As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

Hi Everyone,

I am parent judge with a high schooler who started debate this year. I am a traditional judge.

I am a traditional judge. Please don't spread or use debate jargon, or else I won't be able to understand your arguments.

Kale Fithian—Erie (PA) McDowell Policy Paradigm

Background: I competed in extemp in high school and speech/LD in college in the early to mid 1990s. I never competed in policy debate. I picked up judging after being trained about 20 years ago. I judge 10-15 rounds a year mostly at local tournaments in Western Pennsylvania/Eastern Ohio. I occasionally judge circuit debate and have judged several times at NCFL Grand Nationals.

I would best be described as an experienced traditional judge with some exposure to circuit policy debate. Speed is not something that I am philosophically opposed to but I can probably only handle about 65-70% of the fastest spreading. Clear tags and direction on the flow will help. I will say clear if needed.

I flow on legal pads and don’t access technology during the round. It has to be on my flow for me to vote on it and not just in an email chain.

I am reasonably well versed on current events but do not have any especially specific knowledge of this topic area.

Round Procedure: I will time just in case there is a dispute but otherwise you are welcome to time yourselves. I won’t count any technology time such as flashing information against prep but it is your responsibility to let me know that you have stopped prepping.

Open cross-ex is fine with me but I will not require any questions to be answered during anyone’s prep time.

I am not overly concerned with formality of procedure but I will penalize heavily for clear unsportsmanlike or inappropriate behavior. Treat the activity and your opponents with respect and this should not be an issue.

I will disclose and do a brief reason for decision but I write most of my comments on the physical or computer ballot.

General Philosophy: My goal at the beginning of any round is to be as non-interventionist and tab rasa as possible. It will be the debaters’ job to identify the key issues of the round, argue them and guide me by providing voting issues. If there is a true breakdown of the round or lack of clash I will default to policymaker with an impact calculus as my preferred method of round evaluation.

Specific Arguments:

T—I have a fairly high threshold for T. I will tend to default to a reasonableness argument unless the Neg clearly wins the line by line.

FW—I am always open to either side framing the debate and setting up the importance of the arguments (as noted above in my tab rasa philosophy). I will not vote specifically on FW but if you can show the specific reason your arguments win under a FW I agree with you will most likely win the round if your points truly match the FW. If you can show what specifically you are missing out on if I accept your opponent’s framework that would go a long way.

CP—I am open to CP’s by the neg. If your CP will lead to a better net benefit than the Aff plan then I am going to potentially vote for it as part of the impact calc in the round. Likewise if the Aff plan has better net benefits then the Neg then I would be inclined to vote Aff at least on the plan portion. I am however not opposed to the Aff running T, harms, DA, etc… against a CP.

DA—I will consider both the Aff and Neg running DAs against a plan or counterplan to be fair arguments relating to the effectiveness of those cases. If the DAs outweigh the net benefits of either that can be a key voter in the round.

K—I am fine with Ks being run but it is up to the debater running it to make sure they explain the potential impact/consequences/reasons for the K to be accepted and to show why the topic or case is truly related to the K.

On Case—I am favorable to the Neg being able to attack the Aff case. I am more likely to vote on some sort of harms but will vote stock issues if it is clearly won in argumentation.

Performance Aff/Aff K—I am not very familiar and hold a high threshold here. If this is done it will need to be clearly explained as to why this is clearly better than running a traditional case.

Fiat—I will grant Aff fiat and any non-attacked plan gets full benefits as if it happened (granted harms etc.. could still be argued).

Lincoln Douglas Addendum:

I have been judging Lincoln Douglas for about 20 years and judge about 20-25 rounds each season mostly at local tournaments in Western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio. I have very limited exposure to any sort of circuit Lincoln Douglas but since I judge policy somewhat regularly I am still passingly familiar with the style. However I do not feel spreading or excessive speed should be common in Lincoln Douglas. Fast conversational pace should be the highest pace needed.

For all of the round procedures see above from the policy paradigm. For Lincoln Douglas I still try to be as Tab Rasa as possible and have the students determine the key voting issues in the round. However both my philosophy and judging experience leans heavily towards the traditional LD style. So in a close round I will default to who won the value and potentially criterion clash more heavily than practical applications, policy implications, or solvency. I do flow the main arguments and rebuttals for the debate but I am fine with grouping or big picture arguments and cross-application. However it must be clearly explained why an argument successfully counters multiple opposing views or why a cross-application is valid. I value the argumentation aspect of debate in LD more as I consider it to be a truly separate event from policy.

It's been a number of years since I've been active in the debate community. Just run what you're good at and tell me why you won at the end.

I competed for four years in high school and coached for six years after that. On aff, I generally ran something mildly critical, and on neg I ran the Cap K just about every round.

Make my life easy and write my ballot for me in the rebuttals.

Public Forum -

I am a traditional flow judge and former extemper and public forum debater who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined voting issues in summary and final focus.

I look extremely unfavorably upon theory arguments in public forum. I believe they undermine the educational value of the activity and are one of the core reasons why policy debate has little value as an educational activity, in my opinion. I still vote off the flow, but import the worst aspects of policy debate into public forum at your own risk. I have never heard a theory shell run in round that didn't make me feel like I had lost an hour of my life that I will never get back - but hey, there's a first time for everything, I suppose.

I try and balance my final decision between who had persuaded me more of their position overall and who won the key arguments of the round. I find that the winning team almost always is stronger in both regards, but if it is close I typically award the win to the team who has persuaded me more of their position overall.

Along those lines, I don't score the rounds based on a strict win-loss basis for each contention. For example, if the affirmative had the better argument on several contentions, but negative had the stronger argument on the main contention at issue in the round, I typically would award the win to negation.

Teams that clearly outline their reasons for decision/voting issues in the third and fourth speeches tend to do better than those that do not. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

I will not hold the speed of your delivery against you, but spread at your own risk. I can only judge based on the arguments I hear. I prefer a more conversational style but am fine with some faster reading - but if I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you.

I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that get lost in PF-jargon or who try and score technical points in lieu of making a strong argument.

If you are asked to provide a source and you are unable to provide it, I follow PHSSL rules and consider that an automatic loss. Providing analytical and empirical evidence is always necessary. Citing sources is essential for you to formulate your argument, for your opponents to accept the statistics you provide, and to give me the judge a basis to judge the data both teams are using to convince me their argument is superior. Technology or wifi issues are not an excuse - you should be prepared and have downloaded your case and cards so they're accessible offline before the tournament - as we all know, wifi can be spotty at debate tournaments.

My background: I am a public forum coach. I have judged more public forum rounds than any other event combined over the last three school years. I have an educational background in international affairs and a professional background in public policy and education. I do my best to not allow my prior knowledge to influence my decision-making and strive to decide every round by the arguments brought to bear within the four walls of competition room.

Lincoln Douglas Debate -

I generally prefer a more conversational style. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you.

I evaluate the importance of your value and value criterion depending on how its used in the round. Several times, I've found that the winner of the framework debate isn't necessarily the winner of the round.

I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round. Tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, and if you don't I'll evaluate it as I see it.

I don't love jargon but cross-apply, extend, turn, etc are fine

I generally decide the winner based on who won the key argument of the round

Evidence is great. I strongly prefer it, but if you have a strong logical argument a lack of evidence won't hurt you.

I'm a flow judge, and I prefer traditional debate and am not a fan of K or theory.

Policy -

No spreading. It's poor communication and a sign of an inability to deliver your argument competently, concisely and persuasively. Is it standard in policy? Yes. Do I care? No.

No K's or identity arguments. I love substantive debate - it's why we're here, right? To debate policy?

Limit theory only to topicality. Need to have proper warrants, links, and impacts. Proper use of impacts is essential to policy formation.

Regardless of speech or debate, all competitors should emulate good sportsmanship and be respectful during the competition. Examples of what this means:

> Paying attention while your opponent/competitor is presenting. (NOT goofing off on your phone or talking with a friend in the room).

> Being respectful and courteous, whether after a presentation or during debate cross-fires.

Debate Event Specific: Clear articulated and respectful debates. The pace of speaking should not be so rapid that the judge cannot clearly discern arguments being made. Additionally, while debate clashing is key, debate is still an exercise of public speaking, so be mindful of presentation skills.

My paradigm isn't very complicated, but you'll notice that I'm a bit different that your average judge out on circuit these days. I'm pretty old school. At my core I'm a policy maker. I'm not a fan of critical arguments however, if they can be explained as a policy option then go for it. However, if I wanted to judge a round about how great the world would be if we were all just nicer to each other, then I'd be over in the LD pool. I have voted on both critical affs and negative K arguments, but I have a lower tolerance for them. Speaking of LD, I'm going to add on some LD specific stuff at the bottom.

I will never say that I'm a Tab judge. I'm just not. I will not make any excuses for that. I think it's unrealistic to assume anyone comes to a round with no biases. For example, I spent 20 years as a meteorologist. I have a degree in Atmospheric Sciences and was on television for most of that 20 years. SO, I will evaluate ANY warming arguments both for and against with a great degree of scrutiny. If you're going to run climate arguments in one my rounds you had better know your stuff because I will almost guarantee that I know the material much better than you do and I did it for a living and I won't accept half-baked or poorly understood arguments. Just because you can read something doesn't mean I have to accept it as truth especially if I know better, no matter WHAT your opponent says. THAT is the real world.

Politics arguments...understand that you can run them but know this, I am a complete non-believer in the theory of political capital. I don't believe it exists, nor will I ever be convinced that it exists. I do however believe that decisions are made and will be made with political considerations as a key motivator. That however doesn't mean that a president's ability to get something passed is impacted by some immeasurable, unquantifiable power metric that has no threshold where success or failure can be predicted.

Are you getting the idea that I'm a real world kind of judge? Good, because that's me in a nutshell. I love high quality, well researched discussions on what ifs, but they need to be based on real science, realistic scenarios, or at least scenarios with impacts that can be reached with a quality link chain. This year's resolution is EXTREMELY tangible and has so many real world implications that you should treat it as such. If we end up in the weeds talking about garbage that's only important to half a dozen people in a fringe think tank located in the broom closet of a lost downtown community college, then don't waste 90 minutes of my time.

Okay, enough with the I hate stuff. How about what I like. Well constructed arguments with strong links, well thought out analysis and clearly delivered. I like debaters that look like they're having fun. This is verbal gladiatorial games, and that's why we love it. Keep it cordial. Make it light when you can and engage with the judges when it's appropriate. We have to spend a good amount of time in a room together, so let's make the best of it. In the end, one team will win, and one team will lose, but we should all feel like we spent meaningful, entertaining, and educational time together.

With regard to LD since I judge that occasionally, like I said above, I'm a bit old school and that applies here as well. I DO NOT like my LD to be like my policy. They are different events for a reason. I detest progressive LD with a passion because every time I've judged it, it has turned into really poorly done policy debate. I'm a traditional LD judge that enjoys the value clash. I'm sure that will come as a disappointment to many of you, but it is what it is. Spreading in LD is unnecessary. I've been judging policy for nearly 20 years so It's not like I can't handle it. I just don't like it in LD. Just like I mentioned above, if you read it, I like clear analysis. Strategic arguments are worth their weight in gold...and speaker points. Keep it fun. Keep it fair. Keep it entertaining.