teams to share all cases and called evidence into one email chain started before the round. email: andrew.herndon17@gmail.com

Timing- I will time and expect you to do the same

Speed- No spreading no problem

Ev- I view debate as an essential activity for developing skillsets and tools to find the truth, simply don't lie intentionally or otherwise. Your evidence should be reputable, reasonable, relevant, and most importantly: extended. That is obvious. However, If it is bad evidence, it is still up to your opponent to prove that to me. I am a tech judge, and the "game" of debate is won by extending winning arguments and strategically dismantling your opponents' shakiest evidence.

CX- Debate IS clash; I do flow CX out of interest but all arguments and responses should be briefly reiterated your in speeches.

Collapsing - Extend the most contentions you can into the later rounds, I allow lots of collapsing but (hopefully) you wrote multiple contentions to argue them, not to cut potential losses in the round.

Theory- I have a pretty solid threshold for theory and have some competitive experience with it. I don’t think that a formal counterinterp is necessary to respond to a shell, just give responses like you would a normal argument. If it's frivolous and the opposing team indicts that, I will drop you and play Tetris on my laptop. Yes, FW and Ks can be harmful to you, teams that are abusive with the them to make a debate about a non-resolutional (non-resolvable) issue are not likely to get voted up. But, you can run them if they stay within the broader themes of your contentions.

Weighing- As early as possible. This said, weighing should not just be "we outweigh on magnitude/probability/scope/whatever other debate jargon you throw at me". Give me analyses as to why you're winning the round, which should be adequate.

Frontline- 2nd Rebuttal onwards. Nothing new should be read 2nd summary onward.

Signposting- Good debaters are good at signposting.

Comedy- The best debaters are able to make it fun... and get higher speaks

I am a TECH judge. If it's not on the flow I won't take it into consideration. Make your arguments and nuances explicit and tell me throughout the entire round, doubly so for prime links and accessed impacts.

Best of luck

Shortened paradigm

Will hear Traditional, LARP, Counter-Plans, Plans, and warranted Neg Ks. Theory/T arguments lose my attention (if you have nothing to disprove their evidence, default to turns. argumentative creativity =/= abuse) but I will vote on them if I buy abuse took place. Besides T arguments, I judge on the flow using the framing mechanism that won the round. Don't read Aff Ks. Don't browbeat less experienced debaters; you should aim to win off of argumentation skill against less experienced opponents, not smoke screens or pure esoterism. 7 off against a first-year may get you the win, but it kills the educational and ethical debate space you should strive for.

Defaults

[1] Competing interps > Reasonability

[2] Tech vs Truth- See below

[3] Aff gets presumption, Neg gets permissibility

[4] RVIs are fine

[5] More than 2 Condos is excessive and errs Aff

Longer paradigm.

Speed and Email Chains- I'm very comfortable flowing <320 wpms. Above that, I will only flow args that were intelligible to me. If you plan on spreading, an email chain is expected to both me and your opponent. Your opponent is not obligated to send their case if they elect to read at clear speeds. My flow determines the round, not yours or your opponent's.

ID Pol- No ad hominem arguments will be flowed if addressed by your opponent. You may not use your opponent's race, gender, orientation, or other traits as a link into your case. I expect your identity politics to be directed towards processes occurring outside of the debate space in return for me ensuring no extremely problematic processes occur within ours.

Clash- the reason for debate. Every point your opponent makes should be either contested or mitigated. Extensions on dropped points are deadly, it is your job to cover your bases.

Tech or Truth- Don't make me choose. I will side with the flow over my intuition, but will side with fact over the flow. If you read carded analysis saying gummy bears were a root cause of WWII, that makes it on the flow. If you read a card that says MLK did not exist, that does not make it on the flow. Having cards does not alter history, but it is still the job of the debater to state that the card is false. I will call for cards; you should too.

CX- Both sides get speeches immediately after their questioning period. No excuse not to extend effective CX into them. CX is as binding as main speeches, but it is your job to address contradictions.

No new offensive args after the 1AR- The affirmative gets 4 minutes to answer a 7 minute speech. If you need to bring new arguments into your 6 minute rebuttal, you were the worse debater.

Turns- Effective turns win close rounds. Win back your turned arguments on the flow by proving that the NEG can't access the thesis or that the NEG's impact turn is bad under the framework.

I do not care about standing or sitting during speeches.

Decision- I decide winning framework before I decide who won the round. In your last speeches, make weighing arguments under the winning framework for me. I use the flow to determine who won the weighing arguments. If no weighing arguments are presented, we are defaulting to my intuition (this is bad, so make the args yourself).

RFD- I try to be as educational as possible, maybe providing suggestions on how to have better won different arguments. In addition to regular commentary, I'll try to share my flow with both debaters so you can see how an admittedly layish judge. I'll attempt to answer questions after round but if you or your coach have unaddressed concerns, email me at elijah.herring@gmail.com and I'll hope to meaningfully resolve any issues.

For the email chain: nickycate@yahoo.com

I'm a former Lincoln-Douglas debater, so I'm most familiar with traditional LD and LARPing. My approach towards judging is tabula rasa, and I put a heavy emphasis on the framework debate. I'm comfortable with judging policy-style cases such as DAs and CPs. Don't try to run a K. I'm not familiar with the literature. Only run Theory and T if it's warranted.

I find it very important to extend your arguments clearly throughout the round and voters. I'm comfortable with spreading, but don't do it at the detriment of your clarity. Tell me why your impacts are important under your framework, speak clearly, and be civil!

Most importantly, have fun! :)

Hey debaters, I'm Wesley. I've debated 2 1/2 years of Lincoln-Douglas and a 1/2 year in Public Forum for Sequoyah High School.

Clash is cool and fun to judge.

Weighing is cool too. A lack of weighing is very uncool. Do not be uncool. I need comparative analysis: explain why your impacts or theories are more important.

Speaks: They are going to be high. I'm a debater, I don't like giving low Speaks unless you're abusive or very unprepared. I don't generally give lower than 28. Ways to secure an easy 30 are to a.) be funny, b.) do a performance, or c.) impress me with your line by line (I will buy 30 speaks theory but it's usually a waste of your time).

Ways to get your speaks tanked: racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or ad hominem. Running Tricks or Friv Theory against a lay debater. Saying something that needs a trigger warning without a trigger warning.

--- LD Specific ---

If you're doing LD, that's a dub.

I've participated in Nat Circuit tournaments, so I know how to flow progressive arguments (Theory and Tricks, for example), but I'm more familiar with mildly progressive arguments (CPs, PICs, Ks). I'm not very experienced when it comes to Kritiks, so if you're going to run one, make sure to weigh and frame exactly why I should be voting for you.

Prefs: (1 is best, 4 is worst)

1 - LARP, Trad, Legitimate Theory

2 - Ks

3 - PICs and Friv Theory

4 - Tricks

Misc:

LD is special because it isn't always about cost-benefit analysis. Philosophies and frameworks belong in LD, and I always enjoy seeing them.

Make sure to weigh at the end. I want to know why your surviving impacts are more important.

That's it. Good luck, have fun.

--- PF Specific ---

Weigh. Weighing is good and will win you rounds. Not weighing is bad and will lose you rounds.

Collapse. Do not try to bring up everything from your first 8 minutes of debate in the 3 minute Summary.

Things I Dislike:

- Being rude, disrespectful, or otherwise attacking your opponents personally.

- Being abusive, ie. bringing up new arguments late in the round.

For PF, please have a lot of evidence, make sure your statistics are clear and your impacts are comprehensible & link well into the argument.

--- BQ Specific ---

I prefer a lot of clash. Have a couple of sources, but overall have fun with the prompt and make sure your arguments are clear and legible. If you go into round with 0 sources and manage to win, I'll give you 30 Speaks and call your coach to tell them how talented you are.

Hey, I'm currently a senior at Peachtree Ridge High School captaining our debate team. I was the state runner-up for LD last year and had few bid rounds for the TOC. I definitely consider myself a progressive judge, but I can judge lay rounds too. I'll be studying economics and applied mathematics at Harvard next fall.

Lincoln Douglas-

Fine with all sorts of argumentation.

LARP>Theory>K>Phil

LARP:

I like policy affs vs da/cp. Weighing is important. If you drop an argument, I don't consider it. Just your everyday policy judge.

Theory:

I'm fine judging theory. Feel free to run anything about anything in front of me. Don't really care about abusive shells all too much -if it's dropped it's dropped.

K:

Not too well versed on K literature except cap and set col. Assume I don't know your lit and explain things well.

Phil:

Similar boat as K. I can keep up with Kant, SV, extinction, but explain things well and do weighing on all layers if you're running smth like Buddhism.

Public Forum-

Standard PF judge. Make sure to flesh out your arguments well and have fun.

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Hey, I'm Neya. Currently a senior at Northview High School

I've debated in LD mostly on the Georgia circuit, but I'm fine with progressive or traditional LD.

I vote off the flow so weigh your impacts and clash.

Experience/Background: I coached at Columbus HS from 2013-2021, primarily Public Forum, and now coach at Carrollton HS (2021-present). I did not debate in high school or college, but I have been coaching and judging PF, a little LD, and IEs since 2013, both locally (Georgia) and on the national circuit, including TOC and NSDA Nationals. I spent several years (2017-2022) as a senior staff member with Summit Debate and previously led labs at Emory (2016-2019).

Judging Preferences:

If you have specific questions about me as a judge that are not answered below (or need clarification), please feel free to ask them. Some general guidelines and answers to frequently asked questions are below:

1. Speed: I can flow a reasonably fast speed when I'm at the top of my game, but I am human. If it's late in the day/tournament, I am likely tired, and my capacity for speed drops accordingly. I will not be offended if you ask me about this before the round. For online rounds, I prefer that you speak at a more moderate speed. I will tell you "clear" if I need you to slow down. If I am flowing on paper, you should err on the slower side of speed than if I am flowing on my laptop.

2. Signposting and Roadmaps: Signposting is good. Please do it. It makes my job easier. Off-time roadmaps aren't really needed if you're just going "their case, our case", but do give a roadmap if there's a more complex structure to your speech.

3. Consistency of Arguments/Making Decisions: Anything you expect me to vote on should be in summary and final focus. Defense is not "sticky" -- meaning you cannot extend it from rebuttal to final focus. Please weigh. I love voters in summary, but I am fine if you do a line-by-line summary.

4. Prep (in-round and pre-round): Please pre-flow before you enter the round. Monitor your own prep time. If you and your opponents want to time each other to keep yourselves honest, go for it. Do not steal prep time - if you have called for a card and your opponents are looking for it, you should not be writing/prepping unless you are also running your prep time. (If a tournament has specific rules that state otherwise, I will defer to tournament policy.) On that note, have your evidence ready. It should not take you longer than 20-30 seconds to pull up a piece of evidence when asked. If you delay the round by taking forever to find a card, your speaker points will probably reflect it.

5. Overviews in second rebuttal: In general, I think a short observation or weighing mechanism is probably more okay than a full-fledged contention that you're trying to sneak in as an "overview". Tread lightly.

6. Frontlines: Second speaking team should answer turns and frontline in rebuttal. I don't need a 2-2 split, but I do think you need to address the speech that preceded yours.

7. Theory, Kritiks, and Progressive Arguments: I prefer not judging theory debates. Strongly prefer not judging theory debates. If you are checking back against a truly abusive practice, I will listen to and evaluate the argument. If you are using theory/Ks/etc. in a way intended to overwhelm/intimidate an opponent who has no idea what's going on, I am not going to respond well to that.

8. Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. If it comes up in cross and you expect it to serve a role in my decision-making process, I expect you to bring it up in a later speech.

9. Speaker points: I basically never give 30s, so you should not expect them from me. My range is usually from 28-29.7.

I'm Christie, a student at Northview High School.

Background

I've done pretty much every single speech and debate event there is to ever exist, including Congress, LD, PF, Extemp, and Parliamentary. For Lincoln-Douglas debate, I am most comfortable with judging traditional LD because the Georgia circuit is well, traditional LD. My paradigm is inspired by my former/current teammates and competitors.

Preferences

I vote off argumentation and the flow.

WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS and emphasize what you want me to vote on.

Plan and Framework > Ks > CP > Theory > Tricks (p.s. I will NEVER vote on tricks)

I have some experience with Ks, mainly Set Col and Afro-Pess Ks. I also understand Fem and Security kinda. Not a fan of theory, but feel free to read a shell if you have a legitimate reason for doing so. If you're reading theory for the sake of reading theory, I will not be impressed.

Framework is important!!! Don't drop - but you can concede under your opponent's framework. I love Util and Kant and pretty much any philosophy out there but I don't understand more complex ones like Baudrillard.

I would advise against spreading, but if you do, I value clarity > speed (if you're not clear, you'll get lower speaker points) and please send me the docs at christie.peng@gmail.com

I promise you I am chill/not mean/not annoyed!

Lastly, be respectful to your opponents and have a fun time debating!!!

~ CP ~

Background: I did PF debate throughout high school, and judged after I graduated. Most recently, while I was in law school, I coached the Notre Dame Parliamentary Debate Team, and taught an intro to debate and public speaking class.

Theory: Go for it, if you want, but the argument needs to be clear and concise. Also, in general, I am wary of using theory in PF debate because the topic has been chosen for a reason.

Organization: Please make it clear what contentions you are arguing/rebutting, just makes it easier to flow.

Cross-Fire: Though I do pay attention, I do not flow it—so if something important happens bring it up in a speech.

Summary Speeches: I don't consider brand new arguments raised during the summary speeches. I just don't think it's fair because the other team will not have adequate time to respond.

Final Focus: Supposed to be a summary, give me your voters and make them clear. Tell me why I am voting for you.

Decision: I vote based on the flow, so do not drop arguments, and be sure to offer rebuttals against all your opponents' arguments, and impacts. If the flow/impact debate is not clear, I will consider the quality of the presentation and/or the evidence relied on. However, if the teams agree (or one team offers and the other concedes to) a framework, I will vote based on which team fulfilled the framework.

One last thing: Let's all be respectful, remember we are all real human beings behind the screens.

RAP Paradigm:

Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are unhelpful.

Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence.

Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.

Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track.

Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.

Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).

Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time, etc. Avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.

Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.

My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor ELA, History, and SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.

The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:

PF—

--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s first two-minute speech.

--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.

--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.

--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.

L-D—

--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum.

--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions.

--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).

I'm a former competitor in Extemp and Public Forum. I've been coaching for around ten years. I teach world history in Atlanta. I haven't judged much policy debate but I've judged and coached plenty of speech, LD, Public Forum and World Schools.

Things I like: arguments with warrants, citations, consistent logic, argument extensions, relevant questions, speaking skills (good flow, clear, etc...), theory, speech roadmaps, evidence, etc...

Things I do not like: rudeness and arguments without citations and/or warrants.

Analytic arguments are fine for any of the debate events.

Worlds Schools - Do not spread.

Policy - Kritiks, disadvantages and topicality are all fine. I like line-by-line and clear organization in your speeches. For me, an ideal debate would be polite, insightful, and have some relevance to our current historical moment. It would represent the zeitgeist so to say.

If you have any questions at all, please feel free to ask.

mrobinson43@gmail.com

Current LD Debater and Former Varsity PF Debater

Spread only if on shared speech doc

Because of online debating, I encourage you to send your cases - ryantshaw4@gmail.com

No Prog unless links are specific to the topic

Hi, I’m Aran Sonnad-Joshi. I use he/him pronouns. I’d say at least read the first part of my paradigm.

Midtown '23

Harvard '27

Email: a.sonnadjoshi@gmail.com

General Stuff

I’m fine with both progressive and traditional LD. I've competed on both the national and local Georgia circuits. I'll listen to almost anything, just warrant it.

Tech over truth but sketchy arguments have a lower threshold for response

Give a roadmap before your speech. Signpost if you deviate from that, but you should signpost anyway

Speed: I’m good with spreading but send the doc. My email is a.sonnadjoshi@gmail.com but I prefer SpeechDrop if possible.

Prog vs. Trad: I prefer trad, but I'm comfortable with prog. Generally, I would say don't change your style too much for your opponent but also don't beat up on trad debaters with jargon and norms. I think a good trad debater should be able to effectively counter progressive argumentation without compromising their style.

CX: CX is binding, but you have to bring it up in round if you want it on the flow. Also, being somewhat slippery is fine, but answer the question.

Pref sheet

Trad - 1

K - 2

Larp - 2/3

T/Theory, Phil - 3/4

Tricks, Frivolous theory - 5/Strike

Specific arguments:

Framework: Framework is how you weigh the round. Explain how your arguments fall under your framework. If you want to use your opponent’s framework, that’s fine but you have to show how your arguments flow under it.

Plans: I’m ok with plan affs but make sure you can explain how they’re topical.

DAs: Impact calc is key for me to weigh your DA. Sketchy link chains have a lower threshold for response. Make sure you have links, I’m not going to do it for you.

CPs: Counterplans are valid. Weigh the net benefits of the cp against the aff.

Ks: Ks are great. I’m most familiar with standard Ks and some postmodern stuff. My favorites are postcolonialism (but no one runs it), biopower (very underrated), Virilio (no one runs this either), and Baudrillard. Deleuze still confuses me. Pre-fiat impacts are cool if you do them properly.

K Affs: K affs are fine, just warrant them. I've run them before.

Phil (actual phil, not just phil tricks) : I'm familiar with a decent amount of phil. I should be able to evaluate almost any phil argument if it's explained well.

Theory: Theory should have a proper abuse story. I don’t like frivolous theory and it has a much lower threshold for response. I default to reasonability, drop the argument, and no RVIs (but RVIs can definitely be good). Fairness and Education are not default voters. I'm not a fan of disclosure theory, especially against small schools.

T: I prefer whole-res debates in trad LD but I can go both ways on Nebel.

Tricks: I don’t like them. I'll vote if I have to but please don’t make me vote off of them.

More specific stuff

I like a really good trad debate as much if not more than a good prog debate.

I think more than two condo offs becomes hard to justify.

I don't like disclosure theory, especially against small schools.

Debate is a game but rhetoric and conversations are important too

Nonnegotiable

I'll evaluate anything that's not in this section if I really must. These are things you have to do.

Use trigger warnings if you're discussing sensitive stuff (on this, I'll evaluate arguments like neg util/death good and I've run them before but make sure to do it appropriately)

Don't violate accommodations

Don't be exclusionary/ad hominem/discriminatory (no sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.; I'll give you the lowest speaks, drop you, and if necessary let your coach and/or the tournament know)

Speaks

I don't listen to requests for speaks generally. If it's a good reason I might be persuaded.

I try and average a 28.5 with a scale of 27 to 30 for most normal rounds. I adjust my speaks based on the pool. Things that I'll give high speaks for:

• Well executed trad debate, especially against prog.
• If you run unique arguments and explain them well

I really don't like spreading. Please, no interrupting.

Welcome!

I am new to judging but I was a debater in high school and undergrad. I competed in LD, Extemp, and British Parliamentary.

Lincoln-Douglas has a long history based in politics and we all know politicians don’t debate the facts. Because of this, LD is a value debate above all else. Of course, your evidence is important and you can’t win without good cards but, I really believe the round is more rewarding if the main focus is on value. Use all of your time, including prep time, even if you don’t feel like you need it. I don’t flow the specifics of cross-ex because you should bring up the information in later speeches. I will make notes on the quality of your cross-examination so be respectful and ask good questions.

I can deal with spreading but keep in mind that I flow by hand and if I can’t write down your argument, I can’t judge it. One of my favorite things about the debate world is the confidence it brings out in people. Even if you’re nervous, speak clearly and at an appropriate volume. Since we’re online I don’t expect you to stand but I still expect you to present to me.

I will give constructive criticism to the best of my ability at the end of the round.

Good luck!

I am an interior designer by trade and parent judge of two speech and debate students. I have judged for many years but in a different league. I am a HUGE speech and debate advocate! Having spent many years watching and judging speech and debate rounds, I firmly believe that the skills that students learn as they hone their craft are skills that will serve them later in whatever vocation they choose. Learning to communicate effectively, present yourself in a professional manner AND argue from many different perspectives (seeing an issue from an opposing side) prepare the students for real life challenges.

That being said, I am opposed to spreading of any kind because it is not how the real world works. No on wins because they said more words than their opponent. If you cannot be understood, you will not be productive in winning others to your side. Arguments win. Persuasion wins. Effective communication wins. Credible sources win. Please know I judge all debate rounds on the quality of the arguments, whether or not you effectively persuaded me and gave me enough credible evidence to affirm your side.

So work hard, come prepared, present your arguments, wow me with your speech and enjoy the adventure that is Speech & Debate!

I am best described as a parent judge. I listen to your arguments and take notes. I will vote on the team that makes the most convincing arguments in the rounds.

Be nice to each other and be respectful.