PF: Pro should advocate for the resolution’s worthiness while the Con should show the disadvantages of the resolution and why it should not be adopted. In the 1st speech, both teams should have an introduction to frame the team’s case. The summary needs to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the differences exist and are clear and the issues need to be prioritized. Final focus needs to be a big picture concept. I will evaluate your evidence and expect you to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. PLEASE weigh your arguments and make it clear how I should evaluate this round and what really matters. Explain why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. I do not form part of the email chain.

IEs: I've judged all IEs for over 30 years for different circuits and at different levels (including state and nationals). On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure to speak clearly avoiding excessive word crutches and cite your sources. Follow the standard speech outline for each event and approach topic creatively. Make sure to actually answer the question (topic chosen) clearly and that the points discussed in the body of the speech support the answer. Use time wisely/effectively to fully develop the speech. If you are using props (for speech events), make sure they go with the topic and are easily handled. They don't need to be complicated. The simpler the better. On INTERP, I look at who transported me into the story and kept me there. Make sure all movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose and should not distract from the selection being presented. Characterization is also very important to keep me in the story. Use the whole "stage" for your presentation if the event allows it. It's your performance. Entertain me! POI: You can incorporate the binder as a prop if you want making sure it isn't so distracting that it takes away from your program.

LD: I am a traditional LD judge. This means the debate should be a value debate. Framework of the debate is of the utmost importance because it will force me to evaluate your impacts before the other team’s impacts and nullifies most, if not all, of the other team’s offense. The contentions should be used to demonstrate a real-world example of the framework in action. For any claim made during the entire debate (constructive and rebuttal speeches), you should have evidential support. PLEASE weigh your arguments, make it clear how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and show me what really matters in the round. Explain clearly why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. There is no need for spreading. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. I do not form part of the email chain. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speeches.

Congress: When preparing a speech, make sure to follow standard speech outline and cite your sources. Approach legislation creatively. If you speak later in the session, do not rehash old arguments already brought up by previous representatives. Bring in new arguments to advance the debate. Also, you must clash with opponents. Don't just give your speech. It's a debate after all. Bring up points mentioned by opposing side, show your view point and not just say they are wrong or you don't agree. Give specific reasons why you don't agree and provide the evidence to prove your point. Have your speech so well prepared that you will be able to defend it during cross and not stumble during questioning. As Parliamentarian, I will make sure correct parliamentary procedure is followed.

WSD: Since arguments should be based in reality and each team is fighting on behalf of their respective worlds, the debate should show which world is more likely and/or better and how it will be actualized in the big picture rather than the individual arguments being made. Provide specific world (not just U.S.) examples to your claims. Burdens and mechanism/model should be clear. On the reply speeches, crystallize the round highlighting the main points of contention (2 or 3 key points) and tell me why your team won those points therefore winning the debate. Make sure there is clash on both sides and watch rate of delivery.

CX: As a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team’s plan to retain all stock issues and should label them clearly during the debate. The negative needs to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one issue in order to win. I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficient evidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to hear all of their points and must watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important, how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and why I should vote for them. I do not form part of an email chain since I don't want to read speeches. I want to hear them. If it's important, make sure to express it clearly. New on case arguments are ok in 2NC, but not off case.

I have several years of judging experience in speech/debate "for fun," though I'm not a debate coach. I am by trade a science teacher (physics, environmental, and engineering) so I love logical arguments backed by clever evidence.

I appreciate clear speaking voices and "thought trains" that are easy to follow. I'm a bit traditional in that I prefer debaters to discuss the topic at hand. I hope you will be "ruthless" with your case development, not your attitude. Be respectful!

"Bonus points" for making me laugh. ;)

I'm a traditional judge with over 30 years of coaching all events. I am currently teaching a new Debate course at Center Academy for Success.

I have coached debate for 20 years. I have coached multiple state champions and National qualifiers. I like to see strong clash in the round and prefer the traditional style of should/would argumentation in LD. I don't like to see policy plans and K in LD. I don't mind them in CX, but do not like to see generic argumentation that you pull out round after round. That being said, I will adapt to you - your job is to make sure you define the framework of the round. Don't assume I have read your advocacy authors. Spell it out.

Slow down if you want me to flow it. There is a big difference between hearing and being able to process the information that is being presented.

Semantics are important. Rhetoric is important. A strong speaker with solid word choice is always going to score better than a spewing gasper. Analysis presented well, weighs as much as evidence that is not supported with argumentation.

I LOVE CONGRESS! and speaking events, and actors, and readers, and the forensic community. Don't be a jerk and we'll get along just swell.

CX(Policy) Debate

I LOVE direct clash, so if you can ensure that your arguments are responding to what's been presented in the round, then that will certainly be reflected in the speaker points for the round.
I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. Throughout the round, I have always encouraged signposting. It ensures that your arguments end up on the flow where you want them to go, if you do not do this, then you run the risk of me putting it where I think it should go, and this could work against you. Take control of the round. Do not let me do this simply by signposting the argumentation throughout your speech.

T-Topicality
I have a low threshold on T for this resolution(22-23), so I would not spend much time on it past the constructive. Unless the AFF is truly not topical, which is difficult to imagine with the broadness of this year's topic. I would encourage addressing it and moving on to the NEG again unless the AFF is truly not topical and the violation is abundantly clear. Then, I probably won't be voting on this in the round.

DA-Disadvantage
In my personal opinion, this is the 2nd highest level of the debate that has been participated in for this topic. I love for the link-internal link chain to clearly show me how we get to whatever impact you advocate for throughout the DA(s) you run in the round. I would highly recommend impact analysis as the round progresses. Please know the difference between impact calc and impact weighing. Both are good. Just don't say you are doing an impact calc when you are actually doing impact weighing.

CP-Counterplan
I don't mind these, but want a clear explanation throughout the round as to why they can't be permed, what are the net benefits of doing it through the CP, and why the CP is competitive compared to the AFF. There are many ways for the AFF to answer the many different CPs that have come through on this resolution, and I have enjoyed the CP debate on this year's topic more than in previous years. For the NEG these take a ton of work for me to vote on, and for my ballot, it is not difficult for the AFF to answer them in the rounds.

K-Kritique
I will not interfere, but I do not spend much time, if any at all, with the literature, so you are going to have to do a ton of analysis...which, as a NEG Strat in my rounds, is probably a bad idea cause I tend to vote on clash and where that's happening. I'm not saying don't do it but be prepared to lose me quickly and lose my ballot quickly if the K does not make sense or has all the right elements to the argument.I think the most important part of this for you to see when it comes to K-Debate is that if this is your strat for the round to read a K. I will not reject the argument inherently, but want you to know I may not understand your argument at first and you may have to do more explanation and give more time when I am looking for DA and On-case position arguments. If you read this please make sure you have a complete K and are ready to explain the literature and how it is advocating for the change you want to see.

ON-CASE
THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!! Especially this year, the abundance of evidence that generally links to the case that AFFs have to work through or that AFFs get to extend through the round has been incredible.

Realistically, I am looking for the stocks to be upheld, but want to make my decision based on those and what I believe will be the best policy in the round.

Last, I WILL NOT INTERFEER. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way. Please understand everything above is what I prefer to see in a round, and for me, the clash is the highest priority and the AFF burden to prove that policy is beneficial. Those are my two presumptions before the round ever begins, so whoever meets those and proves to me the policy is net beneficial or will lead to existential harm typically is who gets my ballot.

Speed, since that is what this question is really asking...I tend to err on the side of technical over articulate, as this is an incredibly technical event, and know how much time it has taken to develop that skill. That being said, POP THE TAG AND EVIDENCE TO ENSURE THAT IT MAKES THE FLOW...SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS...

(I,E UIL/TFA/TOC/NSDA EXPECTATIONS)

I will warn you to watch me or my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I am not following along with you, and the only saving grace for you is the speech drop, file share, or email chain if there is one. Please be present in the round and observant that it could be the difference in your win or loss, simply because I could not understand your attempt at spreading.

Again, this is not to say you can't, but I would for sure slow down on taglines/claims. Pop the source or card information before going full howitzer in the warrants of the evidence.

LD Debate

I am as traditional as it gets. I tend to keep a more technical-based flow. Slow, pretty speaking, and thorough argumentation. I weigh heavily on the Value and Criterion clash. I love good voters at the end of the rebuttal phase. I do understand progressive argumentation but for the sake of LD, I would keep it to a minimum. Signpost well and keep off-time roadmaps brief. Even though I prefer traditional LD Debate, I understand the merit of research that comes with progressive LD, I will evaluate these rounds and am quite capable of doing so since I spend most of my fall semester judging policy rounds. I would encourage you to read my CX(Policy) paradigm if this is your style. It will better help you navigate these rounds. I will also caution you with called drops especially if it appears this strategy is being used just to grab a win, I believe that harms the education in the round and makes me less likely to warrant them as drops rather than a lack of information. I would prefer an analysis of why the arguments are still valid and voting issues in the round rather than just calling them drops or unanswered arguments. Again, I stress reading the CX event above this to get a better understanding of how I will evaluate the round.

Please tell me when and where I will vote to control my flow and the ballot. If you do this, it should be a good round for you. I can not emphasize enough that CLASH is crucial, and I will know if you do not interact with arguments made by you and your opponent. If you declare it as an offense and can justify this claim, it could win you the round!

Congress

When it comes to a congress chamber, I have found that I enjoy healthy debate and awareness in a chamber. What this means is that for a PO and the chamber to understand when the debate has begun to circle around and there are no new arguments being developed...It is probably time to move to a previous question. If you feel that you have a really strong speech to give, but it is the same argumentation that has already occurred, I would encourage you to make sure that you are working on elements of refutation to direct speakers in the chamber along with crystalizing how the arguments have worked throughout the chamber. If this is not the strategy, it will probably hurt you to just get up there and give another 3:00 speech, developing the same cycle of arguments in the chamber. I really enjoy it when the debate on items is well developed and students are aware enough to understand when it's over and should be moving to the previous question for the vote to get to the next item in the chamber.

I have found that my ranks tend to be evaluated from the following parameters, but I do not think this is by any means the only way I would evaluate a chamber.

1st Priority--- Effective PO Procedures and chamber management. I do believe the PO is one of the most influential characters in the chamber. It is your job to have a clean and clear understanding of the parliamentarian procedures, and it is your job to reinforce the rules of the chamber. I do expect you to know the rules of the circuit for the tournament so know the differences between UIL, TFA, and NSDA.

2nd Priority---Quality of Speeches

3rd Priority--- Activity in the chamber (total) This covers # of speeches, questions, and general participation for me in the chamber

I have found that most PO in my balloting history will start in the 3 positions, and your effectiveness in this position will dictate if you move up or down from this position. I do place a premium on speeches, as I still think this is the most important piece to the event, so it will be common for my ballot that the speakers are ranked higher than POs, but if this is done well can push them to the top of a chamber but it is harder for these characters in the chamber to get my 1s.

Extemp

The core question for extemp is how to get my 1. Or what is the difference between my 1 & 2?

My 1's are nearly perfect speakers, the fillers are minimal and you are doing all the extemp nuances that we are looking for in these speeches. Sources are incredibly important and more does not always equal 1 but it can be the difference. I am also looking for you to analyze and give me your insight into the topic. Working that in could be the difference between 1 & 2. Time could also be a factor in judgment. Know the rules between different circuits!

Interp

These are my weakest events to judge...That doesn't mean that I can't, just that I believe my qualifications are less in this event. I do place a premium on some of the speaking tactics over the theatrical elements (blocking). Not that I won't appreciate your movements and evaluate them throughout the performance, but it's not unheard of that someone who can tell an effective story and take me through their performance allowing me to feel what their performance is asking, will have better success with me over someone who uses blocking to communicate these moments throughout your performance. I would encourage you to utilize both throughout the performance as that is ideally what I am looking for in this performance. My best encouragement to you if I am judging your interp round, is to probably block less and what you do block, make sure that it has a purpose other than the "over-top" movements won't be as effective with me at the back of the room. I will evaluate and enjoy your performance, giving you feedback on things that I really enjoyed, and areas that I think you might want to consider growing the performance!

I like to see direct clash (they say this, we say that), analysis with warrants (prefer our argument, because…), impact/implications (what the world looks like if we don’t do x), warrants for why your impact(s) hold(s) greater significance/is more likely/is the reason I should vote.

Make it clear to me, essentially writing the ballot for me will get you the win.

Ok with speed just be clear. Will put down my pen and stop flowing if you are going to fast.

Please be respectful during cross.

Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

To win my ballot, you will need to speak at a rate that I can understand what you are saying. In addition, please make sure that your arguments are backed with evidence, but are not absent logic.

Public Forum paradigm

A few remarks:

1. If it's important to my RFD, it needs to be in both summary and final focus, especially if it's offense. A few exceptions to this rule:
1. Rebuttal responses are "sticky". If there's a rebuttal response that was unaddressed, even if it wasn't in your opponents' summary or FF, I will still consider it against you.
2. If a central idea is seemingly conceded by both teams, it is true in the round. For example, if most of the debate is on the warrant level, and the impacts are conceded, I will extend the impacts for you even if you don't explicitly, because this allows you time to more adequately analyze the clash of the debate.
2. Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
3. Warrants are extremely important; you don't get access to your evidence unless you give me warrants.
4. If you are non-responsive, I am fine with your opponents "extending through ink" -- in order to get defense, you need to be responsive.
5. Feel free to make whatever arguments you want.

I can be interventionist when it comes to evidence; I will call for it in three scenarios:

1. You read evidence that I have also read, and I think you misrepresented the evidence.
2. Your evidence is called into question/indicted.
3. You read evidence that sounds really sketchy.

Speaker Points

What matters, in rough order of importance:

• Ethical treatment of evidence, both yours and your opponents'. (I have given 20s to teams misusing evidence in the past, and I'll gladly do so again--don't tempt me.)
• The presence of weighing/narrative.
• Nuanced, well-warranted analytical argumentation.
• Well-organized speeches. (Road maps optional; Signposting non-optional)
• Appealing rhetorical style.
• In-round courtesy and professionalism.

I debated in PF for 4 years (2016-2020) in MN, I'm now an assistant coach for Blake. Please put me on the email chain before round and send full speech docs + cut cards before case and rebuttal: lillianalbrecht20@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

For TFA 2024: please add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com to the chain and make sure your documents are able to be viewed after the round (ideally a PDF or Word document). Please arrive to rounds early and be preflowed, especially for flight 2.

Evidence ethics and exchanges in PF are terrible, please don’t make it worse. Start an email chain before rounds and make exchanges as fast as possible. Sending speech docs to everyone before you read case and rebuttal (including your evidence) makes exchanges faster and lets you check back for your opponent's evidence. I find myself evaluating evidence a lot more now, so please make sure you're reading cut cards.

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance, meaning I’ll vote for clean turns over messy case args. I'm kind of a lazy judge that way, but the less I have to think about where to vote the better. But if a turn/disad isn’t implicated or doesn’t have a link, I’m not gonna buy it. Most teams don't actually impact out or weigh their turns, so doing that is an easy way to win my ballot.

You need to frontline in second rebuttal. Turns/new offense is a must, but the more you cover the better.

Everything you want to go for has to be in summary and FF. This includes offense and defense--defense is not sticky for 1st summary. If you don't extend your links and impacts in summary/FF I can't vote for you.

I’m generally good with speed, but I value quality over quantity. I typically flow on paper and will not flow off the doc, so slowing down on tags + analytics is appreciated. I will clear you if I cannot understand you, typically for unclear speaking rather than the speed itself.

Please signpost, for both of our sakes. Clear signposting makes it easier to understand your arguments and easier to vote for you. Line by line is preferred, but whatever you do, just tell me where to write it down.

The more weighing you do the better. Weigh every piece of offense you want to win for best results.

The more you collapse in the second half of the round, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

Speaker points are kinda dumb, but I usually average 28. Good strat + jokes will boost your speaks, being offensive/rude + slow to find evidence will drop them.

I'm fine with theory if there's real abuse. I won't vote on frivolous theory and I'll be really annoyed judging a round on the hyper-specifics of a debate norm (ie, open-source v. full-text disclosure). Good is good enough. Generally, I think that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good, but I'll evaluate whatever args you read in front of me. That being said, I really do not want to judge theory debates, so please avoid running them.

I don't mind K debate theoretically, but I have a really high threshold for what K debate should be in PF. I have some experience running and judging Ks, but I'm not very familiar with the current lit + hyperspecific terminology. I'm also really opposed to the current trend of Ks in PF. If your alt doesn't actually do anything with my ballot you don't have any offense that I can vote for you on. If you want to read a K in front of me, you need to go at 75% of your max speed. Far too often teams read a bunch of blippy arguments and forget to actually warrant them. Going slower and walking me through the warranting will be the way to win my ballot--this includes responses to the K as well. However, similar to theory, I really do not want to judge a K round, so run at your own risk.

Feel free to email me with any questions you have about the round!

Corporate executive by day; speech coach, judge and mentor after hours. I've spent 20 years in corporate America listening to my share of dreadful presentations. I can always spot those who have NSDA experience because they keep me engaged throughout the presentation. As a judge, I'm looking for polished presentations that elevate the discussion.

I am committed to providing honest, constructive feedback, allowing students to develop their presentations effectively.

I have a very low tolerance for poor audience behavior. That includes, but is not limited to, the use of electronic devices while others are speaking.

1. Speak clearly...if you are going to spread, then make sure I can still understand you.

2. Don't leave connections up to me. Follow through on arguments.

3. Tag Teaming is fine, just don't be rude to your opponent.

4. Speaking of rude: There is no other way to get dropped faster than to be rude. Use your words, not attitude.

5. I deduct the time looking at your opponent’s evidence from your prep. Don’t waste time.

My paradigm for judging:

Decorum required at all times.

Do not yell at me- We are in a small room and I don't need you to yell to get your point across. I have been involved in Speech and Debate for 20 years- I competed in debate and interp in middle school, high school, and collegiate level. I have been coaching this activity for 8 years. I like cool, calm, collected- not loud and chaotic.

I will flow the round- if I don't look up often, I am not ignoring you- just listening and checking the flow.

Your job is to present ideas, arguments, and rebuttals in a professional manner. Debaters should educate the judges, and have thorough background knowledge of the topic. You should also have fun- show off your hard work and represent your school/state well!

Please do not use full prep time if you do not need it! It is a waste of time to run out the clock if you are ready to speak.

Excited to judge your round!

I am an old school traditional judge.

In Congress - If you ask for an in house recess to pad a speech or to address the chamber because no one is speaking - DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK! Nothing annoys congress judges more than 15 minutes of caucusing and getting splits, only for no one to be ready. The PO should be running the round and is perfectly capable of admonishing those who are not ready to speak. Otherwise, I like a good intro with a 2 pt preview and good, creative arguments that show critical thinking. Be active in the round and ask good questions.

PF - Keep it simple. If you run a plan, a K, or theory, you are unlikely to get my ballot. Treat me like I have no idea what this topic is and explain EVERYTHING. Weigh impacts to get my ballot. Don't complicate a pro/con debate.

LD - For UIL, stick to a traditional format with Value/Criteria and Contentions. Weigh and give voters. For TFA, just know that I loathe rapid delivery and love explanations. If you are going to run a counterplan in absence of an affirmative plan, I will not vote on it. LD is not 1 person policy. Uphold your value throughout the round.

Remember, debate is impossible without effective communication.

FLASHING IS PREP TIME! If you are not speaking, you are prepping. My prep time clock is the official prep time clock.

Background

I’ve been a debate coach since 2011, first at the middle school level, then managing debate operations as an assistant principal, and since 2020doing what I love as the proud coach of Everglades HS forensics from Miramar, FL. I have a B.A. in English / B.S. in Biology and a Masters in Ed. Leadership. I’ve judged everything from locals to NSDA Nationals. Four time NSDA national finalist coach. NSDA Speech school of excellence 2023. Follow us on IG @evergaldesdebate

Rule #1 – Play Nice.

If cross gets ugly and rude, I will destroy your speaker points. Debate is about building community and showing others that we don’t have to be as vile and divisive as those holding political office. Seriously, you all are the future. Make it awesome.

Argumentation & Evidence

I will be flowing your arguments and I do not want to be part of an email chain. I will judge off your flow. Having said that, please sign-post and don’t spread. I’m fine with rapid talking, but honestly, it is all about quality of argumentation over quantity.

Having solid warrants is great; but warrants without extension or analytical impact is fail. Just because you can rattle off stat after stat doesn’t show me you are an excellent debater and should win a round.

While it is very doubtful that I will be calling for cards, make sure you have exchanged cards with your opponents prior to the round so we don’t need to waste time with that in session. If you are unable to provide a requested card within 15 seconds, speaker points will drop and I will strike that piece of evidence from your argument.

Lincoln Douglas

I've seen a trend recently where competitors try to spread five or six contentions. If you elect to do this, be prepared for me to either a) review written case (time permitting before decision deadline) or b) not penalize your opponent for "dropping" Cs. Again, quality over quantity for me as a judge.

I am comfortable with counter-plans in most cases; however, I don't coach kritik's or "Ks" specifically; although I do my best to read the literature contained in topical case briefs. While I would never outright fail a position for running a "K", you will more than likely need to be super-awesome to win as I prefer traditional LD rounds. If you plan to run straight theory, please strike me.

World Schools Debate (WSD)

I'm thrilled to see WSD being brought to more and more tournaments. Having said that, many don't have a clear understanding of the format. Please make sure you have reviewed the NSDA guidelines, FFL Rules (if Florida), and / or tournament specific rule-set for the event.

As a judge, great cases for me will begin with defining and contextualizing the motion from the prop / opp's position. Furthermore, if the motion does not specifically give us what "this house" represents, define / clarify it for me. Make sure you introduce a clear, believable framework,before beginning the body of your case. As the case moves forward, all substansives, observations, and evaluations should be presented with specific, concrete examples. I don't by hyperbolic, generic, or slopply linked pieces of evidence. Having said that, do not turn WSD into a PF round, I'm really not interested in seeing how many cards you can (prepared motion) throw into your case.

As the round moves on, both sides have a duty to settle the framework debate, by either furthering clash over framework or moving on and accepting your opponent's framework. Don't weight til the reply speech to attempt to resolve framework issues or I will ignore your response and pref the team that provided a clear framework weighing mechanism earlier in the round.

Having listened to all three speakers, your content score will be reflective of how well your team not only presented your case, but how you chose to respond to your opponent's position. Again, I prefer specifics with well-thought out analytics, then simple summary of an opponent's substansive and then telling me (with non-specific or simply summarized evidence) how they fail to meet the metric of your framework. Dig deeper then that.

To earn maximun style points from me as a judge, speakers should be engaging and passionate about their assigned position. The speaking delivery style of this event is much closer to OO and Congress then it is to more traditional debate formats. Inclusion of rhetorical devices, proper speaking tone / inflection, and stage presence will have a huge impact on my ballot. Also, if you spend your time with your head in your case and not engaging with the round, you'll bore me and your speaks will suffer.

For strategy points, make sure to make use of PoIs outside of protected time. This should be spread around the team and not just be one person. Furthermore, how you respond to PoIs to further develop clash within the debate and use as a opportunity shift course mid-speech is total win.

Judging

I give significant weight to how debaters handle cross, summary, and final focus (PF) or rebuttal in LD. I’m sure you all have meticulously prepared constructives / cases and rebuttals. However, I want to see what you can do when presented with your opponent’s case that is unique and entertaining.

Please make sure to weigh your arguments; but do so with thorough explanation. Please don’t tell me “aff outweighs on magnitude of impact” and leave it at that.

Also, if you've read this far, congrats! You get to hear my judging pet-peve - climate / nuclear war / extinction arguments. They feel like such an easy out. I'll certainly consider them, but I'm thinking we can be more original than that.

I will disclose results at the end of the round as per tournament directions on disclosure. Feedback will be on ballot, and if I have time and you'd like oral feedback (if disclosure is allowed) I will give oral FB.

Bonus Points

If you can slide in a reference to any of the following, I’ll give your speaker points a little bump:

- Rick and Morty - Must be a Season 7 Reference ... or something involving Mr. Nimbus.

- Bad / Silly / Campy Horror Movies

- Why Dune was seriously phenomenal and your expectations or thoughts on Part II (Either movie, or better yet, the novel)

I like to be entertained. This is my weekend I’m giving up so you all can participate in a great tournament. Make me laugh and keep me engaged when you speak and the world will be an almost beautiful place.

I'm fairly familiar with all types of debate and the rules associated with them. I'm alright with speed, put a lot of weight on impacts and flow, and ask that the debate is professional (i.e. avoid ad hominem, attack arguments not opponents).

Hey y’all. My name’s Matt, I competed in congress for 2 years in high school and I’ve been judging tournaments for about the same amount of time. Basically I’ve been in a lot of congress rounds so don’t worry, I know how this works. When I’m judging a round, I’m mainly looking for who can advance the debate the most or otherwise contribute the most to the round as a whole. Whoever can give me the most solid, impactful, well explained point and contextualize it to the round is going to stand out to me the most. That means if you’re speaking early, set the framework for your side to follow and for the debate as a whole to follow. If you can effectively do this, you’ll get ranked well. If you’re speaking later in the round, make share you make your arguments more responsive so the debate can be furthered, incorporate refutation so I know why your points are better, and are your point make sense in the context of other points I’ve heard in the round so far so it’s easy for me to understand. Clean, professional speaking will benefit you but it’s not the deciding factor for your rank. Important to note, I also appreciate a good presiding officer. If you are well versed in procedures and run the round smoothly, you’ll rank well with me, and if I feel you’ve contributed more than anyone else, you’ll rank REALLY well with me. That about does it for me, great luck in round everyone, I look forward to seeing you all compete.

Robbie Allison

updated june 2022

experience + background

University of Southern California 2022; BA Political Economy. Minor, Int'l Policy and Management 

Loyola High School, Assistant Coach LD - 2 years - present.

4 year policy debater @ USC (NDT-CEDA circuit),

4 years national circuit policy @ Park City HS, Utah

Park City High School, Assistant Coach Policy, 1 year.

put me on the email chain: robbie.allison63@gmail.com

TLDR:
Did a decent amount of topic research for Autonomous weapons. I’ll know the acronyms etc

NSDA 2022 PF: I know the topic area well from years of college-level research on the international politics of the indo-pacific region including American and Chinese foreign policy, international trade, and domestic politics. 

Go as fast as you want, please cite author names for evidence, and maintain consistent signposting and organization.

Do your impact analysis at the top of the speech. Overviews are not necessary after constructive speeches. 

All other preferences in this paradigm apply equally to PF as they do for other events.

LD specific things @ bottom.

Go for what you're good at. I am well-versed in most k and policy/ir/econ literature but that doesn't mean buzzwords are a good way to debate. Good evidence matters (i'll always read it) but good explanation, organization, and presentation is what wins the debate. The biases I do have I keep isolated from how I evaluate arguments. I make my decision by comparing what was said in the final speeches with respect to what I think the core framing issue / impact is of the round, I assume offense has higher risk / more innate power than defense and is at worst defense. Shadow extensions and evidence that isn't explained doesn't count. Risk is determined (usually) by either uniqueness or evidence quality, and risk of X impact getting solved / occuring is what most debates boil down to - it's in your interest to appeal to this in your speech.

embedded clash is good and if you do it I will do my best to put things together for you without intervening. I will vote on zero risk. these need to be consistent with previous speeches (obviously.)

Yes Tech over Truth. (racial slurs, racism good, marginalized people don't care about their rights, etc. are not tech and you'll probably lose for saying these things)

Specific Arguments

Clash of civs debates: fairness is whatever you want it to be and clash isn't always good (aff should impact turn it and neg should get u.q. with a TVA), you need to explain your wishes into existence and not simply announce them. Structural vs. procedural fairness is a legitimate distinction but easily susceptible to spin and tech tricks.

Politics DA: you better have a good one - I might be skeptical, doesn't mean you shouldn't read it if you believe if its the best strategy etc

Cheating CPs: I'll vote on theory but probably with higher burden on aff to prove abuse than other situations, read them. 2nc CPs and CPs without solvency advocates don't hold up well to good aff analytics.

Theory, T, etc: i default to reasonability and no RVIs. The burden of proof is on the non-violating team (neg in T debates) to prove competing interps are good or their interp is true / better for debate. Caselists, specific applications to the topic and deep discussions of evidence are best here. I don't want to hear 2 minutes of fairness good but rather real internal link analysis about the interp's effect on the topic.

Do more case debate, don't read overviews in front of me, and extend defense when going for the squo.

Indict evidence and compare it, don't just read blocks, and if you do then don't read them full speed. rebuttals should start with decision framing overviews and then quickly go to line by line, i don't need your 2 minute kritik overview.

rona notes:

I am debating on zoom this season as well. It's terrible for everybody involved but luckily we are still able to debate. Make sure you have a verbal confirmation from me before you start a speech or cross ex, I may or may not have my camera on. Keep your mic muted if your not speaking. I think many debaters would benefit from going a little bit slower given the above, especially in rebuttals. I don't want to miss things and mic / internet / audio quality varies. This being said, don't slow down too much that you sacrifice tech advantages. Don't worry too much about speed, I will be fine. Finally, cross-ex: try to give a pause after the other person finished to start speaking.

Specific rona speaker notes:

Watch your judge while you speak even on zoom. I'm moderately expressive and will nod, smile, laugh etc. depending on what u say. All of this however isn't necessarily representative of my overall thoughts on the round.

I flow on the computer, and the screen i flow on is different than the zoom one so if I'm not looking at you its probably because im flowing. if you're talking and I'm not typing you're probably doing something wrong

aggro/intense cross ex is fun, BUT it's VERY EASY to mess up in zoom debates - patience is a virtue. I already watched the first presidential debate and don't need a repeat.

i like history and empirical explanations - use it in your arguments

Speaker point scale is below, but I am on the inflation bandwagon.

ld and policy: general decision-making process, preferences

I value detailed, impactful, and thought through extensions/applications/comparisons of relevant evidence and arguments over anything else when deciding rounds and close clashes. If you want to win something, spend time on it. If you want to beat something, spend time on it.

I don’t have preconditions for what type of argument you should read. I believe judges that refuse to hear/vote on arguments based on certain ideological predispositions are, frankly, weak and dogmatic. The role of the judge is to evaluate the arguments in front of them as objectively as possible. Exposure to things that challenge our worldview and make us uncomfortable is where debate derives its educational, competitive, and interpersonal value. Do what you do best. Specific tech preferences are below. This doesn't mean that I will always vote for your performance aff but it also means I will not always vote for t-fw or traditional policy approaches.

With the above in mind, I find many framework args more and more repetitive, boring, and unpersuasive. Good TVA's, novel interps and evidence, and nuanced process and mechanism analysis that relate to the impacts of the aff will solve this problem for you. If you're going to read a basic ass FW shell and then feed me DanBan clash good lines the whole time without engaging the substance of the affirmative, the round will not go well for you.

I mostly read policy arguments but end up spending a lot of time researching k lit and debating these arguments, and I have a good grasp on them but keep in mind I may not know all of your author names or niche theoretical references and terminology.

speed is fine. stop going full speed through theory blocks and k overviews. Thanks

If an argument has been largely ignored by the other team and consistently impacted and extended by other, my standard of explanation for the former is very low.

If it's in the 2nr/2ar and wasn't in the previous speech, I won't evaluate it - if you're going to extend a piece offense for 3 mins in your rebuttal that's been relatively small the entire round, it's in your best interest to make the location of the ev for the argument apparent or remind me where its been extended etc. - this may seem standard/obvious to many - but ya'll would be surprised.

This is especially true for kritiks. If you have a theory of power, a link, an alt, etc. that's been unaddressed but wins you the round, you still need to explain what it is and why it matters in rebuttals - tagline extensions will never work for me

Please avoid overviews longer than 1 minute, or tell me beforehand so I can flow them somewherew

Embedded clash is cool, I will make those connections for u if they are logical

'insert this rehighlight' doesn't count - read your recut.

buzzwords - policy, econ, and IR buzzwords (academic, not debate-based) are cool with me and make the debate more efficient. K buzzwords are a different story, I will understand your language but if you don't explain the words unique to your theory of power it won't go well for you.

Condo is good (usually)

k, t-fw things

If you read a plan, impact framing and impact/scenario analysis is important to me.

If you don't read a plan, that's fine - Be ready to explain your alt clearly, and why its strategy or mechanism substantively engages whatever you are critiquing. Against T-FW, beat the TVA and tell me why your model is better for debate.

If you read T-FW, fairness is an impact but you should explain a (carded) TVA

Death is bad

‘fiat Is illusory’ and generic state links aren’t enough to win a kritik in front of me – apply your links specifically to the aff and you will have a much easier time

Also, identity arguments are good when deployed in a manner that provides a strategy or solution (alternative) to alleviate impacts for yourself and others like you. When they are deployed for/about you alone and against your opponents positionality, I will be very easily persuaded by the other team’s indict of your method, epistemology, and discourse.

Floating PIKs are cool if the 1ar doesn't have theory. Floating piks and ‘alt solves the aff’ are two different things. The theory is also two different things. One is theoretically questionable and the other is a root cause argument.

I love the perm debate on kritiks, impact or explain the chronology and mechanisms of the perm to win – if the k is a speech act, so is the aff.

fiat is usually legit and good

policy neg things

Counterplans need solvency advocates unless aff doesn't call u out - I really enjoy techy/cheater counterplan debates - obvi if you drop / lose theory ill still vote u down but this shouldn't discourage u from going for them

Case turns are underappreciated

Politics debates are the best or the worst - I value recent ev a lot more here. These debates are when uniqueness, specifically link uniqueness, is very important. Your predictive models for political outcomes need to be detailed and well warranted – I believe impact defense and well-thought out aff analytics are usually enough to beat an obscure, weakly carded politics disad. When packaged well, intrinsic arguments have an unrecognized truth and strategic benefit.

Bad evidence really is bad and having good cards is important - I will often break ties with evidence - whoever's argument more consistently aligns with the ev usually has more truth behind their overall thesis - and the quality of that ev matters. This being said, warranted extensions and applications of your evidence need to be made throughout the round. This also means I value good explanation and knowledge of this evidence, especially in rebuttals and cross-ex. Comparative arguments are your best tool to win evidence - if you win that your ev is better than theirs, you have a much higher chance of getting my ballot.

I default to 'yes judge kick' unless there is a debate about it. 'no judge kick' in the 1ar/2ar doesn't count unless its a cross app from a condo shell from the 2ac

speaks

I use the following scale:

Below 27 – you did something unsavory that I would probably mention during the rfd – severity determines scale.

27-27.9 – within this range, you likely behaved in a perceptually bad way, spoke unclearly, or had a below-average speaking/cx performance

28-28.7 – average speaking performance: clear, organized, small errors/quirks but no big deal.

28.8 – 29.5 – above average speaking performance. Varies relative to other team’s skill but exceeds regardless in speaking style, flourish, and organization

29.6 – 30 – exceptional performance. Impressive speaker.

LD things

I make decisions off of evidence comparisons often here because there's so little time for developed clash in round. This is to say good analytics are good, but good evidence is better.

time allocations are unbalanced in LD. I give the affirmative a little more leeway in the depth of their explanations given this. This does not mean I'll vote on your 2ac one-liner.

Please signpost...

for the love of god dontspreadfullspeedthroughyourdamnanalyticsandtheoryblocks its bad for you unless you know your'e crystal clear and trust me you aren't saving that much time.

Topicality in LD is odd in LD (my opinion). If you're going for T in front of me, make sure you can connect your interpretation to the aff (in either direction) and tell me why your interp is good for debate or why theirs is bad (or both). Topicality impacts in LD are odd bc your topic only lasts 2 months lol

Please include some decision framing in your rebuttal

A few things I stole from Ben Rosenthal that I also explain how I evaluate this debate:

1. I won't vote on an RVI

2. T- bare plurals / T subsets is hard to win in front of me, LAWs topic is one exception

3. I think asking your opponent what cards you read/didn't read counts as cross-ex or prep. you should be able to flow and listen to their speech - asking for a marked copy is what you can do without sucking prep, but if you ask about specific warrants etc. that's going to be your prep time.

4. Framing contentions don't substitute for impact explanations, and you can ditch your pre-scripted 2AC case overview

5. Theory needs to be more developed - pick and choose your arguments that you make better, because if the only word I can flow is "condo" then I won't vote for it, even if dropped.

6. if you're reading phil explain yourself - I don't know LD norms and buzzwords for these arguments

If you have more specific questions or accommodations feel free to ask

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

In speech events, I will mainly be looking for the presence of communication skills and effort put into creating a convincing speech. 

I will be looking for which team can best identify the key points of clash in the round and demonstrate why they have won those points. Consequently, I would prefer to see quality of argument and depth of evidence and analysis on the key points rather than trying to drag all points through the round. (That doesn't mean drop things like crazy! It just means get clear on what's actually important to the debate and related to the resolution). I particularly dislike spreading; again, quality over quantity will win the round for me. I will also closely examine the wording of the resolution, so arguments that are not adequately linked to the resolution will not be considered.

I am the head Speech, Debate, and Congress coach at Horace High School, ND.

I have a background in English, Speech, and Theatre Education.

Debate:

Decorum matters, so be polite to your opponents, including in the questioning period. You can be firm in cross while being polite, but there is a line that you shouldn't cross during cross.

Make my job of flowing easy, signpost accordingly and don't rush through your contention taglines.

If you speak so fast that I can't understand your argument and flow your argument, I will have a hard time giving you the win.

I will not make links for you.

If you open your speech with a preview of what you are talking about, I expect the preview to be reflective of what you talk about. Example, if you say you are giving voters, you should give clear voters instead of just talking down the flow.

PF: PF isn't Policy. Also, I'm not sure why people keep trying to add frameworks into PF cases, but they won't play into how the round is weighed on the ballot unless both teams willingly accept the framework.

A good first neg in LD will use their time equally between attacking the Aff case and setting up the neg case; 5:30 setting up the Neg case and 1:30 attacking the Aff case is not using time equally in my eyes. The same idea goes for PF.

I like to hear the voters. Don't just say that something flows to your side though, give the rational and link it for me.

Congress:

Delivery and presentation are musts for me: eye contact, conversational tone, posture, and not just reading off computer or notepad.

I will flow your argument, but I will not make the links for you unless they are incredibly obvious.

Be brave and have fun in the session; this is a social activity. I want to see students willing to get up for authorship. If no one is willing to speak or run for PO that's your cue to be a leader.

Even the second aff/ first neg can, and often should, have elements of refutation in there. For the first 2/3-3/4 of speeches, I expect to see clash, but also new arguments being brought in. This is an activity that requires not only research, but also depth of research. Don't get up there and say that the aff or neg has already brought up a point, but not explored it enough, unless you can back it up with new analysis or additional research. The last few speeches should wrap up the debate, especially if debate has been limited and you know that you are one of the last speeches.

Don't play games and try and make the PO look bad unless they have actually made a mistake. Decorum is at the heart of congressional debate and must be respected. Do not be rude or belittling to your competition; you may be the best speaker in the room, but you will lose favor quickly by not respecting your competition and the activity.

Speech number is irrelevant; however, you had better have a good reason for not speaking on each piece of legislation. Quality of speeches, quality of questions, and quality of overall interaction in the chamber is what will get you the ballot from me.

My email Alison.Ambrose.J@Gmail.com If you have specific questions about something that I did not address, then feel free to ask. Please add me to the email chain.

Experience:

I competed all through high school doing policy, I did some policy in college, and I have been judging primarily policy since I graduated HS in 2017. I have competed in World Schools for one tournament and I have some experience judging WS. I have no preferences for WS.

Currently an assistant coach for Pattonville High School in MO.

Preferences (policy):

NOTE: The writing below is just my personal take on the issues. However, I am willing to vote on anything and everything if you commit and do it well. 

General:

- Really anything goes, I will not reject any argument immediately unless it is sexist, homophobic, racist etc. My preferences for policy below is just where I tend to land on these subjects in round. Less is more in terms of the 1AC 1NC, I would rather that you have deeply analyzed arguments that a million of surface level ones. I don't really care about communication skills in terms of delivery, I prioritize argumentation.

- Speed: Love it. I would request that you slow down like 10% for any theory though so I can make sure that I am properly flowing and following analytics. If you can't spread clearly, I will say clear once if I cannot understand after that then I will have to stop flowing. I have never had a problem with this.

-Condo: Reject the arg, not the team is where I usually end up on this.

- Disclosure: I think that in room disclosure is good even if you did not on the wiki. However, I generally think that not disclosing an aff is a way to blindside the other team rather than engage in debate of substance. I will listen to specific explanations in round for not disclosing good if that becomes an issue in round.

- My biggest pet peeve is stealing prep. If you have said that you have stopped using prep and your partner continues to prep, then I will have to call this out. However, prep time does not need to be used to upload docs to a flash drive or to email (unless it is getting excessive).

- Road maps should be off the clock.

- I love and appreciate 2NR and 2AR speeches that condense and group arguments. Those speeches should not be fully line-by-line. Don't be afraid to draw out the most important points.

Affirmatives:

- Preferences on policy or k affs: I find value in both and you should do what you feel more comfortable with. I have more experience judging policy aff debates just because of the area that I am in judging. However, I personally competed running k affs and tend to "enjoy" those debates more. Again, do you and I will be fine. Please do not run something random that you have no real substantive knowledge of to appease me.

- Policy Affs: I find that structural impacts are more convincing than nuke war, for example. However, do you.

- K Affs: I think you should have some connection to the topic at hand in a general sense.

Negatives:

- FW/Theory: Love it, do it if that is your strategy.

- DA: Impact calc is very important to me. Specific links are better.

- CP: PICs, state, consult, process are all okay. Word PICs get a little tricky for me, but I will still hear them.

- K: I am most familiar with biopower, disability, set col, cap, and queerness (although less than the others). I have some experience judging/debating other k's, but my knowledge is not as deep. However, I can go with pretty much anything if you properly explain it well. I tend to be persuaded more by teams that pull specific lines out of the aff to link them to the K. To me, I think there is nothing better than a specific kritik of the aff (methodology or otherwise) rather than a k of the rez.

Experience: 4 years high school LD, ~2 years college policy at K-State. Current head coach at Pattonville High School.

Please add me to the email chain: paul.ambrose98@gmail.com

Overall, I'm alright with whatever, as long as you explain it well. I personally gravitate toward Ks and case turns, but if you're more a Politics DA + States CP kind of debater, go for it. My feedback may be more specific for kritikal arguments and K answers though.

I can understand speed relatively well, but I'd recommend slowing down for analytics, especially interps and standards in theory debates.

Affirmatives

Cool with policy or kritikal affirmatives. For policy teams, I find having small number of advantages with strong, specific internal links more compelling than throwing out 6 extinction impacts and going for the one that's dropped. Not a huge fan of lengthy pre-empt contentions, but a few strategic framing arguments can be very persuasive.

For K affs, I think you should have some connection to the topic and should probably have a stable advocacy statement. Specific, contextual explanation of the aff methodology is very important for me, especially when evaluating permutations and any presumption arguments.

DAs

Use them. More specific links are always better, but generic can work if you explain it well. Apart from links, I think impact calc is the most important part of disad debates and often gets undercovered (which is a shame).

CPs

Creative CPs are enjoyable, even when they border on cheating. I'm personally cool with states, consult, process cps, etc., but the neg doesn't get a free pass if there's a theory debate. PICs are rad, but word PICs are not rad (unless the word is in the plan text, which justifies it more IMO). Overall, the problem with most CPs isn't that they're cheating, it's that they're bad.

Ks

Love them. I'm personally most familiar with cap, set col, and anti-blackness, but don't assume I'll automatically know what you're talking about. The most important tips I can give are to contextualize your links to the aff (pulling lines from the 1AC is appreciated!) and to give a detailed explanation of what the alternative does. In general, I think the aff gets a permutation and gets to weigh the plan, but I can be persuaded otherwise, especially on the latter.

FW

I think framework is very strategic against kritikal affs, and all K affs should be prepared to have a FW debate. I tend to lean aff (like 55-45), but FW is definitely winnable. I'm more persuaded by substantive impacts and clash than I am by procedural fairness, but feel free to include fairness if you're gonna justify it.

I competed in policy debate in high school, parliamentary debate in college, and I have been coaching since 2001. I would consider myself a tabula rasa judge, as much as that is possible. I feel comfortable with any line of argumentation, but expect clear articulation of said argumentation. I want you to provide me with compelling reasons why you should win the debate. Generic argumentation, weak links, and time sucks are not appreciated. I don't judge a ton (in my local circuit I am in tab a lot), but I did judge at NSDA Nationals in 2020 including some late Elim rounds. I keep a detailed flow so staying organized is key to winning my ballot. Pronouns: she/her/hers. If you have questions, feel free to ask before the round starts. Email for the chain: amdahl-masona@nclack.k12.or.us.

I am a parent of a congressional debater. When judging, i look for clarity in your arguments backed by strong evidence and sources. Delivery is important to me, hand gestures, eye contact, and strong arguments all go hand in hand. Good luck everyone.

A 2023 TOC PF SPECIFIC NOTE:Treat me as super lay- remember that I am a Congress coach first. Give me clear voters. Do not spread, and in general I would recommend against running theory of any kind in front of me in PF. Oftentimes, I feel that theory in PF is "half-baked" and it is hard for me to buy. I have voted off of it in rounds before, but I really am not a fan. I believe second rebuttal has to address both sides of the flow, and that summary must crystallize- not just be rebuttal 2.0. I will vote neg on presumption if the affirmative fails to meet the burden of proof or if the flow is insoluble. Please avoid paraphrasing if possible. My honest advice to teams who want a super technical judge is to strike me, I don't judge a ton of PF and I am sure my flow speed is not up to what yours is right now.

Biography:

Hello! My name, as seen above, is Amrit Ammanamanchi. I am the Head of the Congressional Debate Program and an Assistant Coach for Debate at Millard North High School, my alma mater. As a debater I was coached by both Aarron Schurevich and Charles Fisher, and so I would say it is safe to assume that anything I do not explicitly address here will follow the line of reasoning that they present in their paradigms.

I completed my undergraduate studies within Barrett, the Honors College at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona by double majoring in Biological Sciences with a concentration in Biomedical Sciences (BS) and Political Sciences (BS) with a certificate in International Studies. I currently conduct scientific/medical research doing clinical outcomes research analytics for a major hospital, and have previously conducted research in both the relationship between mitochondrial dysfunction and autism and pulmonary edema. You can see my publications here. My honors thesis explored the intersection of science and religion within the context of the law and education, which you can read here. I am currently a JD Candidate, and I aspire to work at the intersection of law and medicine in the future.

Congressional Debate:

Congressional Debate was my primary event in high school, and is a competition that is near and dear to me. As such, I have many thoughts on the event itself- if you want to talk about that I would be more than happy to talk to you after round. Also, if you stay after round it is VERY likely that I will be more than willing to give you individualized feedback that may not have been written out on a ballot. I am willing to share this with you because debate is fundamentally a teaching game. It serves no purpose if no one is learning and/or improving.

As far as the information you are probably worried about:

In general know that I believe in Congress that every speech one gives should be forwarding debate. Please do not rehash. I pay attention to questioning- both how you respond to questions and how you ask questions in round. That will undoubtedly impact your rankings on my ballot. Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact. I expect there to be clash every speech except the authorship. Also please note that I did Congress and was a national qualifier. I know when you try to make political moves- it is a part of this event. Make sure you are making ones that are actually beneficial to the round and not ones that benefit only you and hurt others.

A note on being the Presiding Officer:

Being selected from amongst your peers to preside over the chamber is an honor and a privilege. It is a crucial role and is one that needs to be done in both an efficient and accurate (to Parliamentary Procedure) manner. Because of this, I am more than happy to rank PO's. However, if your goal is to win the tournament I would not take this route. If your goal is to just place then it is a much safer bet, as I rarely have ballots where the PO is not ranked at all.

Public Forum:

In PF, see the paradigm for Aarron Schurevich (Paradigm). I agree with most of everything on there except for the "General Note" in regards to unconventional things in round. Remember that I judge congress most of the time, and while I did compete in PF, that was minimally and a long time ago, so I may not be at the level that you are. Also assume I know nothing about the topic, as I do not regularly work in the PF realm.

It may also benefit you greatly to read through the paradigm for Charles Fisher (Paradigm). On a final note, please remember that I am not bound to these paradigms, so feel free to talk to me before round on specific questions you may have.

Lincoln-Douglas and Policy

You are looking at the wrong paradigm... There is no way I am judging either of these events. If by some strange reality I am in fact judging you in these events try to cater to as lay of a judge as possible, as I never debated either of these events and have only a minimal understanding of either event.

Apologies for this being so brief. If you have any questions please email me at aammanamanchi@arizona.edu

Best of Luck!

Sincerely,

Amrit Ammanamanchi

if you get me in LD somehow god help you

(on a serious note just explain things well and everything will be okay)

I love to see honest acting in interpretation events. If you have blocking, l'd like it to be clearly purposeful and clean. Most importantly, have fun.

In platform events I like you have unique analyses of your topics with clear implications. Again, above all else, just have fun.

Add me to the email chain: sdandersondebate@gmail.com. I prefer email chain to Speechdrop, but either work.

Background

I competed in LD from 2009-2013 and have been the LD coach at Eagan (MN) since 2014 and judge 100+ rounds a season. I qualified debaters to the TOC from 2021-2023 who won the Minneapple and Dowling twice. One primarily read phil and tricks while the other primarily read policy arguments, so I am pretty ideologically flexible and have coached across the spectrum.

If you're not at a circuit tournament, scroll to the bottom for my traditional LD paradigm.

Big Questions 2024

Without having coached it and seen what the topic literature looks like (or if it even exists), this seems like the worst topic I have ever judged. If there's a way to define "incompatible" that lends itself to interesting, balanced, and substantive debates, then by all means read it and emphasize how great your definition is. Otherwise, it's hard to see how the resolution isn't trivially true or false depending on the definitions, so a lot of time should be spent there.

Sections/State 2024 Updates

Not a new update per se, but read the traditional LD section of my paradigm to see what I consider the permissible limits of "national circuit" arguments in LD. TL;DR, uphold your side of the resolution "as a general principle".

I'm somewhat agnostic on the MSHSL full source citations rule -- I do think it's a good norm for debate without email chains, but if you want me to enforce it, that should be hashed out preround.

Rounds on this topic are difficult to resolve. It seems like most of them come down to cards with opposite assertions: status quo deterrence is working/failing, China can/can't fill in, etc, and I struggle to figure out who to side with when it comes down to different authors making different forecasts based on the same basic set of facts and a lot of uncertainty. I encourage you to think really, really hard about the story you're telling, the specific warrants in the pieces of evidence you read and how they interact with the assumptions being made by opposing authors, etc. Alternatively, finding offense that's external to these core issues (whether that's phil offense or a independent impact scenario) can be another way to clean up the round. As a reminder: tagline extensions are no good, and "my card says X" by itself is not a warrant -- it just means that one person in the entire world agrees with you.

General Info

• I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.

• I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much – it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and your ROB is probably impact-justified (i.e. instrumentally valuable and arbitrarily narrow).

• I tend to evaluate arguments on a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no. I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s almost always a risk of offense.

• As a corollary to the above two points, I will vote on very frivolous theory or IVIs if there’s no offense against it, so make sure you are not just defensive in response. “This crowds out substance which is valuable because [explicit warrant]” is an offensive response, and is probably the most coherent way to articulate reasonability.

• I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.

• As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.

• Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.

• I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a straightforward extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.

• Any specific issue in this paradigm, except where otherwise noted, is a heuristic or default that can be overcome with technical debating.

Ks

This is the area of debate I'm least familiar with – I've spent the least time coaching here and I'm not very well-read in any K lit base. Reps Ks and stock Ks (cap, security, etc.) are okay, identity Ks are okay especially if you lean in more heavily on IVI-type offense, high theory Ks are probably not the best idea (I'll try my best to evaluate them but no promises).

• The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.

• Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case – clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea".

• For pess Ks, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.

• I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.

• I’m bad for K arguments that are more rhetorical than literal, e.g. “X group is already facing extinction in the status quo” – that’s just defining words differently.

• Not a fan of arguments that implicate the identity of debaters in the round. There's no explicit rule against them, but I'm disinclined to vote for them and they're usually underwarranted (e.g. if they're not attached to a piece of evidence they're probably making an empirical claim without an empirical warrant and your opponent should say that in response).

• K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I’m very unlikely to vote on anallytic RVIs/IVIs like T is violent, silencing, policing, etc. unless outright dropped – impacts turns should be grounded in external scholarship, and the neg should contest their applicability to the debate round. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly – just don't do debate then.

Policy

This is what I spend most of my time thinking about as a coach. Expect me to be well-read on the topic lit.

• There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war – your cards *almost certainly* either don’t say that or aren’t coming from credible sources.

• Probabilistic reasoning is good – I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.

• Plan vagueness is bad. I guess plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but I don’t think vagueness should be resolved in a way that benefits the aff.

• I’m baffled by the norm that debaters can round up to extinction. In my eyes, laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts, and if your opponent points that out I don’t know what you could say in response. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that explicitly argues X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's. Phrases like “threatens humanity”, “existential”, etc. are not necessarily synonyms for human extinction.

• Pointing out your opponent’s lack of highlighting can make their argument non-viable even if they’re reading high-quality evidence – you don’t get credit for the small text.

• Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by saying "durable fiat solves".

Counterplans

• In general, I lean towards the view that the 1N should make an argument for how the counterplan competes and why. I think 2N definition dumps are too late-breaking (although reading more definitions in the 2N to corroborate the 1N definition may be fine).

• Perms should have a net benefit unless they truly solve 100% of the negative’s net benefit or you give me an alternative to offense/defense framing, because otherwise I will likely vote neg if they can articulate a *coherent* risk. E.g. if the 2AR against consult goes for perms without any semblance of a solvency deficit, perm do both will likely lose to a risk of genuine consultation key and the lie perm will likely lose to a risk of leaks – even if the risk is vanishingly small, “why take the chance?” is how I view things by default.

• I think counterplans should have solvency advocates and analytic counterplans are bad except in the most trivial of cases. E.g. if the aff advantage is that compulsory voting will increase youth turnout and result in cannabis legalization, then “legalize cannabis” makes sense as a counterplan because that’s directly in the government’s power. Otherwise, you should have evidence saying that the policy you defend will result in the outcome that you want.

• Normal means competition is silly. It’s neither logical nor theoretically defensible if debated competently.

• There’s probably nothing in any given resolution that actually implies immediacy and certainty, but it’s still the aff’s job to counter-define words in the resolution.

• I spent a good amount of time coaching process counterplans and have some fondness for them, but as for whether they’re theoretically desirable, I pretty much view them as “break glass in case of underlimited topic”. A 2N on a process counterplan is more “substantive” in my eyes than a 2N on Nebel, cap, or warming good. If you read one and the 1AR mishandles it, the 2N definitely should go for it because they make for the cleanest neg ballots. I’ve judged at least a few rounds that in my eyes had no possible winning 2AR against a process counterplan.

Theory

• I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I don’t like purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics that I struggle to flow.

• Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it – if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.

• Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true – 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.

T

• If debated evenly, I tend to think limits and precision are the most important impacts (or rather internal links, jurisdiction is a fake impact). There can be an interesting debate if the neg reads a somewhat more arbitrary interpretation that produces better limits, but when the opposite is true, where the neg reads a better-supported interpretation and the aff response is that it overlimits and kills innovation, I am quite neg-leaning.

• Nebel T: I’m open to it. It’s one of the few T interps where I think the overlimiting/innovation impact is real, but some LD topics genuinely are unworkably big (e.g. “Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to provide development assistance to other nations”). The neg should show that they actually understand the grammar arguments they’re making, and the aff’s semantics responses should not be severely miscut or out of context. “Semantics are oppressive” is a wildly implausible response. I view “semantics is just an internal link to pragmatics” as sort of vacuously true – the neg should articulate the “pragmatic” benefits of a model of debate where the aff defends the most (or sufficiently) precise interpretation of a topic instead of one that is “close enough”, or else just blow up the limits impact.

• RVIs on T are bad… but please don’t just blow them off. You need to answer them, and if your shell says that fairness is the highest impact then your “RVIs on T bad” offense probably should have fairness impacts.

Phil

• I debated in a time when the meta was much more phil dominant and I coached a debater who primarily ran phil so this is something I'm familiar with. That being said, heavy phil rounds can be some of the most difficult to evaluate. I'm best for carded analytic moral philosophy -- Kant, virtue ethics, contractarianism, libertarianism, etc. I'm worse for tricky phil or hybrid K-phil strategies (agonism, Deleuze, Levinas, etc.).
• By default I evaluate framework debate in the same offense-defense paradigm I evaluate anything else which means I'm using the framework with the stronger justification. Winning a defensive argument against a framework is not *automatically* terminal defense. This means you're likely better off with a well-developed primary syllogism than with a scattershot approach of multiple short independent justifications. Phenomenal introspection is a better argument than "pain is nonbinding", and the main Kantian syllogisms are better arguments than "degrees of wrongness".
• If you'd rather not have a phil debate, feel free to uplayer with a TJF, AFC, IVIs, etc. I also don't feel like I ever hear great responses to "extinction first because of moral uncertainty", more like 1-2 okay responses and 3-4 bad ones, so that may be another path of least resistance against large framework dumps.
• If you're going for a framework K, I still need some way to evaluate impacts, and it's better if you make that explicit. Okay, extinction-focus is a link to the K, but is utilitarianism actually wrong, and if so what ethical principles should I instead be using to make decisions?

Tricks

I'm comfortable with a lot of arguments that fall somewhere under the tricks umbrella -- truth testing, presumption and permissibility triggers, calc indicts, NIBs that you can defend substantively, etc. That being said, I'm not a good judge for pure tricks debate either -- evaluate the round after X speech, neg must line by line every 1AC argument, indexicals, "Merriam-Webster's defines 'single' as unmarried but all health care systems are unmarried", "you can never prove anything with 100% certainty therefore skep is true and the resolution is false", etc. I don't have the flowing skill to keep up with these, many of these arguments I consider too incoherent to vote for even if dropped (and I'm perfectly happy for that to be my RFD), and I really don't like arguments that don't even have the pretense of being defensible. I also think arguments need clear implications in their first speech, so tricks strategies along the lines of "you conceded this argument for why permissibility negates but actually it's an argument for why the resolution is automatically false" are usually too new for me to vote for.

Non-negotiables

• I have a strong expectation that debaters be respectful and a low tolerance for rudeness, overt hostility, etc.
• If you’re a circuit debater hitting someone who is obviously a traditional debater at a circuit tournament, my only request is that you not read disclosure theory *if* preround disclosure occurred (the aff sends the 1AC and the neg sends past speech docs and discloses past 2Ns 30 minutes prior). If they have no wiki or contact info, disclosure theory is totally fair game. Beyond that, I will probably give somewhat higher speaks if you read positions that they can engage with, but that’s not a rule or expectation. If you’re a traditional debater intending to make arguments about accessibility, I’ll evaluate them, but I will have zero sympathy – a local tournament would be far more accessible to you than a circuit tournament, and if there’s not a local tournament on some particular weekend, that simply is not your opponent’s problem.
• I reserve the right to ignore hidden arguments – there’s obviously no exact brightline but I don’t view that as an intrinsic debate skill to be incentivized. At minimum, voting issues should be delineated and put in the speech doc, arguments should be grouped together in some logical way (not “1. US-China war coming now, 2. Causes extinction and resolved means firmly determined, 3. Plan solves”).
• I’ll drop you for serious breaches of evidence ethics that significantly distort the card. If it’s borderline or a trivial mistake that confers no competitive advantage, it should be debated on the flow and I’m open to dropping the argument. I don’t really understand the practice of staking the round on evidence ethics; if the round has been staked and I’m forced to make a decision (e.g. in an elims round), I’m more comfortable with deciding that you slightly distorted the evidence so you should lose instead of you distorted the evidence but not enough so your opponent should lose.
• I’ll drop you for blatant misdisclosure or playing egregious disclosure games. I’d rather not intervene for minute differences but completely new advantages, scenarios, framing, major changes to the plan text, etc. are grounds to drop you. Lying is bad.

Traditional LD Paradigm

• This is my paradigm for evaluating traditional LD. This applies at tournaments that do not issue TOC bids (with the exception of JV, but not novice, divisions at bid tournaments -- I'll treat those like circuit tournaments). It does not apply if you are at a circuit tournament and one debater happens to be a traditional debater. And if you're not at a bid tournament but you both want to have a circuit round, you also can disregard this.
• Good traditional debate for me is not lay debate. Going slower may mean you sacrifice some amount of depth, but not rigor.
• The following is a pretty hard rule: "Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of their side of the resolution as a general principle." At NSDA Nationals, this is written on the ballot and I treat that as binding. Outside of nats, I still think it's a good norm because I believe my ballot should reflect relevant debate skills. I do not expect traditional debaters to know how to answer theory, role of the ballot arguments, plans, non-T affs, etc. Outside of circuit tournaments, one side should not auto-win because they know how to run these arguments and their opponent doesn't. However, "circuit" arguments that fall within these bounds are fair game -- read extinction impacts, counterplans, dense phil, skep, politics DAs, topical Ks, whatever, as long as you explain why they affirm or negate the resolution.
• As a caveat to the above statement, what it means to affirm or negate the resolution as a general principle is something that is up for debate and depends on the specific wording of the resolution. I'm totally open to observations and burden structures that interpret the resolution in creative or abusive ways, and think those strategies are often underutilized. If one side drops the other's observation about how to interpret the resolution, the round can be over 15 seconds into rebuttals. They just need to come with a plausible argument for why they meet that constraint.
• Another caveat: I think theoretical arguments can be deployed as a reason to drop the argument, and I'll listen to IVI-type arguments the same way (like this argument is repugnant so you shouldn't evaluate it). They're just not voting issues in their own right.
• You cannot clip or paraphrase evidence and need a full written citation, regardless of your local circuit's norms. The usual evidence rules still apply.
• Your opponent has the right to review any piece of evidence you read, even if you're not spreading.
• Flex prep is fine -- you can ask clarification questions during prep time.
• Because (typically) there's no speech doc and few checks on low-quality or distorted evidence, I will hold you to a high standard of explaining your evidence in rebuttals. Tagline extensions aren't good enough. "Extend Johnson 20, studies show that affirming reduces economic growth by 20%" -- what does that number represent, where does it come from? This is especially true for evidence read in rebuttals which can't be scrutinized in CX -- I will be paying very close attention to what I was able to flow in the body of the card the first time you read it.
• Burdens and advocacies should be explicit. Saying "we could do X to solve this problem instead" isn't a complete argument -- I *could* vote for you, but I won't. This can take the form of a counterplan text / saying "I advocate X", or a burden structure that says "Winning X is sufficient for you to vote negative because [warrant]" -- it just needs to be delineated.
• Even if you're not reading a big stick impact, you still benefit a lot by reading terminal impact evidence and weighing it against your opponents' (or lack thereof). When the debate comes down to e.g. a federal jobs guarantee reducing unemployment vs. causing inflation, even though both of those are intuitively bad things, it's really hard to evaluate the round without either debater reading evidence that describes how many people are affected, how severely, etc.
• Normative philosophy is important as a substantive issue, but the value and criterion are not important as procedural issues. I do not mechanically evaluate debates by first deciding who wins the value debate, and then deciding which criterion best links into that value, and then deciding who best links into that criterion. Ideally your criterion will be a comprehensive moral theory, like util or Kant, but if not then it's your proactive burden to explain why the arguments made at the framework level matters, why they mean your offense is more important than your opponent's. This applies when the criterion is vague, arbitrarily narrow, identifies something that is instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, etc. (Side note: oppression / structural violence frameworks almost always fall into one of the latter two categories, sometimes the first.)

1. I do not like spreading.
2. I take notes during the debate.
3. I expect collegial debate and respectful behavior

I Judge debate primarily and moot court. I have been judging events for over 10 years now. I am a trial attorney for 25 years and have tried thousands of cases. I am a regular speaker for both public and private events. I regularly speak at events and present seminars on various issues for the Oklahoma Bar Association and other entities. I spent 13 years in the United States Army and Oklahoma National Guard as a decorated NCO. I have a Juris Doctorate, degrees in Political Science, History and Sociology. I attended Oklahoma State University and The University of Oklahoma College of Law. I have participated in moot Court competition as well as Judged various moot court competitions and debate competitions.

When Judging, I am most concerned with presentation. I want to see someone who is organized and presents a solid case for their position. I want presenters to follow the prescribed format of their event, but most importantly convince me of your opinion. Set a strong foundation and provide evidence. Make me believe you and you alone are correct.

I will not tolerate bullies, racism, homophobia, sexism or other rude and unacceptable behavior. If you act like that, I will make sure you do not get positive marks from me. 

I am more concerned with substance over form. I use my vast trial and presentation experience, combined with my experience as a presenter and public speaker to evaluate the competitors as to the viability of their arguments and the foundation of their evidence and persuasiveness of arguments. 

As a former National Forensic League State Champion (Debate, Poetry, Dramatic Interp & Impromptu Speaking), I appreciate the hard work that all of the participants have invested in their preparations to date. As a parent of a debater/speech participant, I also recognize the selfless support that coaches and parents have made to allow their students to excel and achieve.

Speech and debate prepares orators that will move nations towards greatness while collaborating to craft policy that will solve the world's toughest humanitarian challenges. I take participants' work seriously and expect you to do the same by aiming to do your very best and continuously improve from round to round, tournament to tournament. It is with this mindset that I carefully provide thoughtful feedback on every ballot, which I hope you find valuable.

I respect your work, fellow judges and expect all participants to show the same respect for each other, before, during, after and behind closed doors.

It is a privilege to be a tournament judge.

Byron R. Arthur

The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men

Judging Since September 1983

Debate Events Judged : All of Them

Debate Events Coached: All of Them

Overview:

I have worn a number of professional hats through the years and they all influence how I see the debate. First, I am an attorney. This means that I insist upon evidence and its integrity. Under no circumstances do I tolerate debaters who play fast and loose with interpretation of evidence. Second, I am an educator which means I seek to maximize education for all of us who are involved in the debate. Please join me in that effort when you are debating in front of me.

Public Forum

I encourage you to read the LD section of this paradigm from the section on Points through the end. That information pertains to you as well.

During practice rounds I have had debaters ask me if I am ok with speed. Please see my comments below but I will add this to the mix: Why? Given the format of this event, I have seen debaters strain to make a plethora of arguments in the first two speeches that they never mention again due to time constraints. I would rather you seek a depth of arguments rather than breadth.

I can tell you that if I don't hear it in the Summary, I am not paying any attention to it in the Final Focus.

I am not going to supply analysis for your arguments. Explain what you say and tell me its implications. This is not an exercise in how much I know but what you can convince me to be true

LD:

Topicality – I am happy to vote on T if it is argued well. You should know that I tend to interpret T very broadly so in some instances you might want to choose something else if your violation is one that is based upon a fairly strict interpretation. Not a huge RVI fellow. I tend not to ignore all else in the round in order to give the AFF a win for meeting one of its burdens.

Types of Arguments – There are no arguments that I reject out of hand. While I was in high school when LD was created, I am not opposed to all of the ways in which it has evolved. Counterplans are not only acceptable but encouraged as long as they are meeting all of the traditional burdens such as competition and net benefits. I would say the same for the disadvantage and its burdens.

I am very fine with the K debate as well. But at the end of the day, there must be a link for me to consider. I love debates about race, gender, sexual orientation, and other opportunities for debaters to engage in discourse about issues that are important. Yet, I also believe that individuals spend time crafting topics for a reason and call me old-fashioned but I still like those discussions. Most topics allow us to have the best of both worlds but at times they do not. Learn to recognize the difference if I am in the back of the room.

Theory is a means to an end and those who love the idea of theory as its own thing should definitely strike me.

Speed – There was a time when I would walk out of a room very impressed with the debater who was incredibly fast and offered a cornucopia of arguments. That was about 40 years ago. Now I am impressed with the debater who does more with less and values depth of discussion and argument. If I can't understand it then I can't vote on it.

Points- My range for points is generally between 26.5 -29.9. 26.5 is reserved for those who are incomprehensible, disengaged, non-responsive, or simply missing the boat. 29.9 is reserved for the debater who demonstrates a mastery of argument, communicates nuances, has the ability to analyze arguments and make meaningful comparisons, has on-point evidence, and has outstanding communication skills. THOSE WHO ARE RUDE TO OPPONENTS OR USE PROFANITY WILL RECEIVE A 20. IF YOU ARE UNEASY WITH THIS YOU SHOULD CONSIDER STRIKING ME.

I am very sensitive to the way that we treat each other in this activity. I take allegations of bullying and intimidation very seriously. As an adult in the room, I will immediately deal with these issues and protect the rights of all individuals involved. If you feel that there is an issue when you are debating in front of me, know that we will proceed in the following manner:

1. Please raise the issue when you are aware of it. I will then allow both debaters to go and find their respective coaches/adult chaperone before we proceed. I will not engage students on issues of this magnitude without their adult advocates present.

2. I will listen to both sides of the discussion to determine whether or not we can proceed with the debate or if it should be brought to the tournament director for further resolution.

Istealprep@gmail.com

AND

BabciiDebate@gmail.com

It is pronounced Bab (ki) not Bab (chee).

I debated for Wichita State and JCCC. Currently an assistant coach @ Wichita State.

Top level

Debate is meant to be fun. I demand that you have it. If you can not find enjoyment in this activity do not ruin other peoples love for this activity.

Do not say anything obviously problematic or violent to the other team. I will end the round immediately and assign the lowest possible speaker points the tournament will allow.

Tech over truth. This applies to all arguments. You do not get to handwave arguments away because they are "troll" or "science fiction". If the other teams arguments are not backed by rigorous research then defeating them should be simple and easy. If you cannot defeat them without me intervening and asserting what I "know" to be true than by all definition you have lost the debate.

I will keep a strict flow and decide the debate based on that flow and nothing else.

I will only consider arguments that happened in the debate about the debate. I am fundamentally uninterested in resolving any interpersonal beef you may have with another team.

If you do not feel safe engaging in a debate for any reason please communicate that to me, tab, and/or your coaching staff, and the necessary actions will be taken.

Planless affirmatives

Generally fine for these debates. I would prefer the 1AC actually defend a method and be related to the topic if possible instead of being a walking impact turn to framework but I digress. As long as you win your arguments and are ahead on the flow I will vote for you.

"vote aff cause it was good" means nothing to me. You forfeited the right to say that when you disagreed that we are all here playing a game where we pretend to be the USFG evaluating policy proposals. Explanations of why you resolve the impacts of the aff and why the ballot is key should come early and be contextualized well.

"Why vote aff" followed by "why not" is not compelling for the same reason. 1AC's have the burden of proof. I will struggle to burden the negative with rejoinder if I don't think the 1AC has met the burden of proof after 1AC CX.

Framework/T-USFG

Framework 2NR's tend to be too defense oriented to win most debates. Negatives should be impact turning or link turning aff DA's to framework more often. If not that then there needs to be a large explanation of why clash accesses aff offense and/or why they don't get an aff because of fairness.

Everything is and is not an impact. Fun, Clash, Fairness, Burnout, etc... You should explain why those things matter and why I should care.

TVA's matter a lot to me. I think well deployed TVAs are nearly unbeatable.

KvK

Method v method debates in my mind lack the pre prescribed norms of competition that usually appear in policy v policy debates. You should use this to your advantage and explain how competition ought to work in a world where the affirmative is not held to a plan text. Otherwise it seems nearly impossible for me to vote against the perm in 99% of these debates.

Figuring out what the aff will defend and pinning them to that seems important, especially when the opportunities to disagree with the 1AC are already limited.

K's on the neg

If the aff is going for a framework that says "No K's" and the neg is going for a framework that says "No aff" then I will pick one at the end of the debate. I will not intervene and concoct a "perm" where the aff gets the aff and the neg gets their links. Of course you are free to advocate the perm/middle ground.

Explanation is usually much better when contextualized to links, alt, f/w, etc... and not a chunk of text for a minute at the top of a speech.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality as offense/defense just like every other argument in debate. Affirmative reasonability arguments are much better framed as reasons why limits are bad/an impact to overlimiting or precision.

Aff's should be more offensive when answering neg limits and grounds arguments. Most of the time the actual weight of these arguments seems stringent as best and made up completely at worst.

Evidence quality tends to matter more in T debates for me than most. Evidence that describes topic mechanisms and lit direction are important. The same is equally if not more true for the interpretation debate.

Counterplans

Everything is legit until somebody says it isn't in which case then it becomes a debate. I think most affirmative theory arguments are much better deployed as competition arguments. I am unlikely to ever be persuaded by "solvency advocate theory", "process CPs bad", or the like, unless the neg completely whiffs. This doesn't apply when the neg CP doesn't pass the sniff test. I.e. international fiat, private actor fiat, etc...

I generally lean towards infinite condo being good. Obviously this is a debate that can take place and I will evaluate as offense/defense like normal, I just think the negative arguments in regards to this are much more compelling.

Mixed thoughts about judge kick. It’s probably fine but just please say it in the block.

0 Idea how anyone evaluates CP's besides sufficiency framing and I have yet to hear a alternative way to evaluate them. Grandstanding about sufficiency framing in the 2nr is about as useful as saying that they have conceded the neg gets fiat.

2NC CP's out of add-ons are fine. 2NC CP's out of straight turns are not fine. If you can't win against a 2AC that straight turned a DA then you should lose or put in a 1NC CP that fiats out of the straight turn.

Disadvantages

Fine for every politics DA you want to throw from your box. What fiat means can be debated like any other argument.

Link and Internal link turns case arguments are extremely important. Our nuclear war impact turns your nuclear war impact arguments are extremely not important.

Case

Try or die is important to me. If the negs only answer to case is solvency pushes but concedes the squo causes extinction and doesn't have a CP to remedy that then even a small risk the aff solves will almost certainly win them the debate. The opposite is true if aff drops an internal net benefit to a process CP, as the neg now controls try or die.

0% risk is definitely possible on both sides.

Misc

I will not read or consider rehighlightings you did not read yourself. Text must be actually read for it to matter, debate is a communicative activity and you must communicate. If you read it in cross-x and then insert it that is fine.

Cross-x can only make modifications to speeches if both sides consent. If the other team asks you about a card you do not get to scratch it in the middle of cross-x unless they agree. The same is also true for reading evidence obviously.

Cross-x is binding and I will be flowing it.

Speaker points are my decision and I will not listen to arguments about them. You can ask for a 30 if you want, but you will be wasting speech time.

I understand why we stopped because of Covid, but I miss handshakes between opponents. That being said, don't shake my hand.

yes email chain - babciidebate@gmail.com

judge for mill valley, westwood, and wichita east

TLDR- i debate at wichita state in college and used to debate at jccc, i do mostly policy stuff in college, fine with k's on both the aff and neg

top level

debate is a game and educational activity, it ought to be fair but there are other considerations as well

do what you do best! this is advice for both content and form

arguments need to have a claim and a warrant - this includes evidence - christmas tree highlighting of scary words is not an impact argument

k on the aff

Be related to the topic or don't, just have a solid defense of what you want to defend and why i should vote for it

i am agnostic on what is the best impact for framework or the best way to answer framework. this is not me trying to be tabula rasa, but simply a lack of framework 2nrs in my career and thus a lack of conclusive opinions on the subject. whatever you can explain the best and tell a coherent story with is the one you should go with

method v method debates in my mind lack the pre prescribed norms of competition that usually appear in policy v policy debates. you should use this to your advantage and explain how competition ought to work in a world where the affirmative is not held to a plan text

K on the neg

Explanation is usually much better when contextualized to links, alt, f/w, etc... and not a chunk of text for a minute at the top of a speech

most teams f/w interps usually aren't mutually exclusive with each other

unless told otherwise i will default to utilitarian calculus - which means the burden is typically on the negative to posit an alterantive view of ethics and impact calculus

Topicality

interp quality obviously matters but only insofar as it is impacted out and compared to other reasons i should value an interp

i usually default to competiting interps as reasonability is often packaged as a reason why limits are bad - you should just make that argument - saying the aff should get a lot of affs to pick from and the neg should just do more research isnt that hard of a sell imo

CP

will default to judge kick unless the 1ar says something about it - the 2ar is not the time to start the judge kick debate

i honestly have no clue how anyone evaluates cp's besides sufficeincy framing and i have yet to hear a alternative way to evalaute them

everything is legit until someone says it isn't in which case it becomes a debate - create competition as you may

DA

1nc's need to be full arguments with uniqueness, link, and impact - if one of these is missing the 2ac has my full authority to say "not an argument im not answering it until it is" and i will allow the 1ar to make as many new arguments as they want against the da

Link turns case is infinitely more important than you think it is, terminal impact turns case is infinitely less important than you think it is

there is not 'always a risk' - there is 'always a risk' of just about anything thats called randomness

misc

speaker points are my decision and i will not listen to arguments about them

a lot of how i think about debate is influenced by justin stanley, matthew vega, and phil samuels

Hi! I'm Chase Bailey and while I never participated in Speech & Debate in high school, I became a part of it as a teacher back in 2015. Since then, I've judged every type of event and grown to love this community. For reference, I graduated from Texas State University with a BA in English and have since taught AP Lang, UT OnRamps, and other advanced level courses. I love a good story, and I spent enough time in the theatre to recognize fake enthusiasm for a genuine empathetic connection to a topic.

I'm not easily offended, and if there is good evidence to back up an argument, I consider it fair game even if it's against something I personally believe in. Mature material and curse words are not offensive to me, but there is a difference between using it for effect and using it because you don't have the necessary vocabulary to insert a more meaningful word. Just as in writing, a good performance will be aware of our current global events and how a joke may strike.

I prefer a more conversational style of speaking that avoids using the same word or phrase over and over as a crutch. Real genuine connections to your piece are important, and faking your way through it by pitching your voice up inauthentically is a real disappointment.

I encourage the DX and FX events to follow a standard speech outline (Intro: hook, intro w/ topic stated, clear answer, and a preview of points to be made; Body: introduction of your point w/ analysis & meta-analysis followed by a clean transition to your next point; and a conclusion with the topic and answer restated along with an overview of the points discussed to tie everything together. Bonus points for making a witty, but meaningful, connection back to your hook!).

For the interpretation events, I vote for the contestant(s) who whisked me away into the story. Therefore, the jarring screams, cursing, and other shocking noises should be used with caution. All movements should have a purpose. Blocking, facial expressions, and again, having a genuine connection to the characters in your piece is SO important. Basically, I want to be entertained!

POI, you are my favorite. It combines my favorite aspects of an interpretation and informative and allows me to be in multiple stories at once. A well put together POI should transition between the pieces in such a way that I am never confused about what piece is being read. Facial expressions, voices, body movements, etc. are all encouraged to pop in and out of each section. Just as with the raw interpretation events, don't let me out of the story that you're telling. Drag me in. The other aspect of a POI that really makes me appreciate a piece is a meaningful thread that allows you to transition between each piece in a clever and witty way.

I wish all of you the best of luck!

Please add me to the email chain: lang901@gmail.com. I do not forward email chains from rounds I've judged (Is this a new thing? I never saw it in my day debating until like 2 months ago). 1. I don't generally keep chains after the round so I couldn't even if I wanted to and 2. I don't think it's my place to be sending other people's evidence to third parties without their knowledge or consent.

Affiliations and Qualifications:

Iowa City West High, Policy Debate, 2011-2017, 2023-, (Debating [til 2014], Coaching and Judging);

Hawken (Policy Debate and Congressional Debate, 2021-22, Judging);

A meme I made in 2012 was the cover photo for the High School Policy Debate Facebook page for like ~3-4 years.

I'm a lawyer in Iowa and also admitted (inactive status) in Ohio. To explain how I evaluate some arguments, check out this article about standards of proof in the legal context. Each section will have an analogous standard of proof for how likely I am to pull a trigger on a specific argument.

Policy

Feel free to ask any outstanding questions before the round. I debated in high school for 3 years and then judged in college for 2 years before I started judging again in law school. I've been involved with the activity for a decade but on and off so while I've picked up on some new community norms and trends, I might not be up on every one. In high school, I was incredibly policy oriented as West High wasn't a "K" team, though I dabbled a bit.

Specifics:

DAs/CPs (Preponderance of the Evidence):

I don't have any specific hang ups on DAs. Mostly the same for CPs, but please don't spread your plan text at me (CP text should also be in the speech doc). Especially if you're reading more than one. Consult and delay CPs have been on thin ice in terms of legitimacy since 2013 and I don't think that's changed. Process CPs are on slightly more stable ground, especially if you have a specific solvency advocate. I will not default to judge kick and you'll have a heck of a time convincing me to do judge kick. If you went for the CP, you're stuck with it. I'm not going to decide your "real" 2NR strategy for you. If this

T (Clear and Convincing):

I tend towards reasonability because I think CI trends towards a race to the bottom to find a technically excluding but overall terrible definition but I will use a different framework if you ask me and (obviously) win why that framework is better. Potential abuse is a voter but actual abuse is a stronger VI. Fairness is an impact and an internal link, I don't know where this trend away from fairness as an impact came from.

Kritik and K Affs (Clear and Convincing):

I may be a product of early 2010's Iowa debate I am not anti-K. I've voted on some weird ones before. That being said, I haven't even started to read a lot of the literature so err on the side of over-explaining rather than under-explaining. Being 100% honest, the K's that have the most familiarity with are K's like Cap, Security, and some anarchist literature (Virillio is probably the most "out there" K I am familiar with and that's only because of the transportation topic). If your K/K Aff is named after a or there's like one key author for your K, I guarantee I am not familiar with that lit. If that is your kind of K, you either should not pref me or do a comically large amount of explanation for the terms your using. If you don't do this explanation, I will try my best but I only have a limited amount of time to read cards and make my decision. If you're a k aff team that somehow got stuck with me as a judge after reading that paragraph, I'm sorry. I'm crying too.

For policy aff v k rounds, I will generally default to weighing the aff against the alt. Any other framework/role of the ballot arguments seem to boil down to "The role of the ballot is to vote neg" which seems arbitrary and isn't super convincing in a vacuum. However, you can read a different framework and I'll evaluate that argument.

Also this may be a new development in debate but I do not get the argument that "fairness is not an impact". If you want more extrapolation on why fairness is an impact, David Heidt's paradigm gives a far more eloquent explanation of fairness as an impact than I could type here.

Theory (Clear and convincing):

Condo becomes bad somewhere after 3 advocacies. Probably okay with one (1) CP and one (1) K. International Fiat is also bad, though I don't think that's relevant for this topic. 50 States Fiat is on thin-ish ice, fiating the NGA is on thinner ice. Speed bad (for reasons other than ableism) or "You can't tell jokes in a debate round" (real arguments from the same round I judged) are on the thinnest ice. I don't love resolving theory debates but I will definitely vote on it if enough time is dedicated to it. I have a highish bar for voting on theory. If you're going for reject the team, it should be like at least 40% of your last speech. If you're going for reject the argument, there should be at least a substantial time dedication on the respective flow. Please don't spread your blocks at me. Theory debates should not be at full speed.

ASPEC (Beyond a Reasonable Doubt):

Yes, this has its own heading. Please don't. I have never seen someone unironically, actually, wholeheartedly go for ASPEC. Save time and just don't. The aff is allowed to spend 10% of the time you spent reading ASPEC to respond to ASPEC.

Speed:

I am "fine with speed" however this comes with caveats. You should have three speeds. From fastest to slowest: Text, Tag, and Theory (and perms/plan texts). If you decide to do theory at card text speed, I will 100% miss something and you likely won't love my RFD. K debates should also be slower. It is hard to flow paragraph length tags at full speed. I barely understand a majority of philosophy at a conversational pace, I will not understand it better at 350 wpm.

Odds & Ends:

1. Tech over truth but that doesn't mean the truth is irrelevant. (i.e. "No" is a complete and probably winning answer to arguments like "warming not real" or "federalism solves electricity grid security." [this backfired a bit. You still have to actually give an argument with warrants. The phrasing of this was for rhetorical effect]).

2. I feel like a well-crafted and to the point overview was an underutilized tool in my day and since I've been back judging. Don't cut your line-by-line for to do an overview but contextualization of your L-by-L is incredibly useful especially with my limited knowledge of the topic or your K.

3. I am not a huge fan of 5+ off strategies. I get their usefulness but they usually lead to late breaking and sub-par debates. I'm not going to take points off or anything if you go 6 off but I personally believe the debate will be better with fewer positions. THIS IS NOT A VOTING ISSUE JUST A PREFERENCE/OBSERVATION ABOUT DEBATE. TRYING TO MAKE THIS A THEORY ARGUMENT WILL NOT WORK.

4. Is a 28.5 still a pretty good score or is that the new 27.5? Have we moved entirely out of 27? If point inflation really is that bad, I apologize if I'm still in a 2014 mindset. I was by no means stingy with points back in the day (I probably averaged somewhere around like 28.2-4) but heck if I know what stingy even is these days. Back in the day, I had a point floor somewhere around 27.5 and a ceiling somewhere around 29.7. These weren't hard lines though.

5. Don't read too much into how long it takes me to decide. I've judged debates that were incredibly close but decided immediately and lopsided debates that took 10 minutes to formulate an RFD.

6. If you start the evidence comparison or impact calc in the 2xR, don't get mad at me when that debate isn't fully fleshed out and I have to do some amount of intervention. I try to take the path of least resistance to my decisions and limit any intervention or bias but sometimes that's easier said than done.

7. Somewhat along the same lines as #6, I generally won't read evidence sua sponte. I generally read evidence in one of three scenarios, I can't resolve the debate otherwise, you explicitly tell me too, and/or something about your evidence piques my interest (i.e. I know it makes a claim that is interesting, objectively untrue, and/or you very clearly power tagged a card. These generally won't affect the outcome of the debate unless it's critical or I have to resolve that specific question and it's necessary).

Congress (old, mostly irrelevant):

Apparently I judge Congress now. If you're here because you're a congressional debater, you can ignore the above. Coming from a policy debate background I really like good and effective argumentation. However, I realize that the constraints of the Congressional Debate format can put up barriers to that. Recognizing that I try to weigh speaking skills along with argumentation skills somewhat equally but, good argumentation can help a speech with speaking issues while good speaking skills can't save a speech with flawed argumentation.

Bro. Stephen Balletta's Judging Paradigm

I believe that debate should focus on persuasion, analysis, argumentation, and clear communication.  This general statement applies to all the various branches of high-school debate (Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, etc.) in which one can participate, at least in my view.  I want to hear the debaters think on their feet, and I want to hear every word that each debater says.  Therefore, I do not look favorably on speed reading, spread debating, or esoteric arguments that try to short-circuit the resolution.  I have a rather limited tolerance for jargon.  In my view, a few strong arguments defended well outweigh a mound of argumentation and evidence rattled off so quickly that one cannot be reasonably expected to hear and digest it all, let alone refute it.

In my view, a good debate should be a respectful exchange of ideas, delivered at a pace so that a reasonably well-educated judge -- even a first-time judge -- should be able to weigh the arguments presented and determine a winner.  In line with this overall principle, I do not look favorably on a hostile, rude, or supercilious attitude on the part of the debaters.

Speak clearly; argue intelligently; disagree agreeably; and persuade by a combination of evidence, reasoning, and analysis.  Debate is not a matter of game theory; it is not the realm of self-appointed specialists or elites.  A good debate should be accessible to a college-educated adult who is not among the elite or the initiated of the speech-and-debate world.

If you are familiar with the style of debate promoted by the Ronald Reagan Great Communicator Debate Series, then you will know exactly what I am looking for.

Thanks!

Debates

Policy

Games player, mostly. If you run it, back it up and tell me why you win the round (and the other side loses).

Lincoln Douglas

Value/Criterion clash. V/C have to flow through the case for me to consider it. Again, tell me why the arguments you're making ensure you win the round (and the other side loses).

LD isn't a forum for Policy debaters looking for something fun to do. Run LD as it's meant to be run.

Public Forum

Make logical arguments and tell me why you win (and the other side loses). Also, please remember: PF isn't Policy Lite.

Congress

All of your speeches (both authorships and all responses) need to be fully supported with evidence. Analysis is great but evidence is better.

Make sure that you're truly cordial to the rest of the competitors in and out of the round.

Interps

Humor/Drama/Duo

Remember that you're interpreting your selection, not mimicking.

POI

POI is great because it not only allows for interpretation but allows the speaker to make a point about a topic that they believe is important. Use that flexibility to your advantage.

Poetry

Not all poetry rhymes and, more important, rhyming shouldn't be what moves your poem forward. Interpret what you've performing--make it matter to you.

Oratory

Persuasion is key: make me believe what you've written/what you're saying.

Informative

These are speeches designed to be info dumps that intrigue me; your visual aid shouldn't be the only part I'm interested in.

Extemp

Formatting is key: it gives you a good structure to work from and allows me to follow along easily.

Our activity should first and foremost be an educational experience for everyone involved. Because we are practicing an academic exercise in a competitive space, sportsmanship is imperative. I tell my students to model the type of debate they would like to compete against; if the way they engage in the activity makes their opponents want to quit our activity...they are doing it wrong. Debate should be for everyone - a healthy debate circuit, like a healthy democracy, thrives off high engagement/participation. I invite you to engage with this narrative; if you love this activity, you should want to share it with as many as possible.

Debaters are sometimes shocked when they come into a round asking me for my paradigm; I will often defer my paradigm to be determined first by the preferences of their opponents. I bring this up because I would rather all participants be comfortable setting norms with one another prior to engaging with what my preferences are as an adjudicator--it makes for a more balanced debate rather than one team having an advantage because they are better at adapting to a specific paradigm of any specific judge. A fast way to lose my ballot is to treat people (judges, opponents, and spectators) within the debate space with disregard because your goals of winning don't require their preferences to be met. I'm not a lay judge, but the debate should primarily be accessible by everyone in the space in order for it to be maximally educational. If I'm on a panel, I pay attention to the paradigms of my fellow judges (and the experience level of your opponents)...so it's always safe to assume I'll vote you down for debate for exploitive, patronizing, and exclusionary behaviors and language. *Extend this line of thought to the literature you're reading and the narratives you're sharing; the people in your impact scenarios matter, they are not a chess piece in your "game of words".

Rather than seeing the debate space as "competitive" (yes, I acknowledge a judge determines a winning side--or best reasoned/articulated/defended side), I choose to see the debate space as "collaborative". Debate asks us to engage in perspective taking; the purpose of switch-side debate is so students gain perspective based on research and critical thought. Ideally, we (judges, spectators, coaches, and participants) should enter into the debate space with good faith; with the goal of everyone ending the round having learned something new, considered a different point of view, and enjoyed the experience (and with the sentiment that it was worth it/we'd do it again if we could).

I reward teams who bring topical research into the space. Fewer substantive arguments with thorough analysis of the literature will always be preferred over trying to win because your opponent doesn't have time to respond to an argument (because you chose to run many under-developed arguments). I understand and enjoy theory, kritik, performance, and fw/value debate when they are done well. I don't think it is productive or required to advocate a position you don't believe in; you may not get to choose your side, but you do get to choose your arguments. 99% of the time I'm going to vote for legitimate advocacy over an overly technocratic strategy developed specifically for the round. Internal consistency is important to me - especially when there are in-round impacts being weighed.

I generally view the debate space as both a lab/playground for testing ideas and *also* as a space for engaging in deliberative democracy - because of this, I discourage deterministically framed arguments that disempower or remove agency from others sharing the space. There's a difference between framing an argument as non-unique and framing it as *inevitable*; if your opponents do this, you'll probably be able to win the impact by making space for an alternate narrative in the round (and I may likely be willing to vote on the in-round impact of preferring your alternate narrative). For example, the inability to eliminate corruption or suffering isn't a reason to reject a plan or framework that minimizes it (this is also true for narratives of peace as the absence of violence, narratives of environmental stewardship, and so on). You'll do well to not dismiss your opponent's impacts in a way that perpetuates a narrative that excludes an alternate narrative that might be better for us to engage with. I enjoy when debaters challenge narratives that often go unquestioned as a means to empower.

I'm going to flow, you should too--it's annoying when you argue against evidence your opponent doesn't read - don't think of reading/skimming through your opponent's files as a substitute for listening/flowing (conversely, don't give your opponents large quantities of evidence you don't plan on reading).

Aside from the rules of the activity, I ask that you're open to earnestly engaging with arguments as your opponents present them; not everyone is taught how to debate the same way, and part of what makes our activity beautiful is the potential it has to evolve and change to become *more* inclusive. I generally believe all constructive speeches are fair game for new lines of argumentation (though topicality probably needs to be run directly subsequent to the interp violation), and rebuttals require debaters to both consolidate and prioritize - I believe *how* we choose to consolidate and *what* we prioritize in rebuttals to be revelatory and this will be where you may get yourself into trouble with internal consistency.

Treat the activity and everyone in the round with respect--that'll get you far.

I expect debaters to give informed and well-presented speeches that demonstrate critical thought of the subject matter. I do not appreciate debaters that are overtly aggressive and who do not let their opponents finish their points.

Additionally pace yourself as you speak, if you speak too quickly I will stop trying to follow the logic of your argument.

kbarnstein@alumni.depaul.edu

My background: I'm currently serving as the head coach at Maine East, after many years of serving as an assistant. For much of the past 7 years, I judge an average of 15-20 rounds on the topic. I debated at Maine East HS back in the late 90s & early 00s for four seasons under the tutelage of Wayne Tang. As such, I tend to lean towards a policy making approach that seeks the best policy option. I tend to view topicaliy/theory through a prism of fairness and education. I don't mind listening to debates about what debate should be. I default to viewing the plan as the focus of the debate.

If you are running a K, I like the links to be as specific to the affirmative's advocacy as possible. If your alternative doesn't make sense, that means that the affirmative must be worse than the status quo for you to win your K.

I strongly dislike reading your evidence after the round- I expect the debaters to do that work in the round. If I call for a card, it will typically be to verify that it says what you say it says. I will not give you the benefit of warrants you did not explain, however I may give the other team the benefit of the card not saying what you said it did.

I am looking for insightful and new analyses of a topic in OO

I am hoping to be pleasantly surprised in INFO

I want honest and truthful storytelling in INTERP

A little bit about me: I coach for Millburn High School in New Jersey. I competed on the circuit in high school and college.

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know some students like reading judge's paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Overall: You can be nice and a good debater. :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your Parliamentarian/ Judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship/ sponsorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to give you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so because it shows preparedness.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, two things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments are having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds) and one-sided debate. You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate. I'm much more inclined to rank you higher if you flip and have fluency breaks than if you're the fourth aff in a row.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- Warrants are so important! Don't forget them!

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- I rank based on who I think are the overall best legislators in the chamber. This is a combination of the quality of speeches, questioning, command of parliamentary procedure, preparedness, and overall leadership and decorum in the chamber.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- Please add me to the email chain if you have one: jordybarry@gmail.com

- I am really open to hearing almost any type of argument (except K's, please don't run K's in PF), but I wouldn’t consider myself a super techy judge. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- Please debate the resolution. It was written for a reason.

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round. In addition, please don’t spread. I don’t have policy/ LD judging experience and probably won’t catch everything. If you get too fast/ to spreading speed I’ll say clear once, and if it’s still too fast/ you start spreading again, I’ll stop typing to indicate that I’m not getting what you’re saying on my flow.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to in the round. Signposting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you (unless you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, or xenophobic). It's your show, not mine!

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask! Have fun and good luck!

I will not flow what I can't understand - no spreading!

I am not favorable to Ks. Focus on traditional debate.

I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

Policy Paradigm:

I am a policy maker/stock issues judge. If I am going to vote affirmative, it is going to be because the affirmative team presents a clear case that maintains all of the stock issues throughout the debate round. If I am going to vote negative, it is going to be because the negative team has taken out one or more of the stock issues or has presented a counter plan with a clear net benefit. I believe that all three elements of rhetoric – ethos, pathos, and logos – should be evaluated equally, and as a result, I will weigh your speaking ability equally against logic and evidence. I value strong analytical argumentation, clear links in your logic and clash in debate. While I will listen to K, I expect links to the stock issues at hand. The current trend of not valuing flow because you've flashed evidence is extremely problematic for me. If you drop arguments because of your unwillingness to actually listen to your opponent, that will count you against in my evaluation of the round.

LD Paradigm:
I am a traditional LD judge. Even though I understand K's, counterplans, etc., I am not a fan of them in LD. Plan on referencing the philosophers and why your case offers the values and criterion needed to win the round. Clear speaking, not speed counts.
I am not a fan of speed but I can deal with it to a certain extent. Your analyticals and your tags must be clear or your speaker points will suffer accordingly. I will not tolerate rude, racist, or sexist behavior in the round. In my other life, I am a teacher of English and rhetoric.

Parent Judge, for about 2 years

K's/ Theory

• Not too familiar with either, but if you run them be very clear

No Spreading, If I can't understand you, I cannot judge you

I judge with a blank slate, explain and develop all points

Signpost Please

Be respectful and have fun :)

I've judged over 100 debate rounds in the last 2 years at this point. I will flow the round. The biggest caveat is that you should not spread. It does not enhance argumentation and just makes the debate less engaging and less educational. I am putting this at the top of my paradigm. If you decide to spread, and as a result get dropped, that is your fault for not reading the paradigm, not a judge screw.

Pref Cheat Sheet

Traditional Debate/Lay- 1

Slow, Policy-Style debate- 4

Complex Phil- 4

Tricks- 4

Ks- Strike

Friv Theory- Strike

Spreading- Strike

I hate Ks, not because I don't understand them, but because I think they are bad for debate education. I have the same stance on spreading, I see no point in cramming as much content as possible into a debate if i can't understand you.  It is anti-educational.

I would like there to be an email chain, especially for virtual debates. add me to it- sonalbatra14@gmail.com If you do not make an email chain that indicates you did not read the paradigm and will result in dropped speaks :)

I like a good, reasonable argument

Not a huge fan of theory, don't run a super frivolous shell. If your opponent is running a frivolous shell make a good argument for reasonability & you should be fine. BUT, absolutely use theory to check REAL abuse.

Spreading- Don't like it. I'll say clear twice & then stop flowing & dock your speaks. It is better to err on the side of caution. If it is a big problem you will be dropped.

Kritiks- I don't like them. I would say don't run them.

Flowing- I flow the round, but if you speak too quickly, the quality of this will significantly deteriorate.

Speaks- Speaker points tend to be "low". Being nice = higher speaks, Being mean/rude = lower speaks. I judge speaker points mostly as if you were in a speech event. If you spread, you will have VERY LOW speaks (think 26). I do believe in low point wins if the tournament allows.

Pet Peeves-

- telling me you won the debate (that is my decision)

- "we should just try" (no, if your opponent is proving active harms, we should not just try.)

- being rude to your opponent

- forcing progressive debate on traditional opponents, if your opponent asks for traditional, please do a traditional round.

Overall, you should run what you are comfortable with. It is better to run a case you know & are comfortable with than a case you don't know just to appease a judge. Just make sure everything is well warranted & linked, & we should be good!

For extemp and public address, I prefer that students use a conversational style. I prefer that they use evidence as needed. I prefer they not try and name numerous sources, but be honest in what they are using. I like a roadmap they refer to for each point.

For interp, I like a meaningful teaser that sets the world they are creating and tries to introduce as many characters as possible. I think introductions should be short and sweet and be more personal. I think blocking and movement should be used to enhance the story, but is not necessary. I really look for fully developed characters that really listen and react to each other. For author's intent, I think it is okay to re-interpret a piece. I don't have a real issue with a curse word if it is used purposefully.

Interp Events:

My rankings are usually based on who is able to create the most believable characters and moments. There should be multiple levels within your piece and in the portrayal of your characters ~ not everything should be intense, or fast/slow, or super loud or quiet.

Everything you do in your performance should have a purpose. If you give a character an accent, be consistent with that accent. Make sure that each movement, mannerism, or gesture makes sense within the scope of the story you are telling. Additionally, I should be able to easily differentiate between multiple characters. Facial expressions, moments, and character development are very important for the overall performance.

Speaking Events

A clear structure is important: your delivery should be cohesive, and flow logically from point to point. A natural delivery style that allows for your personality to shine is preferable to the “Platform Speaker”. Put simply: avoid speech patterns.

Extemp: The most important thing is that you answer the question! A polished speaking style is important, but I will often default to a speaker that has stronger analysis and evidence over a pretty speech with fluffy content. Do not rely on canned introductions - creativity is important when trying to engage me.

Oratory/Informative: Your attention getter, vehicle, and conclusion should be creative, but they also need to fit well with the topic. Again, I will default to stronger analysis/evidence over fluffy content.

"Debate well. Don't go fast. Don't make frivolous or untrue arguments. You have a prescribed debate topic for a reason, so debate the topic."

That is my "grumpy old man" paradigm.

In reality, I am open to considering lots of arguments from a wide variety of philosophical and practical perspectives. My biggest issue is that I am not great with speed. I don't love it, and even if I did, I don't handle it well in a debate round. I am willing to listen to pretty much any argument a debater wants to make, but I won't evaluate the argument particularly well if its fast. Also, the more critical the argument and the more dense the literature, the slower you will need to go for me to follow you.

I do have a few pet peeves.

1) No Tricks. Tricks are for kids - I'll absolutely intervene and toss out an "I win, you lose" extension of a random sentence from the framework or an underview. Don't make it a voter or it will likely be you that loses the ballot. Debate the round, don't just try to escape with the W.

2) No EXTENSIONS THROUGH INK - if you are going to extend something, you better have answered the arguments that sit right next to them on the flow BEFORE you extend them. You have to be responsive the attacks before you can claim victory on an argument.

3) Don't shoehorn EXTINCTION impacts into topics that are clearly NOT going to link to extinction. For example, there was a topic on standardized testing a few years back. Policy style impacts of cases and disads should have been about the effectiveness on standardized testing in terms of educational outcomes, college outcomes, and overall productive individuals and societies. Instead, debaters went for the cheap impact and tried to claim that keeping standardized tests will cause nuclear war and extinction. The syllogism had about 7-8 moving parts and at least three skipped steps. It was a bad argument that sometimes won because the opponent wasn't good enough to challenge the link chain or sometimes lost because smarter debaters beat it back pretty soundly. Either way, the debate was poor, the argument selection was poor, and I was not inclined to give those debaters good speaks even if they won.

4) Only read THEORY because there is an honest-to-God violation of a pretty established norm in debate, not because it's your "A-strat" and you just like theory. I like Fruit Loops, but I don't eat them at every meal. Use theory when appropriate and be prepared to go all-in on it if you do. If the norm you are claiming is so important and the violation is so egregious, then you should be willing to be the farm on your theory argument to keep your opponent from winning the debate.

I want to see good debate. I think the four things listed above tend to make debate bad and boilerplate. If you disagree, you are welcome to strike me.

In Congressional Debate: Analysis is the most important factor. Sources are paramount. Clash is expected. Delivery is secondary.

In Extemp: Give a CLEAR answer to the question, need good time allocation, good sources. I consider this public speaking, not interp.

In OO/Info: Need clear structure with sources. I consider this a public speaking event, not interp.

In Interp: Need different levels, clear characterization. I need to be able to follow your story.

Introduction:

I have coached high school speech and debate since Fall 2011 at Ladue Horton Watkins High School in Saint Louis, Missouri. Our program has Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Policy Debate, and Public Forum Debate. I have judged all three types of debate at local invitationals, invitationals throughout the state, the MSHSAA State Tournament, NCFL Grand National Tournament, and NSDA National Tournament. I did not compete in high school or college. I coach and judge on a primarily lay circuit. I have also judged Extemporaneous Debate and Congressional Debate.

Overview:

I view judging as an integral part of coaching. Quality debate rounds in front of knowledgeable judges is key to growth for competitors and judging rounds is a valuable learning opportunity for coaches. My personal coaching judging philosophy is rooted in fun, education, and personal growth. My goal is for each round to be fun and educational for all participants while providing personal growth opportunities for each competitor during and after the round. My commitment to you is that I will provide a ballot giving feedback to each debater that addresses speaking and argumentation and I will give a clear RFD.

Ethics:

Being an ethical competitor is the most important thing you can do in the round. An unethical competitor will NOT win my ballot, regardless of the arguments in the round. Older and more experienced competitors have an educational obligation to younger and less experienced competitors. I expect all evidence in the round to be used in a way that reflects the intent of the author. Dishonest highlighting, summarizing, and/or paraphrasing is an immediate loss. The text and general meaning of evidence must be accurately represented in a round. I do not like calling for evidence but will if I need it in order to resolve an issue in the round. If you are rude in any way, you will lose speaker rankings/points and, depending on the nature of the misconduct, possibly the round. I expect a professional, mature, and kind round. Do not yell at each other and all debaters should refrain from any attacks on their opponents – keep responses based on the arguments and evidence in the round. As my students will tell you, I do not tolerate any use of profanity in an educational space.

I would like to note that harassment, bullying, and discriminatory behaviors of any type will not be tolerated. Should I see those behaviors in or out of round, I will address them. If it is in a round, it will be reflected on the ballot and the team or individual engaging in such behaviors can expect a loss. I will also address this behavior with your coach. I believe that speech and debate should be a safe space for every person and it is the communal responsibility of all of us to guarantee that.

This is also a moment to note that your behavior in and out of round is seen and heard at tournaments. I would encourage all competitors to behave in an ethical manner at all times. Unethical behavior outside of round does affect how people in the community view you – whether this is right or wrong, it is something for all competitors to consider. Think about what you want your reputation in the debate community to be and act accordingly. You are representing your team, our speech and debate community, and this activity at all times. Please hold yourself to the highest standard possible at tournaments. I strongly believe in growth and second chances so if you make a mistake, please take time to reflect, apologize, and then change your actions moving forward.

Communication:

Debate is, first and foremost, a communication activity; therefore, communication should be your most important consideration in the round. I expect debaters to speak at a conversational rate or a bit faster – I do not appreciate nor do I follow spreading. If you are speaking faster than you are able to clearly communicate, then you need to slow down. I will not interrupt you during a round but will stop flowing if I cannot flow or understand what you are saying. Reading piles of evidence without having analysis is not good communication. I do not believe students need a card for every single idea presented in a round – I expect students to think and bring their own ideas into the round. You should thoroughly understand all arguments you make in a round. Speaking and the ability to knowledgeably communicate arguments in the round are key to winning my ballot.

General Information:

I will keep track of time for speeches and prep time. Competitors are welcome and encouraged to keep their own time during the round; however, my time will be the official time. It is understandable that partners will need to communicate with each other during the round; however, the volume should be low enough that you do not interrupt the speaker. Your prep time ends when you remove the flash drive from your computer and hand it to your opponent. You should not waste time between speeches. Please keep in mind that a tournament has many moving parts and rounds being completed efficiently is key to keeping tournaments running on schedule. To that end, when your prep time is over, please be ready to speak within a few seconds of getting to the front of the room – organizing speeches, etc. should be taken care of before ending prep time.

I do not flow authors for evidence – when you say “extend our Smith card”, I have no idea what you mean. YOU need to extend the ARGUMENT – I should not be asked to extend evidence. I do pay attention to the dates of evidence and will prioritize more recent evidence in most cases; however, there are some exceptions to this general rule. I pay attention to the credentials of authors and the sources being used in a round.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

I appreciate a values-based debate rooted in philosophy. The values/framework debate is incredibly important in the round. I am willing to listen to more progressive arguments, provided the value/framework debate is present. Dictionary.com is not a strong source for definitions in L-D – I would prefer legal or philosophical definitions. I believe L-D is arguing what ought to be, not what is. Roadmaps are not necessary and will not be given off-time – if you start to give a roadmap, then I will start your time.

Policy Debate:

I generally expect the affirmative team to present a topical plan. However, I am willing to listen to critical and performance affirmative plans provided the team can give a solid explanation as to why I should vote for them in the context of that debate round. If you are running a critical argument, then I expect you to be “all in” – meaning you don’t get to run a critical argument on one flow and then ignore it on other flows. If you are making a critical argument, then you need to be a fierce and passionate advocate for that stance throughout the round and bring the critical arguments into the rest of the round. I am also willing to listen to critical and performance arguments on the negative side of the flow. I expect debaters to tell me the role of the ballot in the round. I do not love counter plans or topicality arguments. If you are running topicality arguments, then I would expect that you cannot address on-case arguments…if you have a ton of prepared arguments for their case, then do not run topicality. Extra topicality and effects topicality can be very interesting arguments. Regardless of the arguments you run, please have a strong understanding of those arguments and be able to explain them without reading cards. Organized and structured speeches are key to a successful round – I expect a roadmap before each speech (except the 1AC) and clear signposting within each speech. I do not enjoy open-cross and will not permit it if I am the only judge in the room. On a panel, I will defer to the majority opinion; however, please know that I have very real concerns about a team that lacks trust or confidence to the point that the partner must intervene in cross-ex. I will default to policymaker but am willing to judge using a framework you give me provided the argument is clear in the round.

Public Forum Debate:

Public Forum Debate is about current(ish) events so I expect arguments to take place in the context of the current world order. I do not want to see a 45-minute debate about evidence – arguments should focus on the big picture ideas in the round. I expect there to be balance in crossfire, which requires a give and take on the part of all competitors. I do not want Public Forum to be Policy Debate, so the ability to give a line-by-line argument is less important to me than being able to effectively summarize key ideas in the round and weigh the two sides. Roadmaps are not necessary and will not be given off-time – if you start to give a roadmap, then I will start your time.

Hello! I am the Pittsburgh Central Catholic Head Speech Coach with 5 years of experience judging all speech events. If you have any questions about your ballot, my email is pjb82@pitt.edu

If you want some feedback after round, just ask!

If you're an Extemper and you just so happen to have found my paradigm and I'm judging you, this is what you should do:

Make sure you include context in your introduction - don't waste our limited time by making irrelevant connections to pop culture. Explain the context of the question (why are we talking about it today?) and any definitions, technical terms, and historical information I may need to fully understand your answer to the question.

Diversify your sources. Use reputable sources only - if I don't know what it is I'll probably look it up after round. Avoid think tanks. Warrant your claims (remind me why your evidence matters in light of the question itself, not just that particular point).

Public Forum paradigm

I now coach speech, but I have also coached Congress and have judged PF and LD for the past 15 years in Ohio, Louisiana, and the national circuit. I never competed, but you know what they say about those who can’t (or don't).

I like to hear a well organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation. Be sure that evidence actually supports or refutes and is not just thrown in to provide a source. I tend to vote on the arguments that involve impact and scope.

Clash is essential—nothing more deadly than listening to dueling evidence with no actual interaction. Do as much damage as you can to your opponent’s case and defend you own—sounds really basic, but that’s what I like to hear.

Crossfire is a time to ask questions—please do not use it to advance or restate your case (unless, of course, it pertains to a question you’ve been asked). I like to see teamwork in grand cross—please do not monopolize and let your partner get a word in edgewise.

I enjoy a nice extemporaneous delivery that demonstrates some real (or feigned) enthusiasm for your argument. Please do not spread—it is not impressive, and if I can’t follow you, the quality of your argument suffers.

And finally I value civility, courtesy, and respect—please don’t disappoint.

Lincoln Douglas paradigm

Similar to my PF standards, I am pretty traditional. I like a case that is well organized, clear, and consistent. Supporting evidence and depth of analysis are important, but logical arguments are essential. I really enjoy a good framework debate, and I appreciate hearing voting issues--tell me why I should vote for you. Why are your impacts more important?

I like an extemporaneous and conversational delivery. I am okay with some speed, but no spreading, please--if I can't follow you, I can't vote for you.

Civility, courtesy, and respect--always important.

Congress paradigm

Congress rankings are based on content (structure, evidence, clarity, analysis, clash) and delivery (articulation, fluency, vocal and physical expression, confidence/poise). Most importantly who advanced the debate and contributed the most through the quality (not necessarily the quantity) of his/her/their speeches and questions?

Civility, courtesy, and respect apply here as well.

I have high school, collegiate, coaching, and judging experience in policy, LD and BP debate. I'm open to most arguments as long as they are well-vouched for, with specific links and clear strings of logic. I value the educational value of debate, so I ask that you use your evidence responsibly and communicate clearly and effectively. These factors, along with the content of the round and the overall persuasiveness of your arguments, will determine my decision on your ballot.

Communication is the most important thing to me. If that is compromised by your argument presentation, you should rethink your strategy. Otherwise, all arguments are free game to me, given their appropriateness and sound rhetoric!

I think of myself as an ordinary voter of general intelligence. I won't apply any speciality knowledge I might have in the round itself, but I will think through things. If you can make that thinking easier on me with good link chains and strong warrants and impacts, you will likely win the round.

Thank you and good luck to all!

Congressional Debate--I expect your speeches to address the major issues addressed by the legislation or the concerns raised by the assumed passage of the legislation. I look for speeches that are continuing to advance the debate, not just re-hash points already brought up by previous speakers. Please follow parliamentary procedure. It really is not that hard.

POs should keep the chamber moving efficiently and professionally. Maximizing speech time and cross-x time plays a huge role in my evaluation of a presiding officer. I also expect much consistency from a PO in rulings and recognition of speakers.

Lastly, have fun. This is a fun event. Use humor where appropriate. Enjoy your time in these chambers.

Policy Debate--I'm that judge you wish you did not get. I am old school and I don't like speed.

I like big picture tie ins

I like sign posting

Not a fan of speaking over each other in cross

Hello! I am a parent judge supporting my oldest son's speech aspirations. Now in my 7th year as a speech parent, judge, and sorta coach I have judged 100+ rounds and hundreds of presentations across middle school and high school competitions - primarily in OO, HI, DI, Duo and more. I judged the NSDA nationals DI finals in 2022 which was an incredible round and experience. I also judged the middle school NSDA final round for storytelling in 2019 along with plenty of state and nat quals through the years. Across various events, here are my thoughts as applicable for your event...

I hope to be persuaded by your thesis or argument

I want to be engaged and moved by your presentation

Your characters should be fully developed and come through clearly and distinctly

Use sources responsibly to complement your work without overwhelming with stats and figures

Show creativity and something novel relative to other competitors

Most of all, own your work, have fun, and know that you are a winner just by competing. Thank you!

Congress- Speeches should be delivered at a rate of speed that a casual listener would be able to understand and follow the argumentation. Evidence is necessary and should support every argument in a speech. In order to stand out and rank higher, written speeches should be adapted to include clash from previous speeches and offer something new to the debate. Debaters should offer speeches that forward the debate and do not simply rehash previously stated arguments. A PO should run a transparent and efficient round with a clearly offered way to track precedence and recency.

Extemp- State the topic word for word verbatim, I am looking for strong argumentation to support your answer as well as current and credible evidence. Competitors who have an in depth analysis of the topic will rank higher, fluff and generic answers will rank lower. This is a speaking event and you need to have conversational speed as well as humor to do well. Funny and pop culture AGDs are my favorite.

LD- I am an old school trad judge. I can keep up with moderate speed but if you start spreading and I put my pen down you are not in a good spot. If I can't flow I can't judge you. K and theory aren't my favorite but simple and common K like ROB I am familiar with, extinction arguments are my least favorite, they seem lazy unless you have a really compelling and interesting argument to go with it. Judge adaptation is crucial in LD success. I am not the most tech oriented judge so if you are pulling tricks make them clear and easy to follow for me, I am open to weird stuff but it had better be accessible to me.

For (DI, DUO) - Subtlety is the key, I don't need you to scream and shout to get emotion across. I'm not against screaming, but it should be during appropriate moments during the piece and build over time. At no point should you jump from deadly quiet and calm to intense and screaming. Gradually build the emotion. Show me the tension and intensity over time. Screaming when you erupt during the climax is perfectly acceptable. Further, intensity can be shown without screaming, crying, or yelling. The quiet moments of the piece are usually the ones I find most powerful. THINK and REACT to what you are saying. Emotion should come nearly effortlessly when you "are" your piece. Don't "act" like the mom who lost her daughter in a school shooting, BE that mom! Transitions and timing are SUPER IMPORTANT, DON'T RUSH!!!

For (HI, DUO) - Facial expressions, characterization, and blocking take the most importance for me. I want to see each character develop once you introduce it throughout the piece. Even if the character doesn't appear all the time, or only once or twice throughout the script, I want to see that each character is engaged throughout the piece itself. Most importantly, please remember that humor without thought is gibberish. Jokes are said for a reason - use facial expressions to really hone in on character's thought and purpose. For example, if a character A says a joke and character B doesn't get it, I should see character B's confused reaction. I will also tend to reward creative blocking and characterization. However, note that blocking should not be overly distracting.

For (POI, PRO, POE) - Regarding emotion, facial expressions, and character development, see the above text in the two paragraphs above regarding DI and HI. Personally, I place a little more emphasis on binder tech - the more creative the better! I think binder events are the synthesis of good binder tech, good script selection, and good facial expressions/emotion. Obviously, it's harder to do, since you have multiple characters in multiple parts of your speech and each have a distinct mood and personality. I prefer POI to read like an OO with someone else's words, give me a really concrete problem solution.

UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

Policy- I'm tab. I like people to go slower, I feel like as a community speaking quickly and reading more cards have come at the cost of analysis and comparison. To earn my ballot with ease do more of that comparison. I'm fine with Ks, CPs, theory and T. I even like T when done well. I did high school and college policy and look forward to judging the round! 

"Get off my lawn" old person gripes- 

-Don't prep when a timer isn't running. 

-Please don't ask if people read everything in a document, or asking if they could tell you what all they read. Unless circumstances show they've obscured what they did, you just look like you weren't listening or flowing. This makes CX like a episode recap when you've been binging a show. 

-Please don't just say "then the case flow." Still not helpful. Tell me which pages and in which order.

-Be kind. You can give hard hitting questions and answers while still being polite. 

-You may want to look at your judge during CX. It will give you an impression of what they think is a good or bad idea for a line of argumentation you may pursue. Remember- you're trying to convince the one with the ballot you're right, not your opponent. 

-Open CX- I'm totally fine with CX being open. If you are the main person in that CX from  your side, you should still be doing a majority of the questioning/answering and your partner should only chime in when needed. You need your time to shine too! I will lower speaker points for the partner that is more of a back pack. By which I mean just standing up there because it is their cross examination, but doesn't really speak or add to the CX. 

-Finally- be respectful of all of our time. Try to be quick to start prep, move to the next speech, flash/email with speed. If you mosey, you'll irk me. 

Note- I will say clear once and then just let you roll. I don't write down things I can't understand, but most speed is fine. I may also not be up on the topic lingo as I have judge 15 or less policy debates on this year's topic.

Jordan Berry - Loveless Academic Magnet Program High School

Hello!

I have been a coach and judge since 2015. Most debaters over the years categorize me as a traditional L/D judge. My chief weighing mechanism is usually framework (my undergraduate degree is in philosophy), but I can be persuaded to the contrary. I have no value hierarchy. I strive to keep personal views and ballot intervention away from my RFD. I will evaluate only those arguments brought up by the debaters.

Speed is an issue for me. This is primarily an education and communication activity. I highly doubt either Lincoln or Douglas themselves were spreading, and I've never seen spreading in any real-life situation aside from episodes of "Storage Wars." I do flow the round (though not cross), but "winning the flow" isn't the same as winning the round in some cases; this event is supposed to be persuasive and accessible, not a checklist of responses and replies. Thus, I always roll my eyes when one of my debaters complains about "lay" judges: in crafting a case/round, they should receive as much consideration as that ex-policy debater.

Other issues for me: do be respectful. Do engage meaningfully with the resolution. Do be honest. Do have fun.

Break a leg!

jordan.berry@mps.k12.al.us

P.S. All this extinction stuff is just debaters trolling, right?

My name is Stephanie Berry and I teach freshmen and transfer students at the University of Mississippi.

I will not flow anything that I cannot understand, so speak coherently and do not spread.

I do tend to enjoy framework heavy arguments, as I was a philosophy major in college. With that being said, I will vote off of more than framework. Giving me clear voters and being crystal clear as to why you win that issue is the best way to win my ballot.

Strong speaking skills (not speaking monotone, hand gestures, eye contact, etc.) are heavily appreciated and make it more engaging and easier for me to understand your argument.

My judging style is pretty straightforward, so come prepared and have fun!

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them. A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Make sure to include citation.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

Keep oral prompting to a minimum.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

I value the analysis. Use examples or states or qualified opinions and then give me your analysis of the evidence...why does your evidence matter...how does it fit.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

No preference so long as analysis occurs. I like to see students debate the resolution, not debate debate. Debate the resolution instead of trying to be cute or clever.

What other preferences do you have as a judge?

I don't care much about speed, but it is still public speaking discipline. Getting rid of all enunciation and punctuation just to cram in a few more words is NOT a way to make your case in the real world...so why would you purposefully make a speech that is ONLY effective in the world of other debaters?

Jeffrey Bile, Professor Emeritus Spalding University, PhD Rhetoric and Public Culture

Previously judged and coached debate at WVU, Ohio U, Akron, EIU, SIU, Utah, and for several high school programs

First, let's avoid sticker shock. I’m old. I’ve judged tournament debates in six decades. In college, I judged deep elims at NDT-CEDA-NFA-NPDA national tournaments. My teams exceeded expectations in all of those formats-and I coached CEDA national champions--but that was a long time ago.

I'd be a little careful about jargon and especially the valence you assume attaches to some god/devil terms in tournament debate (e.g., conditionality, dispositional, floating pic, perm, etc.) or the dominant culture (e.g., growth). It's debatable. The culture of debate has evolved a lot since 1971, but the distinction between better and worse argument has had a home in all those decades and in all of the “debate cultures” that I know (policy and non-policy, high school and college, 2-person and LD, off-topic and on, curricular, co-curricular and extra-curricular). It all comes back to argument in my experience.

I judged PF at the 2023 UK Tournament of Champions. I last judged high school policy on China engagement. I was last actively involved in debate on the 2015 Oceans policy topic (CX). On that topic, I worked with our debaters on ecological exploration and dolphin communication affirmatives and negative positions on a space exploration tradeoff and critiquing frontierism-discovery ideologies and anthropocentric worldviews.

This may give you a good sense of the genres of arguments that I am especially attuned to. It seems hard for me to "get" unidirectional risk "death penalty" procedurals. But I LOVE good, smart theory debate about who "owns" certain first links in arguments (affirming/negating). I also love good debate about last impact (is economic growth good?). First cause and last effect debates that most often need to happen in the rounds I judge often don't as academic debaters far too often become victimized by the same obsessions as the dominant culture and its clearly staked out assumptions. Academic debaters are allowed to find those debatable.

---

My first priority as judge is to respect the conditionality of my invitation. I will not want to behave inconsistently with any formal rule of this tournament, and I give some presumption to what can be most immediately inferred from those. Cultures, on the other hand, evolve. I give little heed to norm and “unwritten rules” -- those are always in flux. Argument makes them that way. As an argumentation educator and cultural citizen, I do have preferences about the direction of debate culture evolution. These manifest as assumptions/presumptions (there is some burden of proof in overcoming them). In order . . .

Until explicitly argued otherwise . . .

(1) There is an enormous presumption in favor of formal rules (time limits, topic, etc.). It is hard to imagine an argument that would overcome their priority. [Please explicate them as formal rules if your argument is premised on them]

(2) We were invited to a debate ABOUT something. Not to general disagreement in the abstract but only to a formally focused competition to which we have agreed to associate ourselves. I assume that the announced proposition is what we were invited to a debate ABOUT. I assume that the affirmative is tasked with affirming, and the negative with negating that proposition.

(3) Debate is a contest in collaborative argumentation. [see below*]

(4) I give substantial presumption to arguments that seem to be accepted by the other team.

(5) I do not assume that talking, ethos, pathos, persuasion, or performance are ends in themselves . . . but, at best, means to the ends of comprehensive debate (engaged rule-bound arguments of affirmation/negation).

(6) Outside of those required by #1, and perhaps in part #2, I don’t know a sufficient reason to privilege either side regarding rights and responsibilities. I presume bi-laterality of affirmative/negative procedural burdens/presumptions and equal access to argument. This seems simple enough, but I encourage you to think through some of the implications before planning your strategy (e.g., you need some offense to win). I don't presume change per se is worse that the status quo.

(7) I also assume that the weight I should accord to an argument in my decision is roughly assessed by multiplying outcome x probability. I want you to explicitly debate the relative importance (i.e., outcome, impact) of arguments (e.g., through criteria, decision rules, impact analysis, etc.) and find such weighing to be far more important than debaters generally realize. I don't mean that I want you to take time out from the flow for a new overview on "weighing" in rebuttals-- I mean I want you to construct complete relevant arguments (including impact), from the first constructive. I want you to extend the arguments you want, with impact. I want to know why you think the words that are coming out of your mouth matter in their real-time debated context.

(8) I try to flow. I don't listen as fast as I did when I was in better practice. This is not an aesthetic or educational preemption--just a disclosure that time has had effects. There are a lot of things I don't do as well as I used to--however hard I try. I flow arguments not words. I flow the anatomy of your argument not the wording of the evidence. What matters first is the relevance you are inferring from the evidence and the argument that constructs. If you are not crystal clear in communicating the anatomy of the argument you are constructing, in constructives, it doesn’t matter how slow you deliver your words. Construct in constructive speeches--rather than in rebuttal "weighing" overviews or other late, out-of-the-flow of debate, interruptions. And I definitely won't be using your written materials post-debate to construct your argument for you--only to resolve an extended claim contesting the content of a quotation or to clarify language for ballot. Construct arguments, in constuctives.

You will probably be able to tell from my non-verbal expressions if I have stopped flowing—which I may do if I have lost the structure of your argument or its place on the flow that you are intending it to be applied. I may try to flow even if I’m pretty lost so it is good practice to be redundant in reinforcing/signposting your argument’s anatomy so that I will have a better flow. If you don’t want me to flow some or all of the debate, make that argument.

(9) Of course, it is pretty much all debatable. Absent successful argument, I will default to these assumptions. I think these are pretty much in order, from strong presumption / burden of proof for #1 (hard to imagine me changing my mind) to weak presumption at #7 and 8 (all you need is an argument).

* On Argument

• If debate is a contest in argumentation, then the arguments are important. I privileged process over product models of argument, preferring dialectical processes that are as collaborative, comprehensive and critical as circumstances permit.
• At the product level, the best arguments are invitations to intellectual empathy since they share good reasons to believe what you are asserting. Better argument products have better reasons, more reasons, better support for those reasons, or are more substantively important.
• Evidence is support for your argument—it may ground a reason for affirming/negative—it is not itself the argument. What are you inferring from the evidence? Why is that relevant? What is your argument?

Something else? Just ask!

Congratulations and good luck. I hope everyone debates their best and has fun (in my experience, these usually go hand-in-hand).

Please include me on the email chain; shane.billig@gmail.com

I'm a fairly adaptable judge; 10+ years of debate experience as a competitor/coach. I default to policymaker framework and I am very familiar with CP/DA theory and am generally okay with any generic arguments, but I'd prefer to have the links analyzed to be as specific as possible. In general analysis and comparison of cards and warrants is the best way to convince me that your evidence is superior, and I find that many 2AC/2NC rely too much on reading more blocks rather than providing unique in round analysis.

I have and will vote on kritiks, and there are many times I think the K is the smartest choice in the round, however the more specific your kritiks get, the less familiar I am with the authors and literature. There are some key exceptions and generally any form of IR kritik or kritik of the general "structure" of society I will understand (Fem IR/Cap/Militarism for example). You must explain the kritik, the role of the ballot, and specifically explain the link and how the alternative functions. Explain the kritik in your own words, don't just read a block at me.

On topicality I default to reasonability, but this doesn't mean that I won't vote on topicality, especially if you give me reasons why I should prefer competing interpretations. In slow/quick rounds I am generally able to get citations on my flow, but in fast rounds you won't be able to extend just by author/year. Talk about the card, its tag, and its role in the round (this is just good extension advice in general). With all arguments if I don't understand your point, it doesn't make it onto my flow because you weren't clear, it got flowed onto the wrong sheet, etc then you didn't say it and I won't evaluate it. This happens most often on theory/T/K where I don't understand the violation or alternative or some other aspect of the argument--and the easiest solution to this problem is again to slow down for a second and use your own words to explain the argument.

If the round is going to have more than 5+ minutes of T/Theory I think everyone is better off if you go at 90% of your speed on those arguments. I am not as fast as you think I am, and while it's rare that I'm sped out of rounds, it does happen, and when it does 90% of the time it's me missing theory analysis because you're blazing through a pre-written block like its a politics card. I am more than happy to answer any questions you may have, and I do my best to adapt my judging style to the round I am in. One thing that I feel many teams do is over-adapt, and it often hurts them. Debate the way you want to debate, and I will evaluate it however you tell me to. I'd much rather judge really good debates over K literature I'm not familiar with prior to the round than bad or bland CP/DA debate.

When I was a High School student at Mountain View H.S. in Orem Utah. I participated in Policy Debate. After graduating, I then went on and was accepted on the University of Utah's debate team and competed in the NDT Circuit for a year. After graduation, I volunteered several times to judge high school debate tournaments as an alumnus for MVHS. Much later I became involved with debate again with Skyridge High School as the assistant coach.

I love a good policy debate! I have come to appreciate and respect Public Forum. I also have a fondness for Lincoln Douglas as I was initially a Philosophy and Political Science major at the UofU before moving into Computer Science. I will judge Individual Events, but I feel inadequate at times in this area.

Speed of speaking is not an issue for me. I will flow the entire round save perhaps the rebuttal speeches. I do request that the speaker is able to face the judges and also have their mouth be visible. I am somewhat hard of hearing and having a visual indicator of speech helps me understand better. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. If you cannot speak clearly at high speed you should slow down. I will not penalize teams who speak more slowly and thus are required to group arguments. The most persuasive argument should win regardless of speed of delivery.

I try to be a Tabula Rasa style judge and leave my personal political leanings outside of the room. I will vote for arguments that I find distasteful if I believe that they have been presented clearly and persuasively and the alternate team has not defended well against them. I count myself as a politically moderate independent.

I will vote for Topicality arguments if they are presented well. I will vote for a Kritik. I will vote for a Counterplan. I would prefer to have clash though and see a good policy debate. I do not mind tag team cross examination. Please be respectful of one another.

I prefer to disclose and give oral critiques if I am allowed to by the tournament organizer.

Best of luck to the competitors and participants! My goal is to help spread debate and critical thinking. Even if I vote against your team, I hope that you have a positive experience.

For email chain exchanges please use vbillings@entangling.net

I look for Impacts, Framework, Flow

Also, how you present: Are you confident, prepared, good at convincing me and defending your case?

Speech:

I am a relatively inexperienced speech judge but have plenty of experience in forensics. Please feel free to ask any questions.

Public Forum:

Flow judge.

Stating something that contradicts what your opponents have said isn't debating; it's disagreeing. AKA implicate your responses and don't repeatedly extend through ink.

I look for the path of least resistance when I'm deciding a round.

If you misrepresent evidence, I will drop you.

Theory: Generally, I don't think theory belongs in PF debate. I think PF is unique in the sense that accessibility is an integral part of the activity and in my opinion the speed at which debaters often have to speak and the evidence cited in theory shells are simply not accessible to the public at large. That being said, I understand the value of theory with respect to protecting competitors from abuses in round and out of respect for all debaters and arguments alike I will listen and flow theory and evaluate it in the round. I've even voted for a team who ran it once. All I'll say is the only thing worse than running theory is doing it badly. If you don't know what you're doing and you don't actually have a deep understanding of the theory that you're running and how it operates within a debate round, I wouldn't recommend that you run it in front of me. Lastly, if you're going to run theory you should know that I really value upholding the standard that you run in and out of rounds and across all topics.

Experience:

Debated in PF during all four years of HS for Bronx Science, dabbled in Policy for a year at Emory. Coached for 3+ years. Currently a law student at Emory.

Judged various forms of debate since 2013.

Please add me the to email chain: bittencourtjulia25@gmail.com

Primarily, I consider "clash," or direct engagement with the opposing argument and defense of one's own.

Equally though, I value coherence, or the logical consistency and organization of an argument, as well as the support of objective facts from credible sources.

Of secondary importance I look for civil, respectful demeanor, and delivery that is accurate, grammatical, confident, and expressive. Please don't speak so quickly that I can't take notes.

I prefer an argument built on solid evidence and reasoning, rather than one hung on formalities or technicalities. Whoever presents the most convincing case wins the round.

I'm definitely a policy maker at heart, but if you don't give me great impact calc. I will resort to stock issues.

I am not the biggest fan of counter plans but I recognize that some resolutions lend themselves to them and they are justified and in those cases. I actually enjoy judging them in these situations. Don't run one if you don't know how to do it well though...that will just frustrate me.

I like specific DA's but again, I'll vote on a generic one if they aren't argued well.

I think T is a priori and will vote on it first--even if it's crappy. Answer it.

K's aren't my favorite either--mostly because they aren't run well. However, if you know how to run it and the opposing team can keep up, making it a genuinely good debate, go for it. I'm all about listening to good arguments. Just don't run them if it's a tactic to trip up the other team. That won't fly and it will only be a waste of your time and mine.

Speed doesn't bother me. I can keep up. But spreading as a tactic to avoid clash, and genuine persuasive debate, won't get you far with me.

So, basically, give me clash. Give me a solidly good debate where you are all trying to communicate well. That's what I want to see. I was a 3 year high school debater, and a 1 year college debater. I've been a coach for 12 years. (I took a break to raise my daughter). I know what I'm doing. If I give you a verbal critique at the end of the round, listen. I don't give them often and when I do it's because something is in earnest need of being addressed.

I don't put up with rudeness. Period. I will give you the loss on a 7 if you are awful to an opponent or your partner.

That's it. Good luck!

When judging LD debate, first and foremost, I expect competitors to be respectful of each other.  When you speak, please enunciate, and I would prefer that you not speak too quickly.  Not following this paradigm makes it difficult for me to follow your arguments, and I want to be sure to get the critical points of your cases in my notes so that I can make a solid decision.  I do not have a preference for on or off the clock roadmaps, but I do want you to include them when you are speaking.  Additionally, please be sure to signpost throughout your speeches. Please address the value-value-criterion clash, and provide voters at the end of the debate.  Finally, please weigh the impacts. 

I am a parent judge, who has some experience judging public forum rounds. I like a few things in a speaker.

For the First Speaker:

When presenting your case to me, I would like you to speak clearly and slowly. If you start speaking too fast, I'll stop flowing. Make sure that you're emphasizing what contention you're on and organize your case by subpoints, making it easier for me to flow your case.

For the Second Speaker:

When you are rebutting your opponent's case, make sure that you tell me what on their case you are responding to, and I would prefer you to go down the flow. If you do something else, tell me in an off time roadmap. Also, clash is very important in a round so I would like to see a lot of it from you.

During your final focus, I would like to hear Impact calc and why you win the round. Your impacts should be resolutional. Also tell me the reasons why you should win.

Cross Ex:

I want you to be respectful to your opponent. I don't care about where you're facing, either me or your opponent. During Grand CX, teams can either stand up or sit down.

• Hi everyone! My name is Pavani Boddupalli and I am a speech and debate parent from Illinois!

Congress:

• Congressional Debate is a debate event not a speech event so I want to see good refutations and good evidence.
• I want to hear good speaking and eye contact
• Make sure whatever you say is nuance and relevant to the round
• Have some fun! Be kind and respectful because if you enjoy your round, the judges will too!

I am a typical PF judge. No real paradigm since PF is not plan or value driven. I like to see well developed arguments and effective speaking. I will listen to any argument as long as it is reasonable.

Hello. I am the parent of a student in Congressional Debate. I prefer quality over quantity. A speaker who gives one great speech will always rank above one who gives 2 mediocre speeches. Moreover, please respect one-another. While Congressional Debate is a debate event and clash between competitors, in speeches and questioning, is encouraged, please not that there is a line. Please speak at a normal pace and DO NOT SPREAD. I can only judge what I can clearly hear and thus, please speak clearly. As for the Presiding Officer, I will normally rank the presiding officer in the top 5 if they run a fast, fair, and efficient chamber with minimal or minor hiccups during the round. PLEASE NOTE, a PO may fall down my ranking if they should preference towards a specific individual to a certain school. Otherwise, just be respectful and have a good debate.

I am a very traditional judge with many years of coaching experience. I am not a fan of speed, and I prefer traditional arguments. That is my preference; it does not mean that I won't listen to the arguments made and weigh the evidence.

I am a policy maker and want to follow the argumentation and see the flow of the debate clearly. I can't outweigh one side over another if I don't know why I should because the argument itself was either made too quickly to catch or does not have a clear link. What I do want to hear is the Plan and any counter-plans the Neg offers; I need to see how and why the policy works/outweighs, etc.

I do not want to be included on an email chain, but for the sake of time, you may go ahead and do so. The email address is bonnie.bonnette@fortbendisd.com. First of all, I think that makes tournaments run very long; second, I want to SEE the flow of the debate. If I don't hear you say it and don't flow it, it doesn't count. However, just because I don't want that doesn't mean I will refuse the evidence. I will accept the email and read the shared evidence. No flash drives, however, please.

I rarely vote on Topicality arguments, and I don't like the Neg strategy of throwing out half a dozen arguments to see which one or two will actually "stick". I would rather hear a full development of two or three off-case arguments that clearly apply to the topic and to the Affirmative case. Kritiks are okay as long as they are not "off the wall" arguments. I said that I rarely vote on Topicality, but I have done so in the past.

i have been judging CX for over twenty years. Please don't treat me like I am stupid, but also don't assume I can (or will) judge like the college kids do.

Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at NSU University School

Last Update: November 2023---Thoughts on "Disclosure" and "Evidence Ethics" in PF added.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1---Big Picture

Please put me on the e-mail chain.

Policy--- uschoolpolicy@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

Public Forum--- uschoolpf@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

I actively coach and research policy and public forum debate. I enjoy technical, organized debates. I don’t think I have particularly controversial views, but have tried to be thorough where it matters for prefs/pre-round prep.

Policy vs. K---An argument is an argument, assuming it’s complete, warranted, and applicable.

Tech vs. Truth---Tech obviously informs truth, but if I have to decide between intuitive and well-explained arguments vs. terrible evidence, I’ll choose the former. There are few things I won’t vote on, but “death good” is among them.

Offense vs. Defense---This is a helpful paradigm for assessing relative risk, but risk can be reduced to zero.

2---General Practices

Speed---Go for it, but at the higher end you should scale back slightly. I flow on a computer without much shorthand.

Evidence---I read it during debates. When referenced in CX, I’ll likely go to it. Quality is in the back of my mind, consciously or not.

Re-Highlighting---If small, I don’t think you need to re-read in speech. Don’t expect me to read a giant card to figure out if you’re right.

Digital Debate---Make sure everyone is present with confirmation before starting. Be reasonable about tech issues, as I will track tech time. If there are major issues, I’ll default to tournament procedures.

Decorum---Sass, snark, or shade are fine within reason. I’m not a good judge for hostile approaches, e.g. interrupting speeches.

“New” Arguments---The more late-breaking, the more open I am to responses. “Late-breaking” is relative to me catching the initial argument. Happy to strike 1AR/2NR arguments rightly flagged as “too new.”

Alternative Practices---I’m here to flow and judge a debate, awarding a single win. If you’re trying to do something different, I’m not the judge for you.

3---T vs. Plans

“Competing Interpretations”---This makes more intuitive sense to me than “reasonability,” but that's often because the latter isn't explained as a frame. Affs are still better off prioritizing offense.

"Fiscal Redistribution" Specifics---I was not at camp this summer, and at this point in the season still do not have strong views on most of the debated T issues like “FR = tax and transfer” or “FJ = no subsets.” From grad school studying health policy, "Social Security can be turned into single-payer health insurance" seems a bit absurd, but I’ll let evidence dictate decisions.

4---T vs. K Affs

Frustrations---These debates are often two ships passing in the night due to reliance on pre-written blocks. Please make judges lives easier by:

A---Have a robust defense of your model of debate, including roles for teams/judge, examples of how debates play out, net-benefits, etc.

B---Pick and choose your offense and compare it with what the other team has actually said.

"Affirmation"---At a bare minimum, affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic and “affirm” a clear advocacy. I am not sympathetic to purely negative arguments/diagnoses of power relations.

"Debate is a Game" vs. "Subject Formation"----Debate is a complicated space that's competitive, academic, and personal space. Arguments that assume it’s only one seem a bit shallow. Offense can be made assuming all three.

Terminal Impacts---“Fairness” or “clash” can be terminal impacts, though often teams don’t seem to explain why.

"Truth Testing"---I am less persuaded by these arguments because all argumentation seems to rely on some outside/unstated assumptions. I can certainly be persuaded that the structure of debate warps content and that could be a reason for skepticism.

"TVAs"---The 2NR needs to explain what offense they think the TVA resolves instead of expecting me to figure it out.

"T = [X Violent Practice]"---Feel free to impact turn the resulting curriculum, models, debates, etc. of an interpretation of debate, but its difficult to convince me reading an argument about the topic of discussion is analogical to policing/"stop and frisk"/"drone strikes"/other material violence.

5---Kritiks

Framework---I don't get middle grounds by default. I will resolve this debate one way or the other based on what is said, and then determine what remaining arguments count as offense.

Uniqueness---The alt needs to resolve each link, or have some larger reason that’s not relevant, e.g. framework. Affs are often in a better spot pressing poorly explained alternatives/links.

Competition---I presume affs can test mutual exclusivity of alts, whether against a “plan” or “advocacy.” Feel free to argue different standards of competition. The less the aff outlines a clear method, the more I’m persuaded by “no plan, no perm.”

Perm Texts---They are great. This can be difficult when alts are amorphous, but 1AR/2AR explanation needs to rise above “do both.”

6---Counterplans

Judge Kicking---If you want me to explicitly consider multiple worlds post-2NR, e.g. both CP vs. aff and/or status quo vs. aff, make an explicit argument. Saying the words “the status quo is always an option” in CX is not enough for me.

Theory vs. Literature---Topic literature helps dictate what you can persuade me is reasonable. If your only basis for competition is a definition of “resolved”/“should” and a random law review, good luck. If you have evidence contextual to a topic area and a clear explanation of functional differences in implementation, I’m far easier to persuade.

Solvency Advocates---CPs should have solvency advocates of “comparable quality” to the 1AC. If your Advantage CP plank cites 1AC evidence, go for it. If you’re making something up, provide a card. If you’re trying to make card-less “Con Con” a thing, I’m a hard sell.

Intrinsicness---Both the aff/neg need to get better at debating intrinsic/“other issues” perms. I'm an easier sell than others that these obviate many of the sillier CPs.

7---Disadvantages

Framing---It's everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Internal Links > Impacts---I find most "DA Turns the Case" / "Case Turns the DA" debates don't spend enough time on causation or timing.

Politics Theory---Most 2AC theory blips against Politics DAs aren’t complete arguments, e.g. “fiat solves the link” or "a logical policymaker could do both." Still, intrinsicness arguments against DAs are underutilized.

8---Theory

Conditionality---It’s difficult to convince me some conditionality isn’t necessary for the neg to be viable. Things can certainly change based on substantive contradictions or quantity. Negs should be clear under what conditions, if any, they can kick individual CP planks.

Other Theory Issues---It’s difficult to persuade me that most theoretical objections to CPs or perms are reasons to reject the team.

“Tricks”/“Spikes”---Please no.

9---Public Forum Specifics

I am not a "lay"/"flay" judge.

A few views of mine may be idiosyncrasies:

Paraphrasing---I’m convinced this is a harmful practice that hides evidence from scrutiny. Evidence should be presented in full context with compete citations in real time. That means:

A---Author, Date, Title, URL

B---Complete paragraphs for excerpts

C---Underlining and/or highlighting indicating what is referenced.

D---Sending evidence you intend to read to opponents before the speech is delivered.

Purely paraphrased evidence compared to a team reading cut cards will be treated as baseless opinions.

Line-by-Line

A---You need to answer arguments in a coherent order based on when/where they were introduced.

B---You need to extend complete arguments, with warrants, in later speeches. If not in summary, it’s too late to bring back from the dead in final focus.

If neither side seems to be doing the needed work, expect me to intervene.

Disclosure---I generally think disclosure is beneficial for the activity, which is why our program open sources. However, I am not as dogmatic about disclosure when judging. It is difficult to convince me "disclosure in its entirety is bad," but the recent trend seems to be shifting interpretations that are increasingly difficult to meet.

Absent egregious lack of disclosure/mis-disclosure, I am not the best judge for increasingly demanding interpretations if opponents have made a good faith effort to disclose. For example, if a team forgot to disclose cites/round report for a single round, but is otherwise actively disclosing, it is difficult to convince me that a single mistake is a punishable offense.

While I don't want to prescribe what I think standard disclosure should be and would rather folks debate the specifics, I am an easier sell than others on some things:

A---The quality of debates is better when students know what arguments have been read in the past. This seems more important than claims that lack of disclosure encourages "thinking on your feet."

B---Debaters should provide tags/citations of previously read contentions. A doc with a giant wall of text and no coherent tags or labels is not meaningful disclosure.

C---Round reports don't seem nearly as important as other forms of disclosure.

Evidence Ethics---Evidence issues are getting egregious in PF. However, I also do not like some of the trends for how these debates are handled.

A---NSDA Rules---If an evidence challenge is invoked, I will stop the debate, inform the team issuing the challenge that the entire debate will hinge on the result of evaluating that challenge, and then consult both the NSDA rules and any tournament specific procedures to adjudicate the challenge. Questions of evidence ethics cannot be just "theory" or "off-case" arguments.

B---"Spirit" of Rules vs. Cheap Shots---I admittedly have idiosyncracies on specific issues, but if they come up will do my best to enforce the exact wording of NSDA rules.

i---"Straw" arguments where the cut section clearly does not represent the rest of the article, ellipses out of major sections, bracketing that changes the meaning of an article (including adding context/references the author didn't intend), and fabrication are easy to convince me are round-enders.

ii----A single broken URL, a card that was copy and pasted from a backfile incorrectly so the last sentence accidentally cut off a couple words, and other minor infractions do not seem worth ending a round over, but it's up for debate.

iii---Not being able to produce the original full text of a card quickly seems like a reason to reject a piece of evidence given NSDA wordings, though I worry this discourages the cutting of books which are harder to provide access to quickly during debates.

I prefer clarity over speed.

I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North HS. I was an NDT/CEDA debater at Wichita State University (2012) and a graduate assistant at the University of Kansas. I have taught camp at Michigan or Kansas every year since I graduated. I typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pf/ld/speech.

email: brianbox4 @ gmail dot com - do not stop prep until you hit send on the email.

I really, really enjoy judging good debates. I really, really dislike judging debates that take two hours, lack clash and mostly involve unclearly reading a document into the screen. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. Good debate good, bad debate bad. I will vote for any argument you win.

Ultimately, the debate is not about me, and I will do my best to evaluate whichever strategy you pursue, but I am very bored by negative strategies that do not demonstrate an undesirable effect of the affirmative. There is a time and a place for most strategies, and I firmly believe there is no one right way to debate, but I wish more of the debates I judged were about core topic arguments and less about non-competitive counterplans (obviously debatable), generic critiques of fiat, poorly supported politics disads, ridiculous impact turns, etc.

I have found that 99% of high school debates are such clear technical victories that my argument specific thoughts aren't terribly relevant. As such, I want to emphasize a few points that are important for debating in front of me.

Points of emphasis - adhere to each of these and your speaker points will be no lower than a 29.

1. Clarity. Many of the debates I judge mumble and slur the text of evidence, and the transitions between arguments are difficult to follow. If I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" once. If I have to say it a second time, I will reduce your speaker points by a full point. If I have to say it a third time, I will stop flowing your speech.

2. Refutation. If you use your flow to identify the argument you are answering, read evidence with purpose and speak clearly while you do it, the floor for your speaker points will be a 29. If you start the timer and read straight down without saying which argument you are answering or how to apply your evidence, the ceiling for your speaker points will be a 27. Scouring the flow to fit the pieces together IS judge intervention.

3. Highlighting. I will completely ignore evidence that is highlighted nonsensically. The threshold is obviously subjective, so if you are of the school of thought that you should intentionally highlight your evidence poorly to force the judge to read the unhighlighted text on their own, I am not a good judge for you.

4. Flowing. If you aren't flowing the debate, I won't flow your speech.

5. Meaning of the plan. If asked to clarify the meaning of the plan in CX, you need to answer. The way you choose to answer is up to you, but If your plan is the resolution + one word, be prepared explain what it does. If you do not, I will A. automatically assume the negative CP competes or DA links (based on the part of the plan in question) and B. The burden for what the negative has to do to win a vagueness procedural or solvency argument becomes exceedingly low.

6. Prompting. Each speaker should give one constructive and one rebuttal. You are permitted to prompt your partner once per speech. Additional interruptions will result in a full speaker point deduction and the arguments being ignored.

7. CX. Each partner must ask questions in one CX and answer questions in one CX. You are permitted to ask or answer one question in a CX to which you are not assigned. Additional instances will result in a full speaker point deduction and the questions/answers being ignored.

Other things to know

Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. The application of meaningful author indicts/epistemic arguments about evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore poorly supported arguments.

I cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is. I can't believe how often I see judges transcribing the speech document. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. Reading directly into the screen at top speed - no matter how clear you are - is nearly impossible for me to understand.

Go for theory? I will never be the judge who views all sides of any theory debate to be equal, but am far more likely than I once was to vote for an argument about the scope of negative fiat. I am more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often. Conditionality is good. Judge kick is my default.

The link matters the most.The first thing I look at is the link. When in conflict, it is more important to contest the link than the impact.

CX is huge. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy from debaters who have practiced reading unclearly as fast as possible. I don't flow CX, but I am very attentive and you should treat me like a lay judge because these moments will be impactful.

HELLO!!!!
I am a fairly new judge to debate.

I expect RESPECTFUL debate...the minute you get an edge to you and become aggressive toward the other team...I shut off and will cast my vote for the other team. It is SO IMPORTANT that we have a respectful exchange of ideas and debate those accordingly. I do expect there to be a clash of ideas...just not a clash of personality. Questioning is important.

I enjoy strong connection to your material and expect you to provide strong reasoning and support for the points you are bringing to the table. If you have to spell it out for me, please do so. Be meticulous in how you explain things for me so that I can follow what you are saying. ORGANIZATION to your delivery is the key.

Speed: I am NOT a fan of spreading so do NOT do it.

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.

I LOVE terrific cross-examination!!!

For all debate- I will pick a winner based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. When judging communication, I take into account speaking pace, clarity of delivery, and organization.

For LD speed is fine, but share your case. I will only flow what I hear, I will not make inferences. The debaters should tell me how to judge and what to judge then I will vote based on offense/clash. No trick cases, it's a value debate so your framework should reflect that.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Speed:

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

Framework:

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

Contentions:

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

Voters:

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

Extemp:

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

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

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

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

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

I am fine with a healthy pace, but don't like a full on scream-and-gasp, stomping spread; I like to be able to actually process what you say. Be sure to emphasize key points and signpost. (If I don't flow it, it is unlikely that I will vote off of it). I like to hear authors' credentials and heavily frown upon power-tagging and heavy paraphrasing. Don't tell me, "I have a card that says..." unless you actually read the card and citation. I want to hear actual application of evidence/analysis through the round (not just shells/blocks), so explain to me how you actually interact with the opposing side or I will get frustrated as judge. Weigh impacts and pull them through framework; I overwhelmingly vote on offense that supports framework. Rudeness and condescension will do you no favors for speaks. Note (for what it's worth): I am a former policy debater and interper from a traditional circuit (competed in high school and college) and have been coaching LD, PF, Congress, and speech events across multiple circuits for years and judge all events. Please avoid confusing traditional with lay, as I'm fine with debate jargon, etc. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.

email for chain: brandtaimee@gmail.com

Overview: I'm a 2nd year assistant coach @ Garden City High School in SW Kansas. My day job is as a physics teacher. I did not debate in high school but I did debate (policy) for a short time in college before the fact that many of the classes I was taking had a lot of required lab hours got in the way. I will absolutely flow the round.

Arguments: Generally, debate how you want to debate. I think that the best debates happen when debaters are doing their thing, whatever your thing happens to be. But if you want me to evaluate the debate in a particular way, make sure you lay it out for me what that is and why. I don't mind any types of arguments... topicality, counterplans, Ks, whatever. State it clearly and lay it out for me because, while I try to be a person who thinks about things critically and is aware of many arguments/points of view/schools of thought, I may not always be super informed about whatever argument you're attempting to make. Especially with Ks, you probably shouldn't assume I know your literature base. Debate is a persuasive activity anyway, so I feel it's important that you be able to tell me why an argument is meaningful and should persuade me. That goes for things like k/non-topical affs as well -- I am willing to vote for them and have voted for them in the past, but I think it is important that why I should be willing to go outside the resolution is spelled out within the debate.

Speed: I can handle a relatively speedy debate. If I have to put a number on it, I'd say an 8 out of 10 speed is fine with me. But I have to be able to understand what you're saying, so feel free to speak as quickly as you'd like as long as you're understandable at that speed. It's a speaking activity and you're trying to persuade me of something, so I have to be able to follow. Speech docs help. Making sure your tags are clear also helps. Speed over Zoom is harder -- if you are pretty fast and it is a virtual debate it will probably be helpful if you slow down a bit. Please know that I basically always think that a good team who doesn't spread is more impressive than a good team who does, because the non-spreading team is having to make smarter choices about their arguments since they can't fit as many words into the speech time.

Other Stuff:

*** Stealing prep bothers me (I don't want to be part of the reason things run late). Sending your speech doc to your partner is part of prep time -- otherwise they can open it up at the beginning of your speech from the speechdrop or wherever just like anyone else in the round.

*** Remember that the more work you're asking me as the judge to do during the debate, the more likely I am to miss things and maybe not evaluate the debate in the way you personally wish I would. There are two aspects to that: 1) if I am all over my flow looking for where to put an argument because you didn't tell me where it should apply to, some of my brain is getting used on that instead of listening, so I might accidentally miss something; and 2) if you don't explicitly give me ways to evaluate the debate then I have to do that in the ways that I think make the most sense, which might not line up with what you wish I'd do.

*** Be good people. :)

Content warnings are appreciated when appropriate.

Teasers should set the mood for the piece and not be too lengthy.

Intros need to continue to prepare the audience for the piece by setting the appropriate tone as well as to give important exposition. A sharp or clever intro that is well constructed can be the determining factor in scoring among two equally done pieces.

Blocking and movement should be clear, well defined, and motivated. Clever or creative staging is appreciated. Unclear or unspecific pantomime, upstaging, or weird angles that prevent seeing the actor's faces should be avoided.

Characterization should be consistent and easy to follow if performing multiple characters. Pops should be clean. Vocal characterization should be suggestive of the character and not an opportunity to showcase cartoon voices/cliche characters (the surfer, the New Yorker, the Brit, the Aussie, etc.) unless warranted by the script/story.

The binder is NOT a prop other than in POI. Movement below the waist (steps) should be clear and motivated as well as minimal.

Author's Intent and/or Appropriateness of Literature- How do I feel about an HI of Miracle Worker (author's intent) or a student performing mature material (appropriateness)? That's a big NO for me if it's offensive more than it is creative. (Miracle Worker as an HI, or The Lovely Bones, or anything like that is offensive to me. The topics in those pieces aren't meant to be funny and do go against the author's intent.) Mature content if it's handled well and suits the piece doesn't bother me- if it's excessive or for shock value, then I may not like it. It really depends on the piece and the performer; I'm not really conservative but I've seen some material that I definitely wouldn't coach or have ranked down because I felt like it was too much.

For Speech Events OO/INFO– I love that Orator’s Triangle! It helps me follow the structure of your speech. I weigh the written speech (construction/logic/novelty/grammar/humor) equally with the presentation of the speech. I personally don’t like laminated stuff on Info boards (because of the glare.) I loooove creative/inventive Info props!

Howdy! My name is Linnea Brashears, and I am a current student at Texas A&M University in College Station, TX. I graduated from Veterans Memorial High School in Corpus Christi in May of 2020. I was very active in TFA Speech and Debate tournaments, and competed all four years in Interpretation and Speech events! As a judge, I recognize implicit bias, and it will never influence the result of a round.

For Interp Events (including PO, PR, POI, HI, DI, DUO, DUET) I request that:

The speakers utilize strong, memorized, and captivating intros, after a preview of their pieces. Binder work should be clean, and choreography/transitions should be crisp! I'll be looking for authentic presentations and realism in pantomime. I want to feel what your characters are telling me they are feeling!

For Speech Events (including INFO, OO, FX, NX, DX) I request that:

The speakers utilize strong, supported, and captivating intros that are well memorized and are relative to the speech being presented. As a judge preference, I like when speakers utilize the orator's triangle, however, it is not totally necessary. Transitions and intro sentences to each topic should be relevant, and the organization of the speech is very important! I also look for creativity and originality within topics. Remind the audience of the significance of your speech frequently. Visual aids should be neat, necessary, relevant, and should only aid the audience in understanding the speech.

For Debate Events (LD, CX, PF, BQ):

Speakers do not spread and I would always appreciate an off-time roadmap. I like to see good sportsmanship. It is debate, not an argument. Lay judge

I look forward to seeing your talents!

About me: I'm Mr. Bravim (pronounced brah-veem). 25 yrs. in speech & debate. Competed, judged, and coached all over (e.g. FL, D.C., Korea, China, Uganda).

Email: bravim@cghsfl.org

* Big Questions

No preference between real-world and philosophical evidence, but a combination is powerful! I like framing. I like big picture analysis. I like extended warrants. Pointed questioning and strong topic knowledge impress me a lot and should help you win a ballot in a close round.

Most of my experience judging BQ was in 2020 when Nationals was online. I approach BQ like a less flow-centric traditional LD round and the person who most clearly frames and resolves the "big question" will win the round, regardless of the flow. Each debater should aim to do that. I like this event and love the current topic. I wish BQ Debate were more mainstream outside of NSDA Nationals. FYI: I have above average knowledge on world religion and the history of science, but I will only use what you tell me in round.

* LD Prefs

I'm best at adjudicating traditional LD rounds. However, I will consider any warranted argument presented in round. Please weigh clearly and effectively and lay out the big issues in the round/voters. Tell me the clearest path to the ballot! I do not want to intervene. I find a quality framework debate/clash VERY interesting. If it's getting debate on fw is circular and/or the differentiation is minimal, go for something else.

Slow down on card tags, warrants, weighing, and voters. If the framework clash is a wash, I'll default to evaluating contention-level offense via the weighing analysis given to me at the end of the round. If I don't understand what you're talking about (speed, lack of clarity, lack of explanation, or warrants), there is NO CHANCE I'll vote off it. Thus, explain the argument/warrants not only in case, but throughout the round if you want me to vote off of it.

Spend time contextualizing your card/s if you're relying on it to win the round. Even if it was already done in your constructive, it's a good habit to cover it thoroughly a 2nd time in case I missed something.

Don't drop warrants in your extensions. I may not have gotten it in case and even if I did, I like to be reminded. Will not evaluate any argument in which the warrant is missing or unclear.

--<< Logos / Ethos / Pathos >>-- (please don't forget that all three are part of good debate)

Above all else, I favor clash and the resolution of clash by debaters with good overviews, weighing, and depth of topic knowledge.

In order of preference:

1.) Trad/lay 2.) Plan/CPs 3.) Ks 4.) Theory

I find most theory debates dull, but will listen to them if that's what you want to do. I've voted off theory maybe 4 times and I've judged a lot of LD rounds. I prefer you try to win anywhere else unless there is a flagrant, obvious, and clear violation of the tournament rules or NSDA rules. Above all, the quality of argument matters more to me than the style of debate. I don't mind some speed used strategically, but please don't spread throughout the round. I'd much rather you win one good argument on the flow and weigh than 10 smaller ones that I struggle to follow because of speed/clarity issues.

* PF Prefs

Overview: I remember the reasons PF was introduced as an event in 2002. I believe the spirit of PF necessitates a less technical, but ultimately more persuasive debate activity than policy or circuit LD. The idea that hyper-technical arguments would be advanced knowing the opponents will have problems even understanding what the argument is about is abhorrent to me. This ultimately lacks both in educational value and fairness. That said, I understand any event will evolve over 22 years and there are going to be different ways to gain in round advantage. I think running Ks, theory, and spreading should not be the norm in Public Forum. I think topical arguments with really good warrants and evidence are the best path for PF debaters. I think the round should be educational and accessible for teams, judges, and any observer who wishes to spectate the round. The notion that the only "good" debate is nat circuit-oriented is not only arrogant, but also wrong. I've witnessed 1,000+ debate rounds and seen poor argumentation all over the place.

I favor a lot of clash, well-developed links analysis, and an aggressive style of debate. Indicting evidence with quality arguments on why it matters in the context of the round impresses me. I enjoy pointed crossfire and will flow concessions and hold teams to them. Warrant everything. DO NOT DROP WARRANTS in your extensions. In PF, remind me of the big picture from summary onward.

Keep a consistent link story on your offense. If you have a particular lens (framework, observation, etc.) in which I should view the resolution, make sure it is well-warranted and extend throughout the round. I like clear framing mechanisms. I prefer a smaller # of voters (1 - 3) to many poorly-explained voters in FF. Weigh or risk judge intervention (I don't want to do it). You can't win on the flow if you don't tell me why the arguments matter by the end of the round.

On Speed: Moderate, occasional, and strategic use of speed in PF is OK if the other team + allthe judges can follow you. Never sacrifice clarity for speed. Don't bully your opponent with speed. That is not why PF was created. The vast majority of your speech should be understood by an ordinary person with no background in debate if you're doing it right. I much rather teams win 1 significant argument over a bunch of smaller, less-developed arguments on the flow. I dislike spreading in any debate event, but most especially in PF.

Evidence comparison is critical and a good way to impress. Please make warranted arguments why I should prefer your card over your opponent's card. There are many ways to accomplish this, I'll consider any of them so long as they make sense. FYI: One relevant, high-quality card is often better than 2 - 3 generic cards that are not contextualized. Extend card tags on every speech. Knowing your evidence really well and explaining it really well in round all but guarantees high speaks.

On theory: I've heard my share of theory arguments and find the majority of those rounds dull and the arguments thin. I much rather you win on something else, but will listen if this is your thing. : (

You can go line-by-line or be more analytical. Anything that is unclear will not get extended or weighed on the flow. Never forget that debate is foremost a PERSUASIVE activity. If you cannot persuade the average person with your case, you aren’t debating effectively. Ways to impress me as a judge: 1. Depth of Analysis, 2. Topic Knowledge, 3. Effective Advocacy, and 4. Clear Narrative. I value meaningful cross much more than most judges.

A pet peeve of mine in PF is summary treated as a 2nd rebuttal speech. That is not the point of summary! Show me the most important issues and why they favor your side, we already had 2 rebuttal speeches and summary is more than a shortened rebuttal.

--<< Logos / Ethos / Pathos >>-- (please don't forget that all 3 are part of effective argumentation)

* Congress Prefs

I despise 1-sided debate. If there's no one left on the other side, call the previous question, table the bill, or deliver an impromptu/extemp speech on the other side. If I hear the same exact points made without specific references to the arguments presented by the other side, points will be low.

I love clash in congress. I like pointed, direct questioning. I'm impressed by tactical use of parliamentary procedure. I value the role of the P.O. more than most. Don't be shy about running for P.O. If you're good at it, do it and I'll rank you fairly!

Critical evidence comparison & strong topic knowledge impress me a lot. Creative and/or funny intros make me happy.

PET PEEVES

1. Taking too long to set up for debate. (Be prepared, be punctual, be professional)

2. Taking too long to pull a called card from case (after 1 min. if the card doesn’t exist, drop the arg.)

3. Doc bots.

4. Boring me. Some have forgotten that there is a performance aspect to ALL debate events and that if you seem apathetic, I will care less about your argument if you don't appear to care about it. If you want me to vote for your argument, make the attempt to seem like you care about whatever you're running. You chose to run that. It's your baby.

Note: I don't disclose speaker points. Don't ask. I will disclose my decision if the tournament is single-flighted. If rounds are double-flighted, I will not disclose for the sake of time, but will publish my ballot.

FOR FUN

I <3 multivolume narrative nonfiction, dystopian & post-apocalyptic fiction, retro video games (mostly fighters), boxing, soccer, and cats. If you're bored at a tournament and have an interest in any of that stuff, come say hi! : )

Academic Interests:

I teach AP World History, AP European History, and AP Microeconomics on the high school level. I teach various business courses at the university level.

Topics in which I have some specialized knowledge include: world religion, modern history, organizational culture, business management, and law.

Good luck to all!

I expect debaters to be courteous to each other and to me, period.

If the following doesn't cover it, oh well!.

Things that don't matter: you don't need to shake my hand. I don't require trigger warnings. I do not want to be included on chains.

Overall judging paradigm across events: I am a non-interventionist as much as possible. I evaluate what you do in round.

I will judge off the flow: I take lots of notes on paper. Weigh early and often, crystallize voters. I do not link, turn, or extend for you, so just naming an argument will not win. If your opponent drops a contention, state that for me. If you don't state it, I think you missed it.

Spreading: Spreading is not the problem, clarity is. If I can't understand you, your argument never happened. If you choose to, keep it only in the constructive speeches. Despite current trends, this is a educational speaking competition, which spreading doesn't necessarily support.

Standing: I expect you to stand when speaking, unless it is GCF or the last round of the night.

Cards: cite your evidence effectively. Be ready if I call for cards at the end of the round.

Don't just read a lot of cards and expect the win. A huge yes to actually debating, have direct clash (without being rude or talking over someone), with well-developed argumentation. Time yourself, I also keep time.

Lincoln Douglas: I am a traditional LD judge, and I do not like the progressive trends.

Public Forum: convince me. Con going first annoys me and will probably lose the round for you.

I don't disclose. I don't disclose speaks, and I usually do not give 30 points.

Interp paradigm: I was recently requested to add this to my judging paradigm. I expect to see advocacy in your piece. Make me believe you are your character in your DI. Humor me in HI, but the best pieces have a message of some kind. Duo is my favorite event, make it magical, whether dramatic or humorous.

Debate is an exercise in careful preparation, astute listening, and thoughtful, organized speaking. Debaters who excel in all three of these areas win their rounds. When I judge an LD debate, I am listening for:

1. A thorough knowledge of the issues touched by the resolution including factors that complicate both the affirmative and the negative side.

2. An ability to listen carefully to one's intellectual opponent and note weaknesses in their arguments while avoiding broadsides or non-sequiturs that make clear that they have not actually heard their opponent (or don't mind misrepresenting their arguments).

3. A capacity to effectively use reason and rhetoric to build an organized, logical argument that clarifies the issues even as it respects complexity and nuance.

Finally, I tend to reward debaters who demonstrate respect for their intellectual opponent even while carefully and thoroughly critiquing their arguments.

I've been apart of the speech and debate community for 22 years and have literally judges every speech and debate event at every level of competition. Many moons ago, I was trained a "traditional LDer" where persuasion was valued above all else (this was before computers in debate). Over the years, I have been trending towards progressive debate. I will gladly listen to critical literature, theory arguments, and anything that you believe to be relevant to the round. Do not assume that I will correctly apply your arguments. Tell me where to flow them and why they are important to this particular round.

Over the last decade, I have been running tournaments more often than I have been in the judging pool, including this year, so I am a bit out of practice when it comes to spreading. If you wish to spread, please include me in the email chain so that I can follow along.

Do not be afraid to ask me any questions prior to the debate so that I can clarify my paradigm.

kylebrenner@protonmail.com

Please do not "spread" during rounds. I would like to hear your arguments clearly and precisely.

cjbriggs001@gmail.com

I am a Two Diamond Coach with 14 years of coaching experience and am the 2020 NSDA Educator of the Year.

I approach most rounds with a tabula rasa mind set. However, I tend to favor traditional approaches to arguments. I want to see debates about the topics, not debates about the rules of debate.

With Policy rounds, in general, its not about the number of cards you read, its about whether or not you can share the analysis/synthesis of those cards in context to the round. Some speed is fine, but I don't see a place for all-out spreading & will stop tracking the flow if your speech becomes incomprehensible. Policy is about making informed decisions, not about who can read the fastest.

When it comes to LD, the value and value criteria matter & contentions should support/prove the weight of your v/vc. Impact analysis is crucial.

In PF, I want to see a round that evaluates various entry points to the topic & values the things that makes PF unique from the other debate events. I prefer not to see PF turned into a watered down version of policy.

For BQ, I prefer rounds that include evidence based claims and assertions. Definitions debates are great, but make sure you explain WHY your definition should be accepted and preferred.

Generally, I like those who respect the confines of the given resolutions while also thinking outside the box. I expect competitors to be civil and kind to one another- even when things get tense. Arguments/comments should be about the round, not about the opponents abilities.

If you have other questions, please ask before the round starts.

Debate paradigm:

For all formats, I focus on solid argumentation and skillful use of rhetoric. Framework is important to me. Tell me how you plan to win your argument and follow through. I do not usually favor competitors who try avoiding the topic by focusing on loosely connected tangents or technicalities. When giving voters, I do not enjoy hearing a list of individual points won. Instead, I favor big-picture summaries of what you have accomplished in the debate focused on how each individual argument supports your side of the resolution. Avoid the over-use of debate-specific terms, like which points "flow through". You should be able to tell me in lay terminology how you've won this debate. Especially be careful of claiming your opponent "dropped your case" or similar claims. If you claim this and it isn't true, this will affect my decision.

Speak clearly and with sufficient volume that I do not need to guess what you said. Courtesy towards your opponent is important to me. You should be able to argue without resorting to name-calling or caustic accusations. Communication skills matter as well. If I feel opponents are rhetorically matched, nonverbal and vocal communication skills may break the tie for me.

Most of all, I hope you all feel comfortable with me as your judge enough to enjoy the competition. Please know that if you have any concerns or questions, I will happily listen and help you in any way that I can. If you have preferred pronouns or other needs, don't hesitate to let me know. I want to treat you with courtesy, too!

Format-specific paradigms:

Lincoln Douglas:

Value and criterion debate are crucial. I will heavily consider those competitors who successfully advocate their value and criterion over their opponent’s. One can lose the flow but win the value/criterion debate and still win the round.

I only partially flow, and I only judge partially based on the flow. A dropped argument is still considered poor argumentation to me, but not all arguments carry the same weight, and just because a contention is glossed over does not mean the entire debate was lost. I will expect more rhetorically sound, evidence-based contentions to be the priority.

Some competitors try adapting strategies from other debate formats to LD, such as running kritik or spreading. I do not favor such strategies. I focus on the moral argumentation, on rhetorically sound argumentation of the assigned topic, and on clear, professional communication skills.

I am a lay judge with no experience actually debating. As the purpose of a debate is to convince the audience of your position, I look for strong arguments that are well developed and defended and in the end the best argued opinion will win. Additionally, when you present evidence put it in context and tell me why I should believe this evidence over that presented by your opponent.

What are your stylistic preferences for extemp? How much evidence do you prefer? Any preference for virtual delivery?

It's important that the extemp format is followed. I would prefer there be a min. of 2 sources per point. I prefer an AG that you can tie back to during each transition.

What are your stylistic preferences for Oratory/Info? How much evidence do you prefer?

Much like extemp at least 2-3 sources per point. I like the intro to be tied into the subject and your transitions link back to your AG.

Any unique thoughts on teasers/introductions for Interpretation events?

I love teasers! Make sure you intro truly introduce your piece and it isn't too long

Any preferences with respect to blocking, movement, etc.?

I prefer there to be lots of movement and blocking. Help me visualize where you are and who you are talking to.

How do you feel about author's intent and appropriateness of a piece? For example: an HI of Miracle Worker (author's intent) or a student performing mature material or using curse words (appropriateness)?

I'm not ok with vulgar pieces. I am ok with some profanity but not a lot.

WSD Judging

I'm looking for teams who can defend their case and attack their opponents. I expect you to use the proper terms (opp/prop/motions) You will lose points from me if you are rude in anyway. I'm looking for everyone to be good speakers and be able to explain their side in a way that makes sense and convinces me that you should win.

Note: Things that are bolded in my paradigm are things I think people are generally looking for or I think are worth noting about my preferences. Read the bottom for my speaks paradigm; the TLDR paradigm is the third paragraph in this top section. Everything in this paradigm has a logical justification; ask me if something doesn't make sense and I'll be happy to explain.

Intro: Hi I'm Austin. I mainly debated LD in high school, but I'm familiar with most other event formats. I graduated from Northland Christian HS in 2020 and UT Austin in 2022 with a psych major phil minor. I'm currently a 2L at Texas Law. I competed on the local and national circuit all four years of high school (and have been judging/coaching consistently since graduating), so I like to think I'm pretty up to date on the technical nuances of LD. Add me to the chain at abroussard@utexas.edu. Feel free to email me with specific questions before the round or thoughts on how I could improve my paradigm!

TLDR paradigm: I really love highly technical debates especially on a theoretical layer but I'm good with evaluating policy, kritik-al debate, etc.; by nature (even outside of debate) I default erring on the side of the person who is most logically consistent which means I will not vote for you unless you are ahead on a technical level (absent someone proposing an alternative method for me to evaluate by);my opinion on anything in this paradigm can change, just make the proper arg.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

- I default args must be immediately sequential and/or allow for a sequential response ("concessions are true," "new 2nr args permissible," and "new 2ar args impermissible" are some noteworthy implications to this); this is my default because any other standard allows for the 2ar to always win by either answering arguments from the 1nc conceded by the 1ar/extended in the 2nr in the 2ar or by making new 2ar uplayers (i guess this means my actual default is against any paradigmatic stance that theoretically allows either side to win every debate because that defeats the purpose of the ballot/there being an adjudicator); please ask me about this point if there is any confusion before the debate starts (also note this is not a rigid stance, just a default)

- I will NOT make arguments for you because I believe judge intervention is the worst for the activity; consequently if your opponent does something that propels a model of debate that is sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/abelist or something similar I will not drop them unless you mention it. It can be as simple as "they said/did x and that makes debate less accessible so they should lose." Otherwise the only thing I have jurisdiction to do is give them god awful speaks. To clarify if you don't say that they should lose for their discriminatory actions and they are ahead on the tech debate I will vote for them and be very very very sad about it. Please do not make me do this and call them out for being unethical. It's an easy ballot and better for debate.

- i'll evaluate arguments made as to why concessions don't make arguments true, extensions are unnecessary to win arguments, or any other argument you can think of

- I presume neg unless the neg reads an alternative that is farther from the squo than the aff's plan/advocacy (or presume aff/neg args are made, same for permissibility)

- tech>>>truth

- I default comparative worlds but love truth testing

- I will vote on literally anything given the proper framing metric and justification

- you don't have to ask me to flow by ear; I promise I'm both listening and reading your doc (to clarify, I'll catch extemporized blippy analytics)

- I probably default more T>K but that's really up to you

- Weighing makes me happy, as well as a strong fw tie/explanation

- For ethics challenges/evidence ethics calls reference the NSDA guidelines for this year; if the guidebook doesn't make a speaks claim I will either evaluate them myself given the speeches read (if any) or default normal round evaluation (meaning speaks spikes are viable)

- I don't have a default on disclosure at the moment but in debate I defaulted disclosure bad; regardless of my default it doesn't affect my ability to listen to either stance and adjudicate accordingly

- My ability to understand spread/speed is pretty good; feel free to go as fast as you want but please be clear

- Please please please ask your opponent if your practices are accessible before the round so you are 1. not exclusionary and 2. not susceptible to an easily avoidable independent voter; if you don't ask and end up doing something inaccessible you'll probably lose (provided they make it a voting issue); this includes giving trigger warnings

- flex prep is cool

- if you don't read a fw/fw is a wash I'll presume neg (same for voters on t/theory)

- you don't have to ask if I am ready for you to speak; I am probably paying attention (to clarify, default I am ready unless I say something that suggests otherwise)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pt. 1 Pref Shortcuts (by my confidence in my ability to adjudicate and 1 being most confident 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

Phil/High Theory- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

K- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

LARP- 1 to 3 (depending on density)

Pt. 2 Pref Shortcuts (by my desire to see them in round and 1 being most desirable 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1

Phil/High Theory- 1

K- 2

LARP- 3

note: I will be happy to adjudicate LARP it's just not my highest preference

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy

Plans:

- Love these please know what your own plan says though

- I default plans are abusive mainly because I never read one for its PeDaGOgiCaL VaLUe it was always for strategy but don't let this discourage you from reading a plan seriously they're fine

- Honestly severance is cool with me but if they point it out and make a theoretical reason to drop it could be hard to beat back; if they read a condo or dispo CP, however, it becomes a little easier to get out of

- the solvency section is important for plans, if you don't have one it's gonna be rough

- please have an advocate just for the sake of an easier theory debate

Cps:

- These are cool but better if they're actually competitive; read as many as you want just know anything more than 1 is hard to justify theoretically especially if it's not uncondo (although I love multiple cp debates)

- Any cp is cool (including actor, process, etc.) just make sure the 2nr extension is sufficient to vote on

- I default condo bad but don't let that discourage you from utilizing it as I think condo is super strategic (which is good for speaks), you just have to be technically ahead on the theory debate; feel free to read like 8 condo cps just know it's an uphill theoretical battle (but certainly not impossible)

- I default perms as an advocacy because they always seem to be extended as such but it is really up to you

Das:

- Probably my least favorite position because they all seem to go down the same path towards the 2nr, but a good explanation and coupling with a competitive cp makes this position much better

- the more unique the da the more I'll like listening to it (please don't make me listen to a basic three card econ disad unless you don't plan on going for it)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phil/High Theory

General:

- Please do notttt confuse this with basic fw debate

- I used to read a few high theory positions but that doesn't mean my threshold for explanation on those positions is lower/higher than any other argument

- Kant is kool but I'm not a hack

- If the aff doesn't have a fw and the neg strategically reads a fw the aff can't link into, aff is probably losing

- If no one reads a fw I will probably not evaluate any post-fiat implications of either side and just vote on strength of link weighing (if justified)/presumption or a higher layer (i.e. I will NOT default util or sv for you this isn't pf)

- I'm hesitant to say this but I did read a decent amount of Baudrillard just know there is a reason why I stopped lol feel free to still read it though I love hearing it as well as any other high theory author

- I especially love hearing new philosophies that are either obscure or that I just haven't heard of yet; phil debate is one of my favorite parts of ld

- I am more likely to vote on presumption than I am to evaluate strength of link to fw in the instance I cannot decide which model to evaluate under

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kritiks

General:

- K Affs are fun but I am more inclined to err on the side of t-fw as that's what I mostly read and it seems intuitively true; it really depends on the framing metric though and I will definitely vote on a k aff vs t-fw as long as there is sufficient tech offense

- KvK is cool

- poems/music/art/performance can be offense and if you don't respond to it your opponent can extend it as conceded (I have no problem voting on conceded performance offense with the proper framing mech)

Fw:

- should have a ROB and/or ROJ (and the best ones are not blatantly inaccessible to one side)

- if your opponent asks you a specific question about the framing of your kritik and you cannot give them a cohesive answer it's gonna look bad

- if the distinction is unclear between the method the k evaluates by and the aff's you will have a hard time winning

Links:

- please don't read links that you yourself link into

- Having specific rhetoric from the aff itself or your opponent is great and much better than just topic/omission links

- I love seeing the extrapolation of links as linear das in the 2nr

- I am comfortable voting off state/omission links they're just boring

Impacts:

- you must have them and they must be unique; please do weighing as well because k impacts don't always contextualize themselves

Alt:

- explain plz; It doesn't have to be explained super well if your opponent doesn't press the issue but I need to have a basic understanding of what I'm voting on i.e. what the world of the alt looks like (unless a set col type arg is made about imagining the alt being a move to settlerism, etc.)

- Please don't make the alt condo/dispo if your k is about some sort of oppression it looks bad

- do not read two contradictory alts in front of me you will probably lose; if they work well together that's cool

Overviews:

- I LOVE these they make it easier to evaluate the line by line because all the big picture issues are out of the way

- Please make sure the overview is not just line by line in disguise (I was guilty of this) but is instead framing the ways I need to evaluate offense

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

T/Theory/Tricks

General:

- literally my fav the more you read the more I'll enjoy the debate as long as you know what you're doing

- friv is fantastic

Interps:

- please make them positively worded

- be careful of your wording; poor wording leaves you susceptible to easy i meets

Violations:

- have them and extend them in the next speech

- screenshots/photos are the best

Standards:

- there are really only like four good standards that the rest fall under categorically but it's whatever

- the more the merrier

- if you do fairness and education linkage inside the standard block I'll be happier

Voters/paradigm issues:

- I default rvi's good and competing interps unless otherwise specified

- I tend to default fairness first but am VERY easily able to be persuaded otherwise

- you must justify voters independently of the standards section (i.e. explain why fairness, education, fun, etc. matter)

Tricks:

- I evaluate these arguments like any other (if they have a claim/warrant/impact you're good)

- I think a block of text is funny but definitely annoying as far as the organization of your spikes/tricks so preference is at least numbering but it's really not a big deal if you can explain them well

- These arguments are generally so bad but if you don't respond or spend too much time messing with them the round becomes significantly more difficult for you

- I can be persuaded by some sort of spikes k so be wary

- I'm unsure if afc/acc are tricks, but know I'll listen to both and any other pseudo-trick

- aprioris and eval after the 1ac are the a-strat

- I'm fine with indexicals, condo logic, log con, etc. (idk how else to say i'll vote on literally any trick/arg generally)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaks

General:

- I will grant a 30 speaks spike (i.e. give both/one of the debaters 30 speaks for x reason) as long as it's extended (or reasons are made as to why an extension isn't necessary)

- if no ties are allowed on the ballot I technically am unable to perform "give both debaters 30 speaks" and i'll evaluate like i normally would; if you know no ties are allowed/are uncertain if ties are allowed, spec 30/29.9 rather than 30s bc that's always permissible on tab (and i'll give the 30 to whoever would be ahead under my typical speaks evaluation unless told otherwise)

- if you're uncertain if tab

- I generally give speaks based on strategic decision making (and will try to justify the deductions if asked, although ultimately they're always on some level arbitrary)

- Anything that you do that purposefully makes your opponent uncomfortable, expresses discrimination/oppression, or generally makes the debate space unsafe will result in your top speaks being a 25 and more likely will result in a 0 or whatever the lowest allowed speaks value is

- for locals I generally give 28-30 and for nat circuit 27-30 unless the tournament has a specified structure; occasionally if the round is super underwhelming I'll evaluate a local like I would a nat circuit

- If you make me laugh you're definitely getting a speaks inflation but this is rare and it has to be genuine

- I'll clear twice without a speaks deduction and definitely have more lenience in the online format (i hardly ever clear anyways)

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

My name is Chris Brown. I'm a second year judge. I have had the opportunity to judge PF, Congress and LD rounds.

I strive to listen to the arguments of both sides. My expectation is for debaters to provide arguments with appropriate evidence. I also expect debaters to be smooth in their delivery, without pauses, ums or other sounds that interrupt their delivery. Being able to respond to your opponent in a cogent manner is very important.

I do not like spreading. If you are going to go as fast as possible, I require having a copy of your case. Otherwise, it's difficult for me to keep up and if I'm judging, you want to make things as easy for your judge as possible

In LD - the clashing of sides is really important. Although the opening speeches are important, the cross and returning speeches are a big part of how you do in LD. Listening to your opponent and being able to respond effectively is the name of the game.

I'm judging based what is presented by both sides - as much as I may disagree with a particular viewpoint, if the other side can't counter it, I have to go with what is presented.

It is an honor to be able to do this and I will strive to be the best judge I can be for myself and the debate community.

My e-mail is cmbrown007@aol.com

\I am a former 4 year debater from Olathe Northwest.

I'm a policymaker judge, if the affirmative does not successfully defend against the impacts proposed by the negative then I simply cannot vote in favor of the plan. This can be accomplished by attacking the stock issues of the plan, or a good DA and/or CP.

Kritiks are not my favorite arguments by a long shot, but, I do evaluate them in a decision, and overall I default to impacts so I'm not going to get angry if I see one, just don't abuse it, and have it make sense.

I like slow flow rounds, and do not like spreading or speeding. If you go a bit faster than the average debater then I will most likely be able to understand you, but more than that is unnecessary.

How to win as aff with me as your judge: Make sure your advantages link to your solvency, defend Solvency, Inherency, and Topicallity with your life, and answer DAs, CPs, and Ks.

I love to watch clash, don't just ignore your opponent's arguments.

On a personal note, just don't be rude? I want to be able to evaluate a round without bias, but if one team is being unnecessarily aggressive or condescending then I'm going to be biased towards the other team, which is something I don't want to have happen. Also, if you personally insult or are in any way discriminatory against another team then I will feel no remorse in siding against you, this activity should be kept cordial and should be open to everyone, not just people you decide should be allowed to compete.

Generally i'm Tabula Rasa, but will default to a policymaker who values stocks if I'm not told how I should evaluate the round.

POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

Name: Jamelle Brown

Current Affiliation: Sumner Academy of Arts & Science High School - Kansas City, KS

Debate Experience: 20+ years as a Head HS Coach, Debated 4 yrs in High School and 1 semester during college

List types of arguments that you prefer to listen to.

1. I appreciate real world impacts.

2. I love the kritical arguments/AFF’s with this year’s resolution. Make the debate real and connect to the real social issues in the SQ.

3. For T, neg if you want to prove that the AFF is untopical, provide valid standards and voters. AFF, then correctly answer these standards and voters. However, don't expect to win a ballot off T alone.

4. Know and understand what you are reading and debating. Be able to explain your card’s claims.

List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.

1. Every impact should not equal nuclear war. I want to hear realistic/real world impacts.

2. Generic disadvantages without clear links to the AFF.

List stylistics items you like to watch other people do.

1. I prefer medium-speed speaking. Completely not a fan of spreading.

2. Label and signpost for me. I like to keep a very organized flow!

3. Let me see your personalities in CX.

4. Impact Calc – I want to know why you want me to vote for you and weigh the round.

5. I am excited about performance teams!

List stylistics items you do not like to watch.

1. I dislike unrecognizable speed.

2. I am a Communications teacher, please allow me to see valuable communication skills. (Pre-2020 comment) For example, don’t just stare at your laptops for 8 minutes. Hello, I'm your judge – engage me!

In a short paragraph, describe the type of debate you would most like to hear debated.

Debate is a slice of life. I appreciate seeing a variety of styles and “risk takers.” Debate is also an educational venue. I enjoy K debate and appreciate high schoolers tackling K lit. There are so many important social justice issues that debaters can explore. As your judge, engage me into the round. I will not tolerate rude debaters or disrespectful personal attacks. I am a current high school Speech & Debate coach – please don’t forget about the value of communication skills! I coach all of the speech and debate events, so I love to see kids fully engaged in this activity by utilizing the real-world value it brings.

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

Last Updated:3/9/2024

Pronouns: They/Them

Background:

• Competed for 6 years: 4.5 in LD and 1.5 in Congress. Have been judging LD and Congress for 3 years now.

Overview:

• Debate should be inclusive and available to all people. If your goal is to speak as fast as possible and run the most obscure arguments to exclude people, then this isn't a winning strategy for you. My suggestion would be to run topical arguments at a pace that is inclusive to all students. The more obscure the argument the more time you should spend on explaining it. Don't just throw out random words and assume I'll fill in the blanks for you.
• If you have questions about your ballot, feel free to ask me about it! My email address isBonBrynteson@gmail.com :)

Congress:

• This is a debate event. I reward debaters on their skill to rebuttal and crystal first and then constructives/authors. This is not to say I will not rank someone high if they give constructives but I do tend to vote for people who can mix it up and give different types of speeches/can analyze the round correctly.
• There should be no reason for you to have to put a trigger warning in your speech. We as the Parli and Judges are not able to leave the room like everyone else if you are saying stuff that could be triggering so please do not put us in that uncomfortable position. I promise you that you can make that same exact meaningful point without saying triggering things and if you cannot, that speaks more for what you need to personally work on in this activity.
• I can promise you that you will not be dropped because your speaking isn't "pretty enough" in my round :)
• I track precedence/recency in all sessions and flow.
• Remember all of your opponents, judges, and Parli are all human. The topics we are discussing may personally impact the people in the room with you. Be aware of what you are saying and the impact it can leave on others when leaving the round.

Notes for PO's:

• You will always start at being ranked 5 and will move up or down based on how well you perform. The reasoning for this is there are some POs with computer programs that will auto-order and PO for you which takes the entire skill out of the position.
• I personally do not like it when you share your PO sheet with the chamber. It is their job to also track, don't make their life easier. This is a competition.
• Please do not tell us to rank you. We are told to in judging meetings and TAB reminds us every round.
• The point of a PO is to disappear from the round. I should forget that you are next to me with how well you are running the room. Comments like "and the chair thanks you", "and we will never know the answer to that question" or any other sentence that is unneeded will poorly look on you in my eyes. You should be moving so efficiently that you can move speech to questioning to speech within seconds. In addition, the chair does not have emotions.
• I know this Paradigm is long and seems like a lot but please do not be scared to ask me questions! I have POed more times than I can count and it's nerve-racking. Let me help you succeed and grow so we can have a fun fast round.

LD:

• If you start running a K, I will just want to run back to my congress land. Please do not run them in my round.
• Please do not spread. I can not keep up and will be lost.
• I do not mind jargon or technical language but if you are being inaccessible to your opponent that is unfair to them and will reflect on you.
• Voters/Framework/Weighing are big points to me. If you weigh but lost framework, what are we actually weighing on? If you save more money but your opponents saves 100k lives, why do I care about someone missing rent for a month? Etc etc
• I love love love! a good CX

Overall I just want you kids to have fun. Let's work together to create a safe space in this round where everyone feels comfortable and enjoy the round! :D

Background: Head Coach at Robbinsdale Armstrong and Robbinsdale Cooper HS in Minnesota. There I coach LD, PF and Congressional Debate.

Most Important: Debate should be about comparing and weighing arguments. In LD (and optional in PF) there should be a criterion (standard) which argument are weighed through. The purpose of the criterion is to filter out arguments. So simply winning the criterion does not mean you win the debate. You should have arguments that link to the winning criterion and those arguments should be weighed against any opposing/linking arguments. If the debaters do not weigh the arguments, then you force the judge to do that weighing for you and that is never good.

Overall: Debate should be inclusive and available to all people. If your goal is to speak as fast as possible and run the most obscure arguments ever to exclude people, then this isn't a winning strategy for you. My suggestion would be to run topical arguments at a pace that is inclusive to all students. Speed within limits is ok. The more obscure the argument the more time you should spend on explaining it. Don't just throw out random words and assume I'll fill in the blanks for you. No need to ask if I want to be on the email chain, job of debate is to communicate the evidence to me.

Congressional Debate: Read everything above because it is still valuable information. Congressional Debate is debate by nature. It is not a dueling oratory round. In general, the first cycle is there to set up arguments in the round. The author/sponsor speech should be polished. All other speeches should have elements of refutation to other students and arguments in the round. If you are giving a speech in the fourth cycle and never refer to another person's argument, you are not going to score well in front of me. Simply dropping a person's name isn't refutation. You should tell me why their argument is wrong. With evidence it is even better.

You should do everything in your power to not go back-to-back on the same side. I will flow little of a second speech back-to-back on the same side. If you are the third speaker on the same side in a row, I'm not flowing any of it. Debaters should be prepared to switch sides if necessary. Lastly, there is a trend for no one to give an author/sponsor speech as they are worried, they will not score well. That isn't true in front of me. All parts of the debate are important.

The questioning period is about defeating arguments not to make the person look good. Softball questions are not helpful to debate. Do it multiple times and expect your rank to go down. All aspects, your speech, the quality of sources, refutation and questioning all go into your final rank. Just because you speak the prettiest does not mean you are the champion. You should be able to author/sponsor, refute, crystalize, ask tough questions, and defend yourself in questioning throughout the debate. Do all in a session and you are in decent shape.

Presiding Officers (PO): The PO will start with a rank of six in all chambers for me. From there, you can work your way up or down based on your performance. PO's who are clearly favoring the same school or same circuit students will lose rank. A PO can absolutely receive the one in my ranks likewise they can be unranked if you make many errors.

The current trend is for "super wordy" PO's. You do not need to say things like "Thank you for that speech of 3:09. As this was the 3rd Affirmative Speech, we are in line for 1 minute block of questioning. All those who wish to ask a question, please indicate." If you add up the above through an entire session, that adds up to multiple speeches that were taken by the PO. Watch how many words you say between speeches, question blocks, etc. A great PO blends away in the room. Extra language like "The chair thanks you", "this is speech 22", etc. All of this is just filler words for the PO taking time away from the debate. Lastly, a "chair" doesn't have feelings. It is not rude to be efficient.

I track precedence/recency in all sessions. I keep a detailed flow in all rounds debate - Congress, LD and PF.

Disclosure: I typically do not give any oral critiques. All the information will be on the ballot.

Hello! I'm Casey, and you may have seen me in the 2020 NSDA final round of Duo! I am an alum of Hattiesburg High School (In Mississippi) and am currently a member of the Alabama Forensic Council at the University of Alabama. I've been competing since the 7th grade (so now that's 10 years of speech oh lord) and while I stuck to interp in high school, I've branched out to platform events in college so I've either competed in or seen every event out there. I don't have any super specific judging preferences, I only ask that you give it your all. If you ever have any questions about my ballot/comments or the AFC/Alabama, feel free to email me at caseybuisson@gmail.com and I'd be happy to talk to you! If I've learned anything in my time as a competitor it's to have FUN while you're performing and your judges will notice. Good luck!!

Hey, my name's Izzy (she/they)! I debated in Idaho, for 2 out of my three years in high school, in LD primarily with a bit of CX here and there. With that being said, I know each style pretty well. I've taught PF as well as policy- policy is probably my favorite thing to judge. I judge mostly policy.

When I was in high school, I was a progressive debater (so I've ran my fair share of Ks, plans, and theory in LD, much to the distaste of my competitors). So, now is the time for you to pull out your 'weird' or untraditional cases, because you can run them with me. I'll vote for anything as long as you give me a warrant as to why I should vote for it. I'm also good on speed, just please please signpost! I try my best to flow author names as well so just slow down on tags for my sake.

To all debaters: I'm a tabs judge, or at least I believe that I am. If nothing else, please give me voters. While I'm very much a k debater, I'll vote for stock or nuke war as long as you do the work. If you don't give me strong voters, warrants, or any impact calc for why I'm voting for you, I'll default to how well you covered the flow. I love structural violence impacts over nuke war/econ. So if you are debating on what DAs or advantages to run with me, go for structural violence. Line-by-line isn't important as long as you collapse, as long as you're telling me why you're winning. How well you're speaking only matters to the extent that I can hear what you're saying. Speaks will mainly be based on organization, and in the end, when do speaks really matter?

Short note on v/c: with LD, that is what I default to as my number one voting issue, unless you tell me otherwise. I will throw out the framework debate, as long as you tell me why I should.

Kritiks: Yes yes yes!!! I love a good k- what I mean by a good k is one that has a solid framework and well-defined links. Please don't read a sloppy k, it will make me sad. I've read my fair share theory, so I'll most likely get what you're saying. But, you still have to make the actual connections and explain what you're saying, for the sake of your competitor and other judges. I'm not voting for your k just because I know and love the theory you're using. Also, the stronger your alt is the easier it is to win my ballot. I'm completely fine with epistemological-centered alts and I ran a lot of them, but if you can get real-world impacts in there it will definitely help you!

K Affs: Yes please! I love K Affs! I love performative affs! I will get down with a non-topical aff!

Plans and CPs in LD: Do that if that's what you want! But I will warn you, my least favorite thing in debate is a PIC, so use them with caution.

Theory: Yes 100%! Run all your fun theory shells that you have from debate camp! I love to see them. If you're running counterinterps especially on stuff like disclosure theory or speed or anything that is actually abusive, theory will be my main voting issue for that round. If something abusive happens in the round, bring that through to your final speech because my first priority as a judge is to make sure that the round is fair. If theory is being run in the round that will probably be my biggest voting issue. (also i think tall person/short person theory is really funny so if you have a shell for that run it haha, it entertains me)

Topicality: Like VC, it's important unless you tell me otherwise. T is my first voting issue, unless you tell me why it shouldn’t be. Yes, I agree that topicality doesn't always matter, but tell me why!

If you are reading any graphic descriptions of violence or discussing any potentially triggering topics, make sure you give a trigger warning and ask if it is okay with both me and your competitor. I'm usually fine with that stuff but please ask.

On PF: I prefer crystallization, I think it's just more effective. I like to see framework in your cases, but that's just my preference as an old LD debater. Once again, if you don't have time to cover the flow, collapse and emphasize the args that you're winning on. (ps I hate star wars cases and I will not vote for them)

Framework in policy: I LOVE it but that is also something that lingers from my LD past. If you don't have framework it's not like I won't vote for you, but if you do really make sure to extend it into your rebuttals. I love framework clash and proving how you win the framework debate (if there is one) is an easy way to win my ballot.

A last note: If you are racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist or engage in any kind of bigotry within round, I will drop you no matter what. I don't care how good of a speaker you are, I will not tolerate it in my round. Also respect peoples' pronouns. It's not hard. I'll drop your speaks if you continually misgender your opponent. The debate round should be safe for everyone, so please don't make it an unsafe space.

TL;DR warrant your claims, tell me how to vote, and run whatever your heart desires! Don't forget voters and you should be alright. And please flash me or put me on the email chain <3 send stuff to izzy.burgess03@gmail.com

Yes, you can time yourself, yes you can tag team, yes you can use a roadmap, yes flex prep is fine, and no, I don't count flashing as prep time :)

Paradigm for Congressional Debate- David Burnett

To me, Congressional Debate is a beautiful combination of the best qualities of all things speech and debate. From the theatric element of presentation and strong, impactful delivery to excellent points of contention and clash, the skilled congressional debater must strike a balance between presentation and statistics.

What do I look for when judging?

1. Impact

Who does this bill hurt? Who does it help? Why is there a sense of urgency to pass or fail this legislation. While this may sound simple, too many speeches get bogged down with piles of fluff or dry statistics. Above all, you are there to legislate. The mark of all great legislators is the ability to strike a common tone with their audience and work together with other legislators to create solutions and lasting change.

2. Congressional Decorum

Direct questioning is not the time for PF-style shouting matches. Additionally, PF and Policy jargon take away from the 'Congressional' element of the event. Yes, we all want great attacks across the 'flow' and for the 'Affirmative' to point out the 'drops' of the 'Negative' side. While those terms certainly frame and inform congressional debate, we should still present it for what it is- super high-quality debate in the style of the United States Congress. Pass, fail, my constituents, my district, etc. all add to the charm of this wonderful event.

3. Unique and exciting information

Above all, I hope each speaker brings great information to the floor and avoids repeating anyone's point unless they intend to clash with it or expand upon it.

Have fun and be kind to one another!

In all types of debate, keep in mind: QUANTITY IS NOT QUALITY. Don't try to win by simply overwhelming your opponent(s) with arguments. Gish gallops will not work with me, so don't try them.

I am an old-school LD judge. I want to see a clear values clash and hear some philosophy, not just a long list of cards. Cases that are not grounded in ethical theory will have a harder time winning me over. Kritik cases are fine so long as they are not abusive -- that is, so long as they leave the opposition some ground from which to argue. A kritik of the resolution is fine, but generic kritiks that could be run against any case / resolution are not.Also, any out-of-round kritiks just aren't going to work with me. These almost always revolve around claims that I have no way to verify, or debaters essentially making up rules that they they then accuse their opponents of breaking.

I am STRONGLY opposed to spreading in LD. I believe that it is the bane of the event. Certainly it is an excuse to toss out a lot of abusive one-way hash arguments. Anything much faster than a typical conversational pace is likely to cause me to stop flowing your case. Make your point with QUALITY, not quantity.

Please do NOT offer to send me your case. If I cannot follow your case AS YOU PRESENT IT IN THE ROUND, you are NOT communicating it clearly enough.

Tech cases are unlikely to impress me. Win with strong arguments, not technicalities.

Semantic arguments are fine, but keep them on point; don't descend into trivialities.

In Public Forum, I am similarly NOT a fan of "progressive" debate. This is PUBLIC forum, so make arguments that could impress any reasonably well-informed and attentive audience, not just judges who know all of technical debate language. Make reasonable claims which clearly support your side of the resolution, support them with significant and relevant evidence, and weigh impacts. Tell me why your impacts outweigh your opponents', tell me why your evidence is superior to theirs, tell me why your claims lead to me voting for your side of the resolution.

Please include me in your email chain for Policy Debate.

 owenburroughs@gmail.com

My background is in Extemporaneous speaking, and I have a degree in Political Science. I prefer substantive debate about policy issues and EFFECTIVE communication and debate of policy ideas. I am willing to hear arguments on debate theory if it is very relevant, but I prefer arguments to be rooted in the policy issues at hand. I will largely judge based on these criteria. I am unlikely to place much weight on arguments which do not directly pertain to the resolution or debate-issues directly related to the issue (for example, vague/irrelevant counterplans or irrelevant Kritiks).

I’m a first year head coach. With my team, I’m largely focused on public address events but I also enjoy debate.

My professional background is in communications which influences my judging in any event. This means I’m looking for clarity and I want you to engage me with your speech. Please do not spread. I strongly prefer conversational cadence.

Analysis is important. I appreciate a clear explanation of your position, good organization with signposting, description of impacts and clash. I expect you to keep your own time.

Be professional. Be nice. Have fun.

Paradigm Last Updated – Summer 2023

Coach @ Shawnee Mission South and the University of Kansas.

Put me on the email chain :) azjabutler@gmail.com

TLDR:

Judge instruction, above all else, is super important for me – I think this looks differently depending on your style of debate. Generally, I think clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense is a must. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

For every "flow-check" question, or CX question that starts with a variation of "did you read..." I will doc you .5 speaker points. FLOW DAMNIT.

General:

I am flexible and can judge just about anything. I debated more critically, but read what you're most comfortable with. I will approach every judging opportunity with an open mind and provide feedback that makes sense to you given your strategy.

I care about evidence quality to the extent that I believe in ethically cut evidence, but I think evidence can come in many forms. I won’t read evidence after a debate unless there is an egregious discrepancy over it, or I've been instructed to do so. I think debaters should be able to explain their evidence well enough that I shouldn’t have to read it, so if I'm reading evidence then you haven't done your job to know the literature and will probably receive more judge intervention from me. That being said, I understand that in policy debate reading evidence has become a large part of judging etc, because I'm not ever cutting politics updates be CLEAR and EXPLICIT about why I am reading ev/ what I should be looking for.

Please know I am more than comfortable“clearing” you. Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. Clipping/cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in an automatic loss.

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

For the most part, I am tech over truth, but if both teams are ahead on technical portions of the debate, I will probably use truth to break the tie.

Framework

I think debates about debate are valuable and provide a space for confrontation over a number of debate's disparities/conflicts. A strong defense of your model and a set of specific net-benefits is important. Sure, debate is a game, education is almost always a tiebreaker. Fairness is a fake impact -- go for it I guess but I find it rare nowadays that people actually go for it. I think impact-turning framework is always a viable option. I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + K Affirmatives

Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base.

Kritiks

I filter a lot of what I have read through my own experience both in and out of academia. I think it’s important for debaters to also consider their identity/experience in the context of your/their argument. I would avoid relying too much on jargon because I think it’s important to make the conversations that Kritiks provide accessible. I have read/researched enough to say I can evaluate just about anything, but don't use that as an excuse to be vague or assume that I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links -- too many people try to kick the alt and I don't get it. Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair game. I don’t want to say I am 100% opposed to judging kicking alts for people, but I won’t be happy about it and doubt that it will work out for you. If you wanna kick it, then just do it yourself... but again I don't get it.

Any other questions, just ask -- at this point people should know what to expect from me and feel comfortable reaching out.

Goodluck and have fun!

1. I don't mind a faster pace of speaking but caution should you speak faster than I can type I can't promise I'll hear everything you say. I don't ascribe to the recent practice of emailing opponents and judges your cases and then consequently reading their case rather than hearing what is spoken. I do not accept any evidence outside of what the debater presents orally.
2. In a value-debate I'm less likely to vote for extreme values as the average voter is less likely to vote for extreme values. If you advocate for destroying half the world's population that's a hard sell. In policy debate I might be more likely to ascribe to this theory of if it's passable and presents solvency it's valid.
3.  I'm less likely to vote on topicality and off-topic kritiks. If a case is obviously off-topic I won't weight it in the round. 
4. I usually don't weigh extreme impacts such as nuclear war, the end of the human race, etc. If both the affirmative and negative sides conclude with nuclear war it tends to lose its impact.
5. I spent seven years studying and completing communication research. I tend to have a solid grasp on common philosophy, cultural values, social groups, critical theories,  etc. That being said if you utilize an abstract theory and don't define key concepts I will vote as if I don't know those concepts. With the caveat that if you misrepresent those concepts I will note it and not weight it in the round.

I am the Director of Interp and Oratory/Assistant Director of Forensics at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I did speech in high school in Texas, and I am also a thespian -- I have a BFA in acting and I was a theatre director prior to specializing in Speech and Debate.

Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Wimberley (TX)

First and foremost, I am a theatre person and a speech coach by training and by trade.

Congress

Don't speed through your speeches, speed matters to me. Style matters to me as well, I am looking for structured arguments with clean rhetoric that comes in a polished package. Introduce new arguments. In questioning, I look for fully answering questions while also furthering your argument. I notice posture and gestures -- and they do matter to me. Evidence should be relevant and (for the most part) recent. Evidence is pretty important to me, and outweighs clean delivery if used properly. A clean analysis will rank you up on my ballot as well. Don't yell at each other. Overall, be respectful of one another. If I don't see respect for your fellow competitors, it can be reflected on my ballot. Don't rehash arguments. An extra speech with something I have already heard that round is likely to bump you down when I go to rank. As far as PO's go, I typically start them at 4 or 5, and they will go up or down depending on how clean the round runs. A clean PO in a room full of really good speakers will likely be ranked lower on my ballot. As far as delivery goes...as it says above, I am a speech coach. Your volume, rate, diction, etc are important. Make sure you are staying engaged and talking to the chamber, not at the chamber -- I want to be able to tell that you care about what you are speaking on.

Interp:

I am looking for honest connection to character and to text. Blocking should be motivated by the text and make sense for the character. I look for using vocal variety to add to the text and really paint a picture. I want you to really connect and tell the story. I also look for an overall arc of the story, clear beat changes, and clear emotion. I also look for clean diction and an appropriate rate of speech. Additionally, environment should be clear and blocking should be clean. In single events, I want to see the connection to your “other” (who are you sharing this with in the context of the story). In partner events, I want to see you really connect to each other. If you play more than one character, I am looking for clear and clean differences between the characters. Overall, tell your story. Connect to character, and share that with the audience.

Public Speaking:

Delivery is very important to me. Be careful of overusing gestures, make sure they have a purpose and enhance what you say. I want to see you connected to sharing your speech, not simply reciting something you memorized. While I do tend to notice style before content, it is important that your content is accurate and adequately supported. The content of the speech and the way it flows is important. I also look at diction and rate of delivery. In info, I do like fun interactive visuals—but they need to enhance your speech, not be there just to fill space. Overall, I want you to be excited about your speech and to have fun delivering it.

PF:

• I try to flow, but please make sure you reiterate important points as they become useful to your argument.

• Speed is okay, as long as I can understand you.

• Articulation matters to me. I would rather you speak a little slower and not get caught up in what you are saying.

• I really look for you to answer each other’s attacks on cases, not just repeat what you have already told me if it doesn't address the opposing case.

• Giving me a clear road map and sticking to it always helps.

• If a team is misrepresenting evidence, make it clear to me and tell me how they are doing so.

• Overall, I want you to tell me why you are right AND why they are wrong. Make sure you are backing up your claims with evidence and statistics.

HI. I am a high school English teacher and a Speech and Debate Coach/Teacher.

I have equal experience in PF, LD, and Parli debates. Below are some general points regarding my judging philosophy (general for all debates)

I put equal value on delivery/performance as I do on case content/structure (win on delivery + win on flow).

Evidence RQ: If you need your opponent to show you a piece of evidence by all means ask for it, but don’t be abusive. Ask for what you really need and ask for it all at once. Make sure you can send evidence in 1 minute if you are asked for it. I don’t need to be on the chain/email.

Speed is fine with me but I generally hate spreading. I can hear you and follow but if the information is important enough to say, it’s important enough to get on my flow, and I just can’t flow that fast nor should I have to. Why is my flow important? (“If I must answer that, I will leave and I will not come back again!”). In general: this is a debate not a contest to see who can get the most words in. Spread at your own risk.

Kritiks: Make me engaged and interested in how you approach the round. I am not a stickler for or against anything at all. I want to see solid debates with clear argumentation and evidence. No K’s attacking the “safety of debate”: won’t buy it. If you feel the opponent is abusive or using trigger words, that shouldn’t be the “case” - that is something you stop debate for and tell the judge, your coach, tournament staff, etc.

Flowing/note-taking: I flow on paper or in a spreadsheet depending on where I am. I have my own shorthand and do not flow during crossfire because I would rather see the ammunition come up in speeches. I may, however, update or add points if needed on my flow. Note that if you want me to flow it, it better come up again in the speeches.

Cross: I value high quality arguments and courtesy. There's nothing wrong with being aggressive but it's possible to be aggressive and polite at the same time. (In other words - don’t ask a question then speak over the opponent when they try to answer it. Don’t abuse the use of follow up questions...etc).

Weighing and voter issues: If you don't weigh and tell me what you ultimately want me to vote for and why by the final focus.... then I will choose based on the flow. I prefer you set the framework up and weigh on it telling me specifically wheat you want me to focus on. I see often that new or intermediate debaters forget to clash. Don't just tell me why your case wins!

Off time roadmaps: On time, off time, don't care, but yes, do provide a roadmap. Be brief and please signpost during your speech.

FINAL NOTE: Remember that just because we are online doesn’t mean everything has to change. I prefer cam on and good eye contact. Have fun and be polite to each other! Have a great debate!

PF/LD Paradigms

I’m first and foremost an interp coach. Treat me like a lay judge who happens to know the rules (and yes- I know the rules). No spreading, clash is fine. If you really want to pick up my ballot, be sure to focus on cross-examination. I find that a strong, quality CX can illustrate your ability to communicate, prove your points, illustrate your knowledge and understanding of the debate and show your best engaged debate skills. Anyone can read a prepared card. Show me you know what to do with it.

On an aside, I do like debaters to keep it professional. I like it when people stand for cross-examination and are polite and supportive to their opponents before and after the round. I like it when I feel the teams are focused and paying attention not only to their opponents' speeches but also to their team member's speeches.

Congress Paradigms

I look for competitors who are prepared to speak on any topic - especially if they have prepared to speak on both sides of the topic. I look for quality speeches that add value to the debate; if we're four cycles in and you aren't bringing new information, crystallizing information we've heard, or providing a new rebuttal then it's easy for your speech to get lost amongst the masses. Activity in the chamber is good - I'm looking for you to be engaged in listening to other speeches, asking valuable questions, and working together to run a fair and efficient chamber.

Interp Paradigms

I was a high school competitor all four years - competing in all Interp events (DI, HI, OO, prose, poetry, Duo, Duet) and Congressional Debate. I competed on the Texas and National Circuits. Here's the big thing to know - you should never change your style, material, or story to try to get my 1. I will always respect the stories you choose to tell, the performance you're developing, and your courage to be you and share messages important to you. Just be you. My ballots may sound tough, but it comes out of a desire to help you improve. I've provided insight into what I'm looking for but none of it should force you to change your content.

For Interp Events, I'm looking for honest storytelling (talk to me like a person) and tech that helps enhance your story and not detract from it. I'm looking for clear, well-developed characters. I'm looking for an excellent intro that provides meaning and importance for your piece. I'm looking for excellent execution of pacing and incorporation of levels. Draw me into your story and leave me with something to take away. In addition, for all binder events, I'm a stickler for binder etiquette.

For Public Speaking Events (OO and INFO), I'm looking for topics that you are personally invested in. I'm looking for an engaging AGD, a clear vehicle, and well-defined points supported by a balance of ethos, pathos, and logos. Share your heart story and be honest with it. Most importantly, these are two events where you can really be yourself. Be your best self, sure. But don't feel like you have to put on a whole song and dance to get my one. I'm looking for an inspirational, conversational tone. INFO - I'm looking for creative visuals that are well-executed and add value to your speech without being a distraction.

For Extemp, I'm looking for a clear understanding of the question and a definitive answer with supporting analysis (cite those sources guys). Two points or three points are fine, depending on the question and your approach to answering the question. I just want your speech to have a clear sense of structure and organization. I'm also looking for strong presentation skills. Have vocal variety, adopt a conversational tone, know how to present in a way that is approachable for all audience types and not just those well-versed in current events and extemp. Don't be afraid to crack a joke, but don't rely purely on humor. Fluency breaks, circular speech (rehashing points and repeating yourself), and poor time management could affect your rank in round.

General note for everyone - I have a really bad thinking face and I'm going to look confused and upset. I'm not - don't take it personally! It's just my face and I don't really have a whole lot of control over that. Plenty of times I've had my own students tell me they were sure I hated what they were doing and then I was very complimentary of their work. So I promise you my face has nothing against you! It's just a grumpy face.

Twenty years of coaching speech and debate (LD, PF, and Policy) mostly in Colorado, but last six years in Florida.

Two Colorado PF State Champions, as well as a team that finished 4th in NSDA Nationals. Look for quality arguments that have clean internal links and impacts. I look for teams that know how to properly weigh the opposing positions, and can identify the most impactful arguments that have surfaced in the round. Flow judge, but I can only flow what I can hear, so excessive speed will cost you. The winning team will know how to use each different speech in PF according to its designed intent (e.g. a Final Focus should not look like a frantic line-by-line rebuttal).

Coached state LD champ in Colorado and several NSDA national qualifiers in LD. Fairly traditional in LD judging. Will weigh competing values, but cases must clearly link to value being proposed/defended. Definitely a flow judge, but all arguments are not created equally. Looking for good analysis, and will definitely look for clear links. For that reason, spread is not generally going to impress me as I value quality over quantity. Some speed is fine, but most debaters think they are clearer at speed than they are, and if you fail to clearly communicate your argument, I can't properly flow it. Most kritiks are pretty poorly constructed, and I can only recall picking up a team based on their K one or two times. Debaters like to ask if I will vote on Theory arguments. The simple answer is that it depends on the theory and how well its run.

Also judge WSD. I generally like this form. The key to winning is well constructed argumentation, with proper warrants for your claims (empirical evidence or through logic, both count). This is a unique form and I expect you to use your time well in the way you structure your speeches, build on previous arguments (don't just repeat), and clearly demonstrate how your arguments refute or subsume your opponents. Delivery should be more 'congressional' than that of a spread debater. Quality, not quantity, of argument wins here. Use your POIs well. They are an interesting strategic device.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

I'm looking for the best legislator overall which means I am considering your holistic participation in the round including the types of speeches you have given and the questions you've asked. I love that Congress is a unique blend with an emphasis on delivery and debate/analysis in the round.

Additionally, I value evidence based debate with credible sources. Cite a source so I can look at it if I'm interested.

Please don't re-hash arguments--Know when it's time to move on. I flow the round and will know when you re-hash arguments and evidence. It's also important to know where/when you are speaking in the round in terms of what type of speech you are giving.

Be prepared to speak on either side of a bill.

You are also role playing as a legislator--remember this as well.

As a judge, I value engaging and substantive debates that focus on the core issues. I appreciate clear, compelling narratives and arguments grounded in real-world evidence. Quality is more important than quantity; I prefer well-developed, logically sound arguments with clear reasoning and meaningful connections between evidence and conclusions over numerous underdeveloped claims. I also value creativity and novel perspectives that bring unique ideas to the round.

In WSD, I assess each team's model based on net benefits and the comparative world it creates. Critical arguments should articulate real-world implications and provide tangible alternatives.

I evaluate the debate holistically, considering argument strength, responsiveness to key issues, and defense of positions. I compare impacts based on factors like scope, magnitude, probability, and level of impact. I appreciate effective comparison and weighing of different impact types, as well as the quality of evidence, clarity of reasoning, and persuasiveness of delivery.

Each speaker role is crucial in creating a persuasive case. POIs should be concise, relevant, and challenging. I assess a speaker's ability to handle POIs effectively.

Debate should be enriching, educational, and accessible to all participants. I expect respectful engagement, genuine interest in the topic, and intellectual honesty.

My background: I have a Ph.D. in American history, focusing on contemporary political economy. I teach US History and US Government at Jackson-Reed High School in Washington, D.C., where I also advise the Speech and Debate Team. My email is eduardo.canedo@k12.dc.gov.

I am not a fan of spreading

Neutral to spreading as long as still understandable.

Debate:

I prefer that you articulate your arguments with intent to persuade me. Therefore, don't spread because I do not find it persuasive.

I do not like off time road maps but I allow them.

I will not time the transfer of evidence but prep time starts once you have the evidence.

Please advance the debate rather than repeat contentions.

I enjoy appropriate clash. I expect civility even in heated cross examination.

I disapprove of tag teaming but I will not score it down unless it becomes too excessive.

In LD I expect the debater will make it very clear how the case upholds the value. I score down when the value debate becomes separate from the evidence based debate and neither support the other in any clear manner.

Speech:

I look for the speaker to make connection with the audience. Points are given when you can create an audience impact through emotion or logic.

In interpretive events and OO I expect very clean and precise blocking.

In extemporaneous and impromptu events I expect structured speeches with a sense of polish despite the short prep time. I will score down if an impromptu speech appears canned or the connection to the selected topic is a stretch.

First, congratulations on being involved in this prestigious activity. It's very impressive that you've taking time to prepare (for sometimes years) for today's debate. Thanks for sticking with this activity and making the most of this experience.

I can usually handle most arguments; however, I have not debated or coached for a while. Unless asked to do something differently in the round, for the most part, I tend to default policy-maker. Once the stock issues have been addressed, I pay attention to whether or not the policy, once changed, will produce the desired results (so, I like to know there's a real reason for the change and that the change will work). If an ideology other than the status quo is presented in the round, the framework should be substantiated and debated. I like arguments to be fully developed, if I'm expected to vote on them. I tend to assume everything is Topical. Please assume that I will likely not vote on Topicality, unless there is a really compelling reason to do so, or the case is so extreme that it warrants a review. Debating procedures may not be the best use of time, if other arguments are clearly worth debating.

I enjoy the activity, and I think it shows a great deal of hard work for all students who are involved in the activity. I try not to intervene, using my own preferences. However, please help me see the argument develop in the round.

Regarding experience, I debated in high school (LD) and college (Parliamentary and CEDA - though limited). I was an assistant debate coach for 4 years and a head coach for 2 years, though I have not coached recently.

I prefer clarity over speed.

Please make eye contact. I'm typically expressive and usually fairly easy to read.

Good luck today! I know you'll do well!

Lay Judge!

Longtime Speech Coach, focused on excellent delivery and professionalism.

Pronouns: She/her

if you do an email chain then please add me: carranzajazzlynn@gmail.com

or if you do speech drop, pls add me :) <<< prefer this method 

do whatever you want within the bounds of being respectful to each other, debate is supposed to be a safe and accessible space for everyone.

Background:

The high school I went to was v pro policy sooo I only did policy for all four years. I went to pretty progressive debate camps w/ amazing lab leaders for three years. I coach speech and debate part-time while I am a full time college student. I also do college debate as well!

Policy: read above for my thoughts on policy. I love it. That’s pretty much it (:

Pf: I know a quite a bit about pf, i competed in it only twice but, I know more about pf than the average person. Just don’t be conceded & be kind. I have a HIGH threshold for theory in PF, i get the need for theory but, if y'all are running it just bc, that's toxiiiic. I am also okay with speed & tag-teaming.

LD: I know a lot about LD. I never competed in it sadly but, I judged and coached it soooo many times that I know how to keep up.

Voting methods:

I am good with speed and tag-teaming !! I am tech over truth except if you try to impact turn oppression...

F/W: I LOVE f/w !! If you are aff, run framework! if you are neg, run framework!

Topicality: I do not mind T debate, I understand T well and will vote on it if it comes down to it. 

Theory: I love theory and understand it really well, so if you are going to run theory then make sure it is proper.

K’s: fortunately I know a lot about K’s and I LOVE K debates. Link of omissions are not something I’ll vote on. Do the actual link work and please do K proper. I am more than okay with "radical" ideas. Shout out to all my radical liberals who believe in crazy things. (if you know who said that then lmk and extra speaker pts for you:)

CP: please make your CPs mutually exclusive & make sure you have a net ben!! I hate that I have to say that but, sadly I’ve seen lots of rounds where the CP wasn’t mutually exclusive and/or did not have a net ben. I am also cool w/ PIC's and PIK's. 

Speed: I’m cool w/ it if everyone is, just don’t mumble please because I will shout “clear”. Also, make sure to signpost and slow on tags!!

Hi! Here are my LD, PF, and Congress paradigms.

Email: carteree23@gmail.com

Debate experience/about me: I'm currently an English teacher in Philly but I'm heading to law school this fall. I spent seven years as an assistant coach for Phillipsburg HS in NJ where I coached the Congress program. I am on hiatus from coaching this year but I'm still judging a little bit-- not nearly as much as in previous years though. When I competed back in the day, I did mostly LD + sometimes Congress in Maine from 2010-2014, and did NFA-LD + a tiny tiny bit of speech at Lafayette College until 2016.

Drexel Law '27, Penn GSE '21 (MS.Ed), Lafayette '18 (BA)

----

LD

The short version: My background is pretty varied so I'm good with just about any arguments in round. I'm pretty tab; tech > truth; I want you to run whatever you think your best strategy is. A couple of specific preferences are outlined below.

Speed: I'm good with anything! If you're spreading just put me on the email chain.

DAs: I like DAs and enjoy policymaking debates in general but I am a little old school in that I don't really like when they have wild link chains and impacts just for the sake of outweighing on magnitude. I'm not gonna drop you for it but I think there are always better arguments out there.

T/Theory: Please save it for instances of legit abuse. I can keep up but there are definitely way better theory judges than me out there so keep that in mind.

Traditional: I competed on a small local circuit in high school and am always good for this type of round. Please weigh & give me voters!

Other stuff (CPs, Ks, aff ground): This is where the overarching "run whatever" ethos truly kicks in, though you should be mindful that I am getting very old and need you to err on the side of over-explaining anything new and hip. I love a good CP; PICs are fine, and I don't really buy condo bad. I was not a K debater when I competed but I've come to enjoy them a lot-- I am familiar with the basics in terms of lit and just make sure to explain it well. Plan affs? Absolutely yes. Performance affs? I think they're super cool. Just tell me where to vote.

And finally: have fun! Bring a sense of humor and the collegiality that makes debate such a special activity. I'll never, ever, ever drop you or even change your speaker points just for being an "aggressive" speaker, but please use your best judgment re: strat and speaking style-- i.e. if you're a varsity circuit debater hitting a novice, it's not the time for your wildest K at top speed, and that is something I'm willing to drop your speaks for.

You can ask me any further questions about my paradigm before the round.

---

PF

A lot of my PF thoughts are the same as LD so this will be very short (tl;dr -- run your best strategy, extend/weigh/give me voters, and I'll vote on the flow)! I do think it should be a different event with different conventions and too much progressive argumentation is probably not great for the overall direction of PF, but I won't drop you for it.

Also, I judge a fair amount but I've never coached PF and I am also getting old so I definitely don't have as much topic knowledge as you. Please err on the side of explaining acronyms/stock arguments/etc.

---

Congress

I did Congress as my second event in high school and it's what I primarily coached. I am a pretty frequent parli at NJ, PA, and national circuit tournaments.

I'm a flow judge and my #1 priority is the content of your speeches. While your speaking style and delivery is an important part of the overall package and I’ll mention it on ballots, it's called congressional debate for a reason, and I'll always rank a less polished speaker with better content higher than somebody who's a great orator but isn't advancing the debate. This may make me different than judges from a speech background, and that might reflect in my ranks-- but it's why we have multiple judges with different perspectives, and why it's so important to be well-rounded as a competitor.

I love a good first aff but they should follow a problem/solution structure. If you are speaking past the first aff I need to see great refutation and your arguments need to explicitly provide something new to the debate; don't rehash. Humanizing your impacts and explicitly weighing them is the quickest way to my ranks.

I don't have terribly strong opinions re: the PO-- just be fair, knowledgeable, and efficient and you'll rank.

For the past thirty years, I have been judging individual events.

For interpretation events and duo, I value natural, motivated, and believable characterizations. All movement should be motivated, not just visually stimulating without real purpose. The key to believable characterization is an internalization of the motivations that manifest themselves through the nonverbal communication channels. Performances that cause me to reflect upon what I have seen/ heard long after the event are indicative of a great, mature performer. (This should be applied to both humorous and dramatic pieces.)

When evaluating public address and limited prep events, I believe the content of the speech with credible sources should be paramount; however, the delivery and connection to the audience must also be present in order to captivate the audience. Support should delve beyond a superficial quotation or secondary source rendering; consequently, I find the unified approach to be far more powerful since it allows the speaker to develop the arguments further than a three part line of reasoning approach (especially in extemporaneous and impromptu speaking). Again, the speaker needs to cultivate a relationship with the audience in order for the content to be effective.

When evaluating debate, the focus should be the strength and depth of both sides of the argument. Fallacies and flawed policies should be exposed. A skilled speaker/ team can conduct himself or herself professionally and analytically without the rapid fire of spreading. The argument should not be made at the expense of the relationship with the audience. I follow a leader who inspires and talks to/ with me, not at me. Points that are hard to flow are not points at all.

I coach at a 4A school in southeast Kansas. I did debate & forensics in high school, but not in college.

-Topicality is important to me, but actually make a point with it. Don't just run T to run T and then drop it later.

-DAs are great, generic DAs are fine as long as links are clearly analyzed.

-CPs are fine as well, but again don't just run it to kill time only to drop it later.

-I judge pretty big on speaking - speak "pretty". Be organized, concise, have good speed (as long as I can understand your words I have no issue with speed), make me apart of the round. Advocate for your viewpoint and why I should prefer it.

-Make me whatever kind of judge you want me to be - policy maker, real world, but if all else fails I'll fall back on stock issues and aff burden of proof as a guide for my RFD.

(she/they)

Who am I?
I am a social studies teacher the assistant debate coach. I mainly judge public forum and believe it is a positive space for open and healthy rhetoric. I hope you agree with my view that public forum is an event for the common person.

I am hard of hearing

I will be using a transcription aid on my phone to follow the round. It is not recording the speech and the transcript is deleted after 24 hours. Please, speak loudly and clearly for me and the transcription.

How I evaluate debate.

Treat me like a lay person who can flow. Use email chains, cut cards rather than paraphrasing, and avoid the use of debate jargon. I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence and real-world understanding. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation.

### Speeches

If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.

### Cross

Don't use crossfire as an opportunity to bicker. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions. Seeing people using cross just to dunk on the opponent is not useful.

### Spreading

I am new to debate and English is not my first language so I cannot judge spreading - nor do I believe it has a place in *public* forum. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.

### Theory

If your opponent does any of the Big Oofs and you read theory about it, I'm inclined to think you're in the right.

I don't want to listen to K debate - I will be honest and admit I do not know enough about debate to evaluate them fairly (except for the aforementioned exception)

Big Oofs

These are things that will make a W or high speaks an uphill battle. If you read theory against any of these (when applicable), I’m inclined to side with you. Avoid at all costs.

1. Misuse Evidence. Know the evidence and cut rather than paraphrase. Use evidence that is relevant, timely, trustworthy, and accurate. Use SpeechDoc or an email chain to keep each other accountable and save time.
2. Be late to round. Especially for Flight 2. I understand the first round of the day, but please try your best to be in your room on time. Punctuality is a skill and impressions are important.
3. Taking too long to ‘get ready’ or holding up the round. Have cards cut, flows setup, and laptops ready to go before the round. Especially if you’re going to be late.
4. Not timing yourself. Self-explanatory.
5. Not using trigger warnings. Debate is better when it’s accessible. Introducing any possibly triggering topics or references without consent is inaccessible.
6. Doing any of the 2023 no-no’s. Homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. is a one-way free ticket to a 25 speak and an L for the round.

The Respect Amendment

This section was added for minor offensives that rub me the wrong way. No, I will not vote on these. I might dock speaks for not following these - depending on severity.

I want to forward a respectful, fair, and accessible environment for debate. The Big Oofs are a good place to start. But I hope that every debater would…

1. **Respect their partner.** Trust that they know what they’re doing.
2. **Respect their opponent.** Don’t belittle them or talk down to them. Aim to understand and give critiques on their argument, not to one-up them on something small.
3. **Respect the judge.** All judges make mistakes and lousy calls - especially me. We can respectfully disagree, and that’s okay. However, not a single judge has changed their mind because you were a bad sportsperson.

This is my first time judging speech. Talk at a regular speed (no spreading) and make sure to enunciate. Have fun!

Background/ Experience:

• I have taught communication and/or coached competitive debate and forensics since 2011.
• I judge on state and national circuits.

Likes:

• I like clash, clear argumentation, and make sure to warrant and impact your claims.
• Respect each other.

Dislikes:

• I do not tolerate bigotry or racism in a debate.
• Spreading outside of policy or progressive LD
• One sided debate in congressional

Voting:

• I take a tabula rasa (clean slate) approach.
• When it comes to the material of the case, I look at who can best present the argument and why their case outweighs their opponents.
• I use a combination of evidence, argumentation, clash, speaking skills, etc... to determine the winner.
• I do not disclose the win/loss at the end of a round unless directed by Tab.

Congressional:

• Delivery should be extemporaneous in nature. A smooth cadence with interaction with the chamber is great.
• Be sure to maximize your allotted time.
• Evidence should be used for substantiation.
• Decorum should simulate that of a congressional chamber, that being said it is good to remember to have fun as well.
• I use a combination of delivery, evidence, analysis, decorum, and speaks to determine both speech value and rankings.

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.

1. What is your experience level? Have you been
actively coaching or judging, and how long?
How often have you judged rounds on this
topic?

Former interp competitor, who has been coaching and judging all speech and debate events since 2002. I have served as an event specific coach, assistant coach and head coach of small and large programs. I have judged speech, PF and Congress at all levels of competition, from local tournaments, state finals, national circuit, and national final rounds.

2. Describe your preferences as they relate to
debaters’ rate of delivery and use of jargon or
technical language.

I can handle speed for the most part, but too fast to flow and it would be difficult to win the round.

3. Describe your personal note-taking during
the round. Do you write down key arguments?
Keep a rigorous flow?

I record brief notes on the key arguments and points of the round.

4. What are the specific criteria you consider
when assessing a debate?

I look at who won the most important/critical argument of the round based on the impacts presented.

5. What expectations do you have for debaters’
in-round conduct?

I very open to style choices; however, overtly rude or aggressive behavior is unacceptable. Debaters who are respectful of their opponents and understand the art of debate should be applauded.

--Speech--

Hi y’all! My name is Fernando Cereceres. I’m a speech judge who specializes mostly in the interps.

Overall, within any speech, I like to see both physical control of your body within the space and verbal control over your speech. Facial expressions are EVERYTHING!!! Even within Extemp, oratory and info, showing us that you know/care about what you’re discussing is extremely important.

EXTEMP:

First and foremost, I judge based on who answered the question best through their 3 points. I then look at the content of each point and see how your sources/analysis tie back into your Q&A. Delivery/hand gestures in extemp are important as well. Make sure that your delivery matches the theme of the content you’re giving. For example, it’s probably a good idea to not have a super upbeat/happy vocal delivery when discussing international conflicts. Same goes for hand gestures, make sure they’re motivated and not just used for filler.

OO/INFO:

For both INFO and OO, I usually judge based off of topic, solutions/implications, and delivery. The topic should be something fresh and interesting, something that makes the audience go “what? I’ve never heard of that. That's so interesting.” This isn’t to say that if I’ve heard about your topic before then I’ll down you, but it’s all about how you present/perform the information as well. Solutions and implications should also be fresh and well thought out. They should be thought provoking for both the judge and the audience and should make us see your topic in a more nuanced way. Delivery should match the content of your speech. Whether it’s serious, funny, or impactful, your vocal delivery and gestures should match that.

INTERP:

I judge interps based on topic/argument, character work, and moments. The topic/argument of your piece should be fresh and intriguing. Why is your piece important for the audience and how does your argument introduce a new way of thinking for us? Character work is also extremely important within interp. Do you embody your character? Are the choices you make as the character authentic to who they are? Lastly, moments are extremely important within interp. What I mean by “moments” are the occurrences within the piece that you, the performer, decide to give special emotional significance to. For example, the climax of the piece should always be a “moment” where we get to sit with your character at the peak of their emotional journey. There are also moments outside of the climax where people layer the performance with emotion and subtext that contributes to character/plot development. Choose your moments wisely and commit to them 100%. I’m also a sucker for silence within a piece. Silence, if done right, can communicate much more effectively than words can.

Author's intent: I stand by the author's intent unless it’s part of the performer's argument to perform something outside of the literature's intended purpose. In that case, it must be explicitly stated within the intro as to how/why the performer decides to do something outside of the author's intent.

I am in my second year of Judging Debate. My son started last year, and am so inspired with any student who is willing to compete in debate. It takes skill, preparation and ample amount of courage. I volunteer because I want to learn more about debate, and when I see a quality debate it is fun and engaging. I consider myself a naturally neutral individual. I will not favor a side because its what I believe, but will favor a side because you convince me to.

Speed:

I understand there is a lot to cover in small amount of time. This said, I prefer a clear concise style of speech. I believe this allows for a more persuasive and all around better style of debating. The faster you speak the more clear and concise you need to be. If i can’t track your argument because your speaking to fast then you didn’t make the argument.

Evidence:

I want to hear evidence that links well to argument. Does the evidence truly support your stance. Is the reference relevant to time period. I will buy the evidence if its clear, all conditions met, and it makes sense, and it actually proves a point. I will refer to reference if I feel a need to, but that means it wasn’t clear to begin with. I also like to hear multiple references to validate your argument.

Andrew Chadwell,

Assistant Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA

Coached PF: 10+ years

Competed in PF: 1 year

Competed in British Parliamentary: 2 years

Competed at the 2012 World Universities Debating Championship in Manila.

Items that are Specific to the 2018 TOC tournament are placed at the end of this-I would still encourage you all to read the whole Paradigm and not just the TOC items.

Hello all,

Note: I debated in PF at a time when things were a bit different-Final focus was 1 minute long, you could not ask to see your opponents evidence and not everything needed a card in order to be true. This might explain some things before you read the rest of this.

Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus.

4. Abusive Case/Framework/Conduct: Alright so if you are running some sort of FW or case that gives your opponent a super narrow bit of ground to stand on and I feel that they have no ground to make any sort of case then I will consider it in my decisions.

That being said if your framework leaves your opponents with enough ground to work with and they don’t understand it that's their loss.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence.

Framework/Res Analysis/Observation’s: Totally fine with as long as they are not super abusive. I like weighing mechanisms for rounds.

Evidence Debates/Handover: I have a very large dislike of how some teams seem to think that PF should just be a mini-CX where if you don’t have a card even if the argument is pure logic, they say it cannot be considered. If the logic and the link works I am good with it.

I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. I do tend to grade harder on the rebuttal and final focus speeches since those were what I was primarily doing when I competed. The other thing that can be really helpful is analogies. Good analogies can win you a round. If they are actually good.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (That actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be Civil

Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

Things that hurt you:

Being abusive- either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.

Disregarding All of the above points.

Not being attired professionally. (Unless extenuating circumstances exist)

Ignoring my point about evidence debate.

Insulting an opponent personally.

TOC Specific Items

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

The speed of Delivery: Medium speed and clarity tend to win out more than the number of items that you claim should exist on my flow.

The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)

I generally would go for either Line by line will help my flow be clear and easier to understand at the end of the round. Big picture I tend to believe has more of an impact on the summary and the final focus.

Role of the Final Focus

Put this up at the top: But here it is again: I want to see Voters in the final focus. Unless your opponent pulled some sort of crazy stunt that absolutely needs to be addressed, the final focus is a self-promotion speech on why you won the round.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

If an argument has not been responded to then you can just extend it. If it has been refuted in some way shape or form you need to address that counter before I will flow it across.

Topicality

Unless this is explained extremely well I cannot vote on T. Frankly don't risk it.

Plans

Not for PF.

Kritiks

With the lack of knowledge that I have in regards to how Kritiks should be run, Please do not run them in front of me. This will likely make vote for your opponent.

Flowing/note-taking

You should be flowing in the round-Even if you know that you have the round in the bag. Always flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

Equal. A debator who can combine good arguments with style is going to generally win out over one or the other.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?

Definetly in the summery. If you have time in the rebuttal you can...

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

No. If you can start to do that great-but that might push you past the medium speed threshold.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

If they are new-no. However, if they are extensions of prior arguments then that will be determined on a round by round basis.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

Please read the whole paradigm. Also remember that I am human (I think) and I can make mistakes.

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

PF paradigm: I judge based on the flow. I don't judge off of my pre-existing ideas or what I believe to be true in the real world. I judge based off of the arguments presented and the rebuttals to those arguments. If your opponent says something stupid or makes wild leaps in logic and you don't call them on it, it's not my job to enter the debate as a third party and call them on it through the ballot. That's your job. I don't flow cross, so if you want me to weigh something said in cross, put it in a speech.

My preferences:

I can handle speed, but don't spread. If I can't flow it, I'm not considering it in the final judging.

Extend your arguments. Make it clear. Explain. If I don't know much about the topic, I should still be able to understand.

Be civil.

Be ethical with evidence. Don't paraphrase things that aren't actually supported by the evidence or leave out key information that changes the interpretation of the evidence.

I don't like K's in PF.

Weigh the impacts. Give me voters.

Policy paradigm: I'm pretty traditional. I'm fine with progressive arguments-- I'll weigh any arguments you want to make-- but they can't be sloppy. You have to be able to explain it to me effectively, not just read a bunch of cards and expect me to figure out how it links. If you're running something squirrelly and your opponent responds with logic, I'm probably going to prefer logic. Again, I'm pretty traditional.

If the aff makes a logical argument and the neg counters with philosophy, why should I prefer philosophy over real world impacts? Explain it to me.

I don't really love role of the ballot arguments that I have some obligation to vote for you so we can change the world. That I have an obligation to vote for you so we can send a message. My obligation is to vote for the best debaters.

I like K alts that solve. There's that traditional thing again.

Spreading is fine.

Add me on the email chain: nilu6060@gmail.com. Please send constructives at a minimum

Short Version

American Heritage School ‘19

Georgia Tech ‘22

Any offense in final focus needs to be in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.

Tech > truth

Long Version

Presumption:

- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider nonexistent.

- I will default neg on presumption, but you can make an argument suggesting otherwise.

Extensions:

- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

- Your extensions can be very quick for parts of the debate that are clearly conceded.

Weighing:

- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but please avoid:

1. Weighing that is not comparative

2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments

3. Strength of link weighing - this is just another word for probability and sometimes probability weighing is just defense that should've been read in rebuttal

4. New weighing in second final focus that isn't responding to new weighing analysis from the first ff.

Evidence:

- I will read any evidence that is contested or key to my decision at the end of the round.

- I won't drop a team on miscut evidence unless theory is read. I will drop speaks and probably drop the argument unless there's a very good reason not to.

Speed:

- Go as fast as you want but I'd prefer it if you didn't spread.

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.

Progressive Argumentation:

- I have a good understanding of theory and have voted on less conventional shells albeit my threshold for a response and your speaks could go down. Please read theory as soon as the violation occurs.

- I wouldn't trust myself to correctly evaluate a K. Most of the time I find myself thinking they don't really do anything. Read at your own risk and I will try my best to properly evaluate.

- If there are multiple layers of prog. (ie theory vs K vs random IVI) do some sort of weighing between them.

- I don't evaluate 30 speaks theory. I tend to believe disclosure is good, but won't intervene.

Other things:

- I think speaks are arbitrary, but humor helps, especially sarcasm.

- Paradigm issues not mentioned here are up for debate within the round

- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine

- Postrounding is fine

- Preflow before the round start time

- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.

In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance, and tell me why it matters.

In DI, HI, DUO: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision.

Overall speaking skills or/and argumentation are critical to winning! But remember the most important thing is that you learn!

I am a lay judge. Quality>Quantity. Weigh the debate, and please do not spread.

I look forward to judging you!

I debated four years in high school, 2 in LD and 2 in PF. I competed in a few national circuit tournaments each year but debated mostly on my local circuit. 

I just finished college and so am a bit removed from the debate world but understand how things work and have experience in both progressive and traditional debate. 

I don't really care what you run as long as it is not problematic. 

My name is David Chen, My paradigm is to judge the competitors speech, what they are presenting, knowledge of the topic, how they presenting the topic, and the competitors professionalism. In a speech I would like to see how well a competitor can present the information that supports their argument or speech/topic. I want to see confidence in both the words that are spoken and in the person speaking. I would like to be able to be intrigued with the words you speak, changes in tone to keep me invested in your words. 

I've coached LASA since 2005. I judge ~120 debates per season on the high school circuit.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: yaosquared@gmail.com.

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know:do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear, go as fast as you want.

Most judges give appalling decisions. Here's where I will try to be better than them:

• They intervene, even when they claim they won't. Perhaps "tech over truth" doesn't mean what it used to. I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision purely on only the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.
• They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.
• They givepoorly-reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision.
• They reconstruct the debateand try to find themost creative and convoluted path to a ballot. I guess they're trying to prove they're smart? These decisions are detestable because they take the debate away from the hands of the debaters. If there are multiple paths to victory for both teams, I will take what I think is the shortest path and explain why I think it's the shortest path, and you can influence my decision by explaining why you control the shortest path. But, I'm not going to use my decision to attempt to prove I'm more clever than the participants of the debate.
• If you think the 1AR is a constructive, you should strike me.

Meta Issues:

• I’m not a professional debate coach or even a teacher. I work as a finance analyst in the IT sector and I volunteer as a debate coach on evenings and weekends. I don’t teach at debate camp and my topic knowledge comes primarily from judging debates. My finance background means that,when left to my own devices, I err towards precision, logic, data, and concrete examples. However, I can be convinced otherwise in any particular debate, especially when it’s not challenged by the other team.
• Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow, even if you ask me not to. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
• Evidence comparisonis under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates. I often call for evidence, but I’m much more likely to call for a card if it’s extended by author or cite.
• I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school.If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments. On the contrary, a big reason why I continue coaching debate is because I enjoy listening to and learning about new arguments that challenge my existing ways of thinking.
• Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.
• If I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, and the question is important to the outcome of the debate, I will stop the timer and ask you to answer the question. Example: if you read condo bad, the neg asks in CX whether you read condo bad, and you say no, I’ll ask if you want me to cross-out condo on my flow.

Framework:

• Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge onimpact calculus and comparison.
• When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).
• When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR.
• On balance, I am worse for 2ARs that impact turn framework than 2ARs that have a counter-interp. If left to my own devices, I believe in models and in the ballot's ability to, over the course of time, bring models into existence. I have trouble voting aff if I can't understand what future debates look like under the aff's model.

Topicality:

• Over the years, “tech over truth” has led me to vote neg on some untruthful T violations. If you’re neg and you’ve done a lot of research and are ready to throw down on a very technical and carded T debate, I’m a good judge for you.
• If left to my own devices, predictability > debatability.
• Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff.The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I amtowards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

• The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points givehighly organizedandstructuredspeeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, andemphasize key momentsin their speeches.
• Just like most judges,the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.
• I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview anddo as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.
• Framework debates on kritiks often don't matter. For example, the neg extends a framework interp about reps, but only goes for links to plan implementation. Before your 2NR/2AR, ask yourself what winning framework gets you/them.
• I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them.I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.
• I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained.The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NCfor me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans:

• Just like most judges, I prefercase-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.
• I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.
• I will not judge kickthe CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.
• Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Disadvantages:

• I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.
• Uniqueness only "controls the direction of the link" if uniqueness can be determined with certainty (e.g. whip count on a bill, a specific interest rate level). On most disads where uniqueness is a probabilistic forecast (e.g. future recession, relations, elections), the uniqueness and link are equally important, which means I won't compartmentalize and decide them separately.
• Zero risk is possiblebut difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory:

• I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. You're unlikely to win that a single intrinsic permutation is a round-winning voter, even if the other team drops it, unless you are investing significant time in explaining why it should be an independent voting issue.
• I think thatI lean affirmative compared to the rest of the judging community on the legitimacy of counterplans. In my mind, a counterplan that is wholly plan-inclusive (consultation, condition, delay, etc.) is theoretically questionable. The legitimacy of agent counterplans, whether domestic or international, is also contestable. I think the negative has the right to read multiple planks to a counterplan, but reading each plank conditionally is theoretically suspect.

Miscellaneous:

• I usually take a long time to decide, and give lengthy decisions. LASA debaters have benefitted from the generosity of judges, coaches, and lab leaders who used their decisions to teach and trade ideas, not just pick a winner and get a paycheck. Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility. I've been providing free coaching and judging since before you were birthed into the world. If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.
• I don't want a card doc. If you send one, I will ignore it. Card docs are an opportunity for debaters to insert cards they didn't read, didn't extend, or re-highlight. They're also an excuse for lazy judges to compensate for a poor flow by reconstructing the debate after the fact. If your debating was disorganized and you need a card doc to return some semblance of organization, I'd rather adjudicate the disorganized debate and then tell you it was disorganized.

Ways to Increase/Decrease Speaker Points:

• Look and sound like you want to be here.Judging can be spirit murder if you're disengaged and disinterested. By contrast, if you're engaged, I'll be more engaged and helpful with feedback.
• Argument resolution minimizes judgeintervention. Most debaters answer opposing positions by staking out the extreme opposite position, which is generally unpersuasive. Instead, take the middle ground. Assume the best out of your opponents' arguments and use "even if" framing.
• I am usually unmoved by aggression, loud volume, rudeness, and other similar posturing. It's both dissuasive and distracting. By contrast,being unusually nice will always be rewarded with higher pointsand never be seen as weakness. This will be especially appreciated if you make the debate as welcoming as possible against less experienced opponents.
• Do not steal prep. Make it obvious that you are not prepping if there's not a timer running.
• Do not be the person who asks for a roadmap one second after the other team stops prep. Chill. I will monitor prep usage, not you. You're not saving us from them starting a speech without giving a roadmap.
• Stop asking for a marked doc when they've only skipped or marked one or two cards.It's much faster to ask where they marked that card, and then mark it on your copy. If you marked/skipped many cards, you should proactively offer to send a new doc before CX.

Speech:

Intros are one of the most important parts of a speech. Make sure to explain your topic well and draw me into your piece and connect it with your story/piece. Be influential.

Movements and gestures need to appear natural, smooth, and flow naturally with speech.

When you are performing the emotions needs to genuine rather that it makes be believe and I'm in the story or it comes to life.  Draw me into your world. 

Debate (PF/LD/WSD):

Do not SPREAD, so what that means is if you are gasping for breaths you are going to fast or if it turns into one long run on sentences then that doesn't do it for me.  I do not need you to read all of your "cards" or evidence but rather snippets of it and the importance/impact of your evidence. 

Make it clear to me, essentially writing the ballot for me will get you the win.  Thus that means you are connecting the points for me rather than me having to guess what the purpose or point is.  

Congress:  Do not repeat the same points over, especially if we have been three rounds of speakers in.  Would prefer some clash and evidence to back up your points and reasons. 

Extemp: A roadmap would be good along with three points.  I like to have two pieces of evidence per each point with a variety of sources. I would like to have an intro and your conclusion to link back to your intro.  If you can weave your intro throughout your entire speech that would be better.   

I am a debate coach with 20 years experience, and have coached all speech and debate events.

Congressional Debate:

In round, I reward strong research/evidence, solid understanding of the topic, and advancing the debate by bringing points and clash together. Use evidence accurately and truthfully. Different speeches (authorship, refutation, weighing, etc.) have different purposes, and accomplishing the purpose of each speech is more important that battling in a waiting game, always trying to get the last speech. Every argument and claim should be effectively supported with warrant and data from evidence. Questioning should be won by smart questions and answers: CX should not be a shouting match or full of interruption.

Presiding officers should maximize time given to speakers and questioners, and minimize PO narration as much as possible through direct communication and strong word economy. POs should keep things fast, professional, fair, and within the rules. The debate session should maximize debate time allotted.

For questions, my email is dchildree@hotmail.com.

LD:

I am a traditional judge. I judge what's on the flow. Truth and tech both matter. Use evidence accurately and truthfully. Framework and Value/criterion/standard are very important. I'd rather hear arguments grounded in real world data in the literature on the topic, but also am open to philosophy arguments. I am not a fan of theory that would end up substituting for debating the actual topic. Please don't spread. It's rarely necessary. If opponents or I call for evidence, please provide it right away- there shouldn't be delays related to evidence searching. Don't call for evidence too often or without good reason. Please be cooperative, civil, and professional in CX when you are questioned.

For email chains/questions, my email is dchildree@hotmail.com.

PF:

I judge what's on the flow. Truth and tech both matter. Use evidence accurately and truthfully. Framework and warrants and data are very important to me. Every argument should be clear, warranted, and supported with data/examples/evidence. Keep cross ex civil and polite, and an equal sharing of speaking time. I prefer to hear grouping and strong weighing in summary and final focus, so definitely collapse the debate to a few key issues instead of covering a ton of different thoughts in a line by line style. If opponents or I call for evidence, please provide it right away- there shouldn't be delays related to evidence searching. Don't call for evidence too often or without good reason. I strongly prefer arguments grounded in the literature of the topic, with data and real world examples, over efforts to avoid debating the topic, such as disclosure theory or other theory. Public Forum debate was created to develop skills related to communicating with the general public, and that intent should be embraced by PF debaters. No need to spread in PF at all.

For email chains/questions, my email is dchildree@hotmail.com.

EXTEMP:

I am a traditional extemp judge. I like clear and straightforward organization. I reward strong research/evidence, solid understanding of the topic, and strong well supported argument. Use evidence accurately and truthfully. Every argument, idea, claim, should be effectively supported with warrant and data from evidence. Ideas and evidence should come together smoothly and well to answer the overall question. Body paragraphs don't need an agd- if they have agds, they should enhance the body paragraph and link perfectly to it without muddling the flow of the speech and without taking tangents. Cross examination should be won by smart questions and answers.

For questions, my email is dchildree@hotmail.com.

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.

I am a 5th year LD coach for BASIS Phoenix in Arizona.

I did LD in high school (2009 - 2013) primarily in the Oklahoma local circuit attending a small private Christian school that no longer exists (American Christian School in Bartlesville, OK if you're curious).

Add me to e-mail chains: chisumdebate@gmail.com

SHORT VERSION

- Don't spread.

- Traditional LD good. Policy good. K’s good. Philosophy good. All of these have the caveat that if I don’t understand the argument and its warrants, I won’t vote on it.

- I have and will vote for non-topical cases, but I have a high threshold for doing so. My prior is that topicality is good for debate, and that debate itself is good. You are free to try to convince me otherwise in-round.

- Frivolous Theory bad (“I know it when I see it”). Tricks bad.

- Give voters; be clear how you want me to evaluate the round.

- Warrants, warrants, warrants. I need clear and developed reasons to believe your argument.

- Be respectful.

EXTENDED VERSION

Presentation

As said above, do not spread. That goes double in an online format where clarity is already impacted. I'm concerned about the quality, not the quantity of arguments presented, so excessive speed is both unnecessary and harmful. If you are going too fast for my taste, I will say "Clear!" After saying "clear" twice, I will simply stop flowing if you are still going too fast.

A lot of people ask me "How fast is too fast?" Here's my answer: Speak to me as you would speak to the most intelligent person you know who is not at all involved in debate.

Argumentation

I'm willing to vote on basically any argument that is well-warranted, clearly explained, and persuasively argued.

I have limited familiarity with most K and phil literature, so do not assume I will understand your arguments beforehand. If you do not believe you can explain the literature within the round in a way I can understand, probably don't run that K.

Policy Stuff

In terms of impact weighing, I tend to be more friendly to weighing on probability over magnitude (especially on extinction scenarios that are poorly warranted and obviously false). Instead of thinking solely of doomsday scenarios, risk evaluation is a much more practical way of thinking about impacts (and is much closer to how policy-makers in the real world make decisions).

For counter-plans, be careful that you are actually competitive to the Aff. I'm iffy on some of the more "tricky" CPs (Condo CPs, certain PICs, Agent CPs etc.), and I find perms or theory args against them to be fairly persuasive, so be careful about that.

Theory and Topicality

I have a high threshold for theory. In my view, theory ought to be a check on actual abuse, so if you're intending to run frivolous theory (I know it when I see it; you know you're running it), striking me is probably a good idea.

There are two questions that I will be willing to outright answer in the middle of a round:
1. “Judge, do you consider my theory (or my opponent’s theory) argument ‘frivolous’ theory.”
2. “Judge, do you consider my case (or my opponent’s case) topical.”

If I consider a theory arg frivolous, it will not be evaluated on my ballot, and it does not need to be addressed in rebuttals. If I do not consider a theory argument frivolous, it will be evaluated on my ballot and can be won by either side.

If I consider a case topical, I will not evaluate any topicality arguments on my ballot. If I do not consider a case topical, then I will be evaluating topicality arguments on my ballot, and either side may win that portion of the debate.

Other

I am a stickler on warrants. I need to understand why and how a claim creates specific impacts. If I don't understand your warrant or if it just doesn't follow, the only way I'll vote on it is if your opponent drops it entirely (and you extend it). Note: just because you have a card that makes a claim does not mean you have a warrant for why that claim is true.

If your opponent drops an argument, don't assume you automatically win the debate, or even that portion of the debate. You must extend that argument and tell me why it's important that it goes through.

Give voters. Tell me exactly why you should win the round. If you do your job as a debater, my RFD should sound extremely similar to the end of your last rebuttal.

As a last point, debaters should be respectful to each other and have fun. There's no reason to ever be disrespectful to an opponent or engage in any behavior that makes debate a less accessible and enjoyable activity.

This has been updated since FFL VARSITY STATE 2024It's been simplified substantially.

• yes add me to the email chain: chmielewskigr@gmail.com

Short intro:

If the given argument is a wash or it requires me to intervene or do deep analysis on my own that's not on the flow I tend to look elsewhere as I think less intervention is better.

(LD)

I will take off a speaker point every time you say "they don't have a card for that" without justifying why that matters. It makes me think you couldn't find a better response on the flow so you took the easy way out.

1- LARP/Phil

LARP- yeah whatever give me your policy case I'll evaluate it.

Phil- please please please tell me how you clash with the opp don't just read me a bunch of Phil and expect me to magically grant you the magic carpet to the ballot.

Before the same person asks me about phil, yes I'll consider and can comprehend Hobbes/Kant/insert your stock phil person here. Yes, I think most of those ivis about those people are extremely lazy debate. This is put here to clarify when I get asked by people what phil I will/won't be persuaded by. If you have further questions yes I can clarify.

1- Theory/Trix

Theory- I'm cool with whatever. If you run friv theory I'm gonna have a low response threshold. If you spend your entire speech with whiny theory it will annoy me but I'll vote for it if I have to.

Trix- Yes I think they're useful, yes I like them. If you run trix like the aff can't have arguments and your tricks are especially egregious it'll have me looking elsewhere on the flow. If you have questions, ASK ME. I overheard somebody I judged at Blue Key whining about how I evaluate trix. If you don't clearly evaluate them, you risk a coin flip. More analysis on one to two trix> more trix extensions

Trix addendum- if you run a bunch of nibs etc and then don't do the work to properly extend them no I'm not voting for them. Just because I pref something a 1 doesn't mean you can do lazy analytical work or bare minimum extensions and expect me to buy them. No, a 10 second extension doesn't cut it. Don't read this at your own risk.

Trix addendum 1.2-If you read me an indexical, please explain it to me as I'm not overly familiar with them but can vote on it if explained super well

1.5- On T violations- if you give me a TVA and your opp drops it and you collapse on the T shell I'll vote on it in half a second (Update from Glenbrooks experience with a super super well done TVA)

2- K

- Please give me a functional alt. No, reject the [insert side] is NOT an alt. I'll consider just about any K but pleeeease explain the link clearly.

3- Identity stuff- I don't know the lit but will vote on it if explained well enough

4- High theory

Strike- non topical affs

• The resolution exists for a reason.

Strike- performance cases

- nope, find somebody else. I don't know how to evaluate it and you'll probably lose. Sorry.

Presumption-neg

Permissibility- aff

I heavily value contextualized extensions. I've seen far too many people punt a winnable round on crappy extensions.

- Tech> Truth

- If you're in my district and I'm judging you and we keep this virtual debate thing going and you want more clarity on a round and want coach to reach out to me via email or at a CFL/FCDI, they can either email me or find me at a tournament and I'm more than happy to go over the round. Additionally, if you're in need/want resources on specific things that you want to work on I'll see what I have in my backfiles. More education for ALL is a good thing. Debate is about learning.

[Insert default don't be transphobic/etc here]. Just don't. This is an inclusive activity, don't make this a non-inclusive space for people.

PF Prefs:

A) I refuse to vote for paraphrased evidence. Ever. Yes, really. I'll default to paraphrase theory if it's read and extended because I think paraphrasing has zero place in the activity. Your ability to misinterpret authors does not amuse me or give you access to my ballot.

B) Please signpost. If I have to guess where it is on the flow I'm not flowing and that only hurts you

C) If you don't weigh I'm gonna go for the bigger number absent a separate compelling reason to interpret the evidence a different way.

D) If you can't produce the evidence your opponent asks for within about 45 seconds I'm treating it as an analytic, not evidence. Be organized and prepared for debate.

E) Do NOT be that person that asks me to pre-flow before the round. If you ask me, I'm starting your prep time should you chose to ignore me and pre-flow anyways or letting your opponent speak if they're first speaker. It will also hurt your speaks. Be prepared.. you had plenty of time to do this either before round or before the tournament.

F) If you don't mention it in the summary don't mention it in the final focus because I won't evaluate it.

H) Defense sticks once applied unless rebutted BUT I think it's helpful to reinforce in summ/ff where the opp fails to garner offense if you think it's a round decider. If I think it's too messy, I'm ultimately going to punt on it as I don't want to potentially intervene.

I agree with fast pf and theory thoughts in PF of Charles Karcher. No, I don't think paraphrasing and/or spreading a bajillion cards or reading some irrelevant abuse story makes it more likely to get my ballot.

• Congress

• I largely agree with Quentin Scruggs/Grace Wigginton on Congress. If you want to know what that means, use the paradigm button :)
• • Stray bullet

I have been head coach at Bradley Tech High School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for 17 years, and just now semi retired. but still helping out with the team for the last two. I have been influential in having students qualify for our State Tournament in all debate categories, and Nationals in Policy Debate. We have focused on Lincoln-Douglas the last 6 years however.

SPEED:
Not a fan of speaking so fast that you pass out in the round. I can usually flow a decently fast speaker as long a you are clear. I will let you know if you are too fast or I can't understand you.

TOPICALITY:
I love topicality! I'm biased because that is how I used to win my negative rounds. HOWEVER, a bad T violation will not persuade me to vote for your side. T violations should be well constructed and given weight, as well as how it impacts the negative adversely. For Aff, definitely give justifiable reasons why you should win the T debate; not just with theory arguments.

DISADVANTAGES:

RUN THEM! Just make sure the impact is strong.

COUNTERPLANS:

RUN THEM! HOWEVER, for the purpose of LD, theory might not completely persuade me to vote against a counterplan, unless the neg side drops it, then I will vote on it.

KRITIKS:

RUN THEM! But you don't automatically win them if you do not understand them yourself. If you run it, run it well!

KRITIKAL AFFS:

Not very clear on these. I understand Kritiks, so if they are run in this manner, I'm on board.

THEORY:

This is my weakest area. Still I will listen, if you are very knowledgeable and can convince me.

Overall, I am very tabula rasa when it comes to debate, and I love to learn from the debates I judge. Which is why I am not too much a fan of extremely high speed debates. So I will listen to pretty much ANYTHING if you can persuade me how you win. I look forward to judging you.

Who am I:

I am the head speech & debate coach at Idaho Falls HS. I've been a head coach for 10 years, and also competed in high school and college.

Here's the best way to earn my ballot for any type of debate:

1) Win the flow. If you drop an issue in a speech, do not bring it back up. In PF, dropped arguments are technically ok (you gotta summarize after all). Just make sure to communicate to me on why it is good/bad/unimportant that an argument was dropped.

2) Impact out what you win on the flow. I don't care if your opponent clean concedes an argument that you extend through every speech if you don't tell me why I should care.

3) Weigh your impacts! This is a great way to win the ballot with me.

3) Clash with your opponent. Just because you put 5 attacks on an argument doesn't mean it has been dealt with if your attacks have no direct clash with the argument. If you are making an outweigh argument, tell me and I can evaluate it as such!

4) Courtesy. If you are not kind, courteous, and ethical to your opponent, you will receive lower speaker points. I believe that debaters should be able to win on the flow and do so in a kind and professional manner. If the round is extremely close, I often use courtesy and ethics as a tiebreaker.

5) Speed: I think that it's easier to have a cleaner debate when it is regular conversational speed, but I understand when you have to pick it up a bit. Not a fan of spreading.

6) Comms: The more I coach and teach, the more I find myself being persuaded by stronger and more polished speakers. Don't forget about good speaking techniques!

CONGRESS:

Good congress involves speaking extemporaneously, using evidence and analysis, and having excellent speaking skills. I will rank you higher if you are kind, yet strong in your quesitoning answers. Good congress people should be present throughout the round the round through both speeches and questions. I recognize that preset recency can be difficult, so make sure you are both asking questions, and raising your placard to speak often!

LD DEBATE:

Value/Value Criterions

I think these are necessary in LD debate. I am a more traditional LD debate, but i'm open to progressive ideas (or CPs). Make sure to use your V/CR throughout the round. These are usually a large weighing mechanism for me, so make sure I know why I should prefer your V/CR and how you use that to win the round.

K's/Theory

I don't prefer Ks, but recognize the need for theory at times. I prefer traditional LD debate, with a focus on values and value criterions.

Plan's/Counterplans

I'm much more accepting of CPs than Ks in LD. I understand when a CP is necessary to run as the neg.

POLICY DEBATE:

I tend to be a more traditional-style policy judge, as in I judge following traditional rules. However, I'm still very open to arguments. I don't love Ks, mostly because I think debating the heart of the topic is important. I love a good T shell when the aff isn't topical (you won't find me penalizing you for T...unless you run a million as a time suck. Then I might not like it). Line-by-line and sign posting are key. I would say I'm about a 5 out of 10 on a speed scale for policy. If you go too quickly, you will notice me flowing less, so be aware.

PF DEBATE:

I love good public forum debate! I think good PF is a balance between amazing argumentation (line-by-line, direct clash, etc.) and killer speaking skills. I think good teamwork with your partner is very important. Treat your partner like a person who deserves respect. Both partners should be involved in Grand Cross. I prefer crystalization over line-by-line in the summary, but I won't punish you for a line-by-line refutation summary. Weighing is crucial in PF. Tell me WHY I should prefer your arguments and impacts so that I don't have to intervene with my own thoughts during deliberation. Debaters that don't tell the judge exactly what to vote on andwhy are just inviting the judge to choose whatever they want, leading to intervention.

Calling for evidence during in-person rounds

From the judge---

I will only call for evidence that is contended throughout the round, with that being said if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to call for it and what is wrong with it so I don't have to throw my own judgement in.

From your opponent---

I will not time you to give evidence to your opponents, but I will time you if you start reading the evidence and analyzing it. I believe that should be done in prep. If you are taking too long to find/give evidence to your opponents, I will start your prep time. So be quick!

Have an excellent round!! Ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round starts!

Speech and Debate Assistant  coach for Palo Verde High School since 2015

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. My email is chriskj@nv.ccsd.net. I cannot overemphasize the necessity of doing this – it will help keep me focused and generally just make me happier. Using the file share feature on online platforms is also OK. (Let me know that you've sent me your case.)

Spreading…fine if you've given me the speech before the debate and follow it (or make it clear where you deviate). 

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Some debaters have asked me for "time signals" (like in extemp?) - this will result in my not taking notes. If you want this, be aware that I won't be taking notes and you'll risk me forgetting the content of your speeches.

Debate:

Arguments that are obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you run them.)

I do not prefer theory. I find it unnecessarily complicated and usually designed to make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. 

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Similarly, there isn’t much that is “off limits” (other than that which is listed above…pay attention to that). Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of poorly cut and equally poorly organized evidence minus warrants, you probably be sad at the end of the round.

DEBATE EVENTS:

I am a practicing attorney who occasionally moonlights as a debate judge. Over the past 30 years I have watched competitive debate deteriorate from a program of teaching students effective communication to a program contrived to win rounds by any strategy, including so-called "progressive" tactics that are designed to confuse and overwhelm opponents with tangential and obscure minutia rather than inform and persuade judges with impactful, well-reasoned argumentation.

This is ironic because in real life, in a real courtroom, I will only win a trial if I win the hearts and minds of the jury---presenting artfully crafted arguments that accentuate my personal ethos, while balancing appropriate appeals to logic and passion. If I tried to "spew" or "spread" my arguments to a jury, I would lose the case. If I tried it in front of a judge, I would get kicked out of the courtroom! If I tried to win every case by overwhelming the judge, jury and counsel with every "card" I ever stumbled upon (even remotely related to the case), I would lose all my cases and my clients with them.

The same goes for nearly every other professional communicator. No teacher would teach that way. No news broadcaster would report that way. As far as I can tell, the only job opportunity available to a "progressively" trained debater is to deliver the annoying legal disclaimers at the end of radio commercials.

I realize that my views are hopelessly outdated. No one reading this paradigm statement will ever select me as "1" on a judge preference sheet. Nevertheless, if you have the bad luck of getting me in a round anyway, here are some tips on how to get my vote:

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Look me in the eye;

(3) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how the Affirmative or Negative case effects real people;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what the resolution means;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why your opponent is wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

I realize that this rhetorical model is profoundly outdated (it is in fact about 2,500 years old). Nevertheless, in the spirit of learning something useful (rather than simply winning another piece of shiny plastic today for speed-reading), please give these ideas a try!

SPEECH EVENTS:

Many Debaters [and coaches] consider speech events to be "throw-away" events---something to do when debaters are not in a "real" debate round. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Speech events teach students about the power of pathos---of making human connections. They provide a wonderful balance to the logos-heavy debate events. To capture my vote [or the vote of most ordinary human beings], a student must be prepared to do the following:

(1) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how your topic effects real people;

(2) Make me laugh;

(3) Make me cry;

(4) Make me care;

(5) Help me understand what you mean;

(6) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(7) Help me understand why any competing viewpoint is wrong [or "misinformed"]; and,

(8) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

Don't be intimidated by all of this this [if you happen to be a hard-core, card-flipping, evidence-stacking debater]. Instead, embrace the opportunity to learn a new [and equally real] way of communicating in a way that focuses on building human connections [rather than squabbling over obscure, marginally-relevant minutia].

I have judged Speech events for the past 2 years and started judging PF events in the 23-24 school year. I am very comfortable listening to different types of arguments and different opinions, I would like everyone to keep in mind that if I cannot follow your train of thought because you're going too quickly, I would not be able to utilize that information in my judging. Please be mature and respectful to each other. Thank you!

I prefer debate that is suitable for a courtroom. Professional, clear, and well organized. Usually frameworks are a waste of time.

I judge on a 7 stock issues paradigm (Harms, Significance, Inherency, Workability, Solvency, Advantages, and Topicality). Affirmitive must uphold all 7 issues to carry the day.

Debate is a competition that takes place through the spoken word, all speeches must be delivered at a pace and in a matter so as to render them intelligible to the judge in real time or they don't go on the flow.

Kritiks are a very weak form debating, generally a last priority for evaluating my decision. Kritiks claiming exclusive access to any arguments or issues will be rejected outright.

Theory arguments are acceptable within the bounds of the paradigm if they have some bearing on the round, but they must be an accompaniment to, rather than a substitute for, debating the substantive issues of the resolution. (ie. Arguing perm theory in order to run a counterplan)

I am willing to vote on topicality if and when it genuinely applies, but keep in mind most teams have had the foresight to write topical plans, so if you are running topicality every round that is a sign of a problem with you not your opponents.

I value good analysis and higher order thinking, clever use of arguments (turns, re-frameworking the round, identifying internal inconsistency in an opponent’s position, etc.) is better than spewing cards and expecting me to vote on them.

I am a parent judge. No spreading, speak clearly.

I prefer traditional debate.

Assume that I know nothing about the topic. Your job is to educate me about the topic and share all relevant details etc in order for me to judge properly.

Evidence is big, I try my best to flow.

Don't use too much debate jargon.

When debating, make sure to refer to the impact and key voters to facilitate clear understanding for me, and what I need to evaluate most when deciding my ballot.

Negative strategy-- there needs to be some sort of offense in the round. A defensive strategic approach has rarely won my ballot.

email for email chains - Kathleen.clark1@gmail.com

Meghan Clark (she/her)

Experience:

–competed in LD on the Texas UIL circuit

–coached LD for 7 years, policy for 5, also on the Texas UIL circuit

–currently coach extemp/platform events at Plano West

PF:

--I am a fairly typical flay judge.

--Truth over tech. I do not particularly like kritiks or other non-resolution based arguments (not a huge fan of progressive debate). Don’t run theory about dates, speaks, disclosure, etc. - I have zero interest in judging this. I strongly dislike frivolous theory arguments and tricks. Don’t run them.

--Make sure that you extend your arguments and signpost clearly. No sticky defense.

--I care a good deal about weighing impacts in the back half of the round. Make sure you do this. Don’t introduce new arguments in the second half of the round, and I don’t want arguments that consist of three blippy arguments with buzzwords. I would vastly prefer substantive weighing of impacts. I generally default to probability over magnitude.

--I care about quality rather than quantity of evidence. You must have clear taglines for your evidence. Don’t paraphrase.

--Make sure you are courteous to opponents and don’t speak over them during crossfire. I expect professionalism, respect and civility towards me and towards your opponents. If you are verbally or non-verbally showing disrespect towards your opponents or me, expect to lose speaker points. It goes without saying that you should not be racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/etc. in any way during the round.

--I do not like spreading. PF should be accessible to a wide audience, and spreading makes that difficult. Speak at a normal rate of speed if you expect me to flow your argument. Extreme speed will most likely result in lower speaks. If I call “clear,” slow down.

--In final focus, make the case for why you deserve my vote - don’t demand my vote.

--Strike me if you’re reading a meme or social experiment case.

--Stick to the time structure - no skipping grand cross for PF.

--If a card is heavily disputed during round, I will call for it.

Congress Paradigm for 2023 TOC:

Delivery: delivery will be a factor in my decision, but only a moderate one. Ideally, speakers adapt to their audience, have poise and confidence, and consider word choice carefully. Two notes I write for congressional speakers often are: 1) Stop yelling at me (please adjust your tone to be appropriate for this environment, and 2) please use a tone appropriate for the topic of debate.

Evidence usage: evidence weighs strongly in my decisions. I'm not only interested in the quality of the evidence, but I'm interested in how you use and analyze it. More is not always better.

Analysis: analysis may be the largest factor in my decisions for rankings in Congress. I really like to see debaters thinking critically, weighing arguments well, and finding nuanced ways to discuss legislation. Speakers who simply expand on arguments already made are going to struggle to do well on my ballot.

Decorum: be respectful, be kind, and follow the rules. I assume you will do this, but if you don't, that will not sit well with me.

I am the head coach of a very active high school program and avid Speech and Debate enthusiast, working as a coach and judge for five years now.

LD:

I understand that debate should focus on persuasion, analysis, argumentation, and clear communication. Debaters should articulate clearly and with intention all their points without pressure to speed read or cover a multitude of topics so quickly. Therefore, I do not look favorably on speed reading, spread debating, counter-planning, and the recitation of interminable quote cards and briefs. I favor addressing the facts and rebuttals given in the round, with minimal pulling from terms not accessible to reasonable intelligence. I am not supportive of progressive debate style inasmuch as it limits the clarity of the debate for the sake of endless information with not anchor or goal in providing one's opponent with a considerate roadmap for the debate.

Debate is a respectful and hopeful exchange of ideas delivered at a reasonable pace with clarity of thought. I do not tolerate pointed or hostile, rude, or supercilious attitude from any of the debaters at any time.

Argue well, speak clearly, and disagree civilly.

World Schools:

Style

Content

Strategy -

I will always value which side presents the more accessible and strategic impact, scope, and globular consequences relevant to the resolution. I will always judge what I receive from the teams, nothing else.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

please be nice to me, i am but a simple fool

but for realz y'all, this is early early in my debate judging career (aka the first one was princeton '22) so, in the words of adele, go eaaaaaasssssyyyyy on me

you have free will, but i do not know what a counterplan, a k, a disad, or theory are so don't expect me to understand those. i only know these words because my girlfriend know what they are and told me to write them

for everyone's convenience, please give roadmaps and sign posts as you go and speak at an understandable/intelligible speed. don't expect me to read your mind or do your work for you. that kind of defeats the purpose of this whole "debate" thing

if you're sharing cases, my email is lcoilparampil@gmail.com

if i give verbal RFDs, please write them as we go

Spread only if the speed you use also allows for enough enunciation that I can understand. I can keep up, but only if I can comprehend.

I believe in traditional debate. In LD, everything is about the V/VC construct and should apply to it. I don't really care about definition debate unless it is absolutely vital. Observations don't really matter to me unless both sides agree to them.

In, PF I try to take the position of a typical citizen judge and base "my knowledge" only on what you tell me in the round and not what I already know. Civility is still important in cross-examination so it is important to remember that with me.

In Policy, I am least familiar, so I base everything on my flow and which side has the most arguments standing by the end of the debate. Also, and I know it may be unusual, but I do care if the plan actually makes sense because I can't vote for it if it doesn't.

I don't listen to parenthetical documentation as a source. What does that mean anyway???

The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. (Yes, I also find it strange that I have to clarify respect is a need, but hey I've seen some bad rounds) So any ad hominem, whether directly stated, insinuated, or indirectly introduced to the round (for example through a card/argument) will NOT be tolerated.

General Debate Philosophy: At the end of the day debate is about persuasion, your job as a debater is to persuade me as the judge to vote for you. That means that just because you run an argument that does not mean you will be able to persuade me on that argument aka just because you run it does not me I have t buy it.

Debate is a communication event so guess what I believe is key…communication! I do believe that speaker points hold value, I repeat SPEAK POINTS DO HOLD VALUE and believe that speaker points come from multiple areas in the round. I am stingy with speaker points so you EARN every point with me. With that being said, every speaker will start in the middle of the range and either move up or down dependent on communication ability argumentation, and decorum; YES decorum does matter A LOT.

LD Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. If there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. I am a traditional judge when it comes to LD debate aka do NOT run a plan. It will be hard for me to get behind an Affirmative who advocates for a plan when they shouldn’t be advocating for a plan. Aff, you must uphold the resolution, do not try to spike out of it. I believe that observations are not voting issues, however, if ran correctly they may frame the round correctly to influence my vote. If an observation is not refuted or a counter observation is not proposed, and you bring this back up then that is how I will view the round.

Neg, for all that is good CLASH WITH THE AFF. I do not want to hear another round that is just two ships passing in the night. I want you to make arguments against the Aff and PROVE why they are wrong.

When it comes to FW, this is not the holy grail argument that will win the round, but it is a pretty good one to make. If you cannot uphold either VC then why would I vote for you? I do not find it abusive to absorb your opponent’s VC while also advocating for yours.

However, just because you win the VC that does not mean the round flows to you, if you can remove the opponent’s case, whether it be through removing impacts or attacking their warrants, then your opponent doesn’t really have ground to stand on.

I said this first, but I am reiterating this now. GIVE ME VOTERS!

Policy Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. IF there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. Similar to LD I am a traditional judge. I normally do not pref, but AFF it is your job to prove that SQ is not preferred, so read into that what you will. Constructive are used to construct any new arguments, do not run anything new in the rebuttals. If you wish to bring supporting evidence or extensions that is fine, but you better be sure that it is 100% not new or I will not flow it. (This won’t cost you the round, but I won’t be happy with it as it is abusive).

YES the neg block does exist. NO Aff, just because they split it, that does not mean you get to. You are more than welcome to run an argument against this if you wish, but you see my philosophy on the matter.

In regards to. Neg strat, I will vote for generic arguments, but don’t want to. Aff you have every right to refute with non-uniqueness, but that does not mean the argument just goes away, it is your job to argue why this matters and why the non-uniq should be a voting issue. Also, Topicality is NEVER theory, it IS a stock issue, which is one of the foundations of this event. However, if you argue topicality be careful that you do not contradict yourself.

Below is a little more detail about different strategies and approaches to the event to help each team out, but full disclosure the easiest way for the Neg to get my ballot is to prove the Aff has no Inherency:

Closed Cross Examination X---------------------------------------------I need my partner to ask good questions and answer questions for me (same holds for prompting)

Policy--------------X-------------------------------K

(If you run a K and then On-Case without kicking OR playing scenarios, you are risking losing my ballot)

Tech-----------------------X------------Truth
(This is a tough one for me as I have seen both sides unfairly cost someone the round. I will listen to arguments, but as I stated earlier you need to persuade me on it, just because there is a card that says x that does not necessarily make it true. For example there are "cards" that argue the Holocaust never happened. So basically I do my best to keep my knowledge or understanding out of the round, but there are just some things that I cannot let slide (next sentence is an exmaple). Essentially, just make sure your arguments hold validity and warrants to them, don't tell me that Haiti will cause nuclear war when it's the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere...no one should accept that argument)

Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards

(Analytical arguments can 100% be used against cards)

Quality ------------X------------------------Quantity

(I do tend to lean more quality, but this is tough for me. Here's why, if you can layer arguments then do so, but if you run 5 different arguments and the opposing team can group and refute/disprove with one card then kudos to them!)

Conditionality good---------X---------------------Conditionality bad

(Just give me a reason to buy either argument)

States CP good----------------X------------------States CP bad

(Eh…it is what it is, just tired of hearing it)

Politics DA is a thing-------X----------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most--------------------------X-------Link matters most

Clarity X---------------------------------------------Um...who doesn't like clarity

Limits------------X----------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption-----------------------------X---------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev---------------------------X---------------More ev
(Please do not read me a novel)

I’m a book worm-----------X----------------I only read what you read

(I will only flow what you said/what can be understood, but be aware 9 times out of 8 [yes you read that correctly] during prep,I will read the evidence in your card that you didn’t read to ensure you are not misrepresenting or power tagging. Dependent on the severity, this may cost you the round without opponent call out. Don't think this is fair, then you should have cut the card correctly and fairly. If you did powertag and your opp calls you out, good luck getting my ballot)

Fiat anything you desire--------------X----------Let's be realistic about this

CX about impacts--------------X------------------CX about links and solvency

DA’s -----------------------X----------------------On Case

Theory -----------------------------------X---------- Traditional (The more believable the chain link the more likely I am to to buy the impacts. It is hard for me to imagine sending Smallpox Vaccines to SSA will lead to Nuclear War)

Dash from Zootopia ------------------------------X-----------------Amateur Auctioneer

(I am fine with speed, debate should be faster than conversational, but not a race. I hate spreading/rapid fire because let’s be honest no one is good at it, you sound horrible, and it’s not impressive)

Quantity of Arguments ----------------------------------------------X-Quality of Arguments

(I have voted on a round because of T, despite the AFF having a 12 page case)

At State in LD and Policy my default is 27, unless you are truly impressive or the opposite.

Congressional Debate: If you just read out loud to me do not expect a speech ranking higher than a 3 or to be ranked in the room. The purpose of this event is to make extemporaneous speeches, yes research is key, NO do not have a pre-written speech. The students that deliver the best speeches, while also showing they are aware of the debate in the chamber will win my ballot.

PF Debate: Don’t have me judge PF

WSD Debate: I have somewhat of an idea of what I am doing in this round. I am wanting to learn this event to judge, but just not there yet

Interp

Do NOT try to read me. Don't try to read me to determine how you are doing, you can be giving a performance of a lifetime and I may look disinterested, even though I am fully captivated. Or I may react to the literature, but that does not mean the performance is on par with the strength of the piece. I have heard many funny pieces that were not performed well and heard very powerful lines that were just thrown away.

There is no magic/secret thing to do to win my ballot, except give the best performance. I know super helpful, right? I consider multiple different aspects when judging: polished (holding and mastery of the manuscript), presence in the room, delivery style, performer connection to selection, audience connection, did I get drawn into the performance, etc.

I do realize that because you are interpreting you have to be extra big, but I do look for realism in the performance. Ex: Should someone be sobbing because they spilt milk? Why is someone smiling when the love of their life just died? Remember, this performance is all about peaks and valleys, if everything is delivered the same, or on one level, then nothing is important and nothing stands out to me. If I am convinced that the performer is actually experiencing the piece, that is the best way to win my ballot, because it will draw me in. If I am not drawn in then I don't believe you really interpreted the piece. Make me care about the characters, if something is suppose to be sad I want to be sad with the character. If you don't draw me in/I don't make a connection with a character, then "I won't care that your sister died".

In introductions, I like to get to see you as a person. I want the intro to sound natural and not like a memorized piece of information. Let me see/hear YOU.

SOOOOOOO TRAD.

4 years HS debate

Missouri State '24

Assistant Coach- Springfield Catholic

Pronouns- She/They

Email Chain-

danicolvin2@gmail.com

I will be flowing, even if it doesn't seem like it.

Aff

I prefer for the affirmative to have a dependable topical plan of action. Be ready to tell me why the affirmative matters and have the proper evidence to back that up. Please don't wait till the 2AC to explain the plans actions.

Topicality

Not a fan of unnecessary topicality debates. Although if the affirmative is not topical you should prove it. That being said, please bring it up in a constructive and follow through with it. If you throw it in during a rebuttal I won't vote for it

Neg

I'm really okay with any strategy. Just give me evidence, I won't vote on arguments without solid evidence to back it up.

Pet Peeves

Be kind. There is a difference between debating and arguing, so please be respectful and make this educational. Being rude will not win you the round and I will take off speaker points.

Please give roadmaps, so I can flow your speech correctly.

Don't try and talk over each other during cross.

I don't care about speed- I don't love spreading, but if both teams are comfortable with it I'm good. Just make sure that you're at a pace that everyone can understand.

Don't go over time, there is no 15 second grace.

Bottom Line

I will leave comments on your ballots, I want to help you get better at debate. Don't read to much into what I say.

At the end of the day, debate is meant to be fun and educational. The more you put into it the more you'll get out of it.

About me: 

*Over 28 years experience coaching and judging all events at the state and national level 

*Coached in Florida, Alabama and Texas 

*Awards:  2nd Diamond coach with NSDA, LBJ District Coach of the Year, LBJ District Communicator of the Year, Alabama Coach Of the Year

PF

*I am a flow judge BUT presentation also matters a great deal.  If I can't understand what you are saying, it is difficult for me to flow your arguments. 

*Respect in the round is essential.  I don't care how good you are if you are disrespectful to your opponents or to the judges you will not get my vote. Be professional and respectful at all times.  

*I am good with any kind of speed, but keep it clear and articulate. 

*If you do not extend properly, I will not buy any of your arguments.

*Proper extension should include tag, short summary of evidence, and impact calc.

*I expect FF and even Sums to have impact calculus (magnitude, propensity, reversibility, etc.)

*Impacts are essential.  I don't care if you don't tell me why I should 

* I prefer you being true to what public forum was designed for, however if you happen to run theory and Kritik debate I will be ok with it.  

 * The second speaking rebuttal should respond to turns placed in the first speaking rebuttal.

*Offense wins rounds, so make sure your voters are offensive.

*Please collapse or the debate will end up being a mess. If you are going for Theory make sure to delineate what you want me to do with it (drop the debater, drop the argument, etc.), stance on RVI, clear voters.

*I consider it the burden of the Kritik to provide an alt and prove its uniqueness, so I will default buy the perm even if your opponent doesn’t argue it unless uniqueness is proved.

*AGAIN, I prefer traditional PF debate, but I will and can adjust judging according to different styles of debate.

*Organization is key; make it easy for me to follow

*Words matter; word economy is essential.  Don't waste time with insignificant words and filler language that takes away from overall presentation points  

Extemporaneous Speaking

-Be strategic about your question; play to your strength and knowledge, but avoid easy questions that don't require much analysis

-It is imperative you answer the question clearly and concisely

-Clearly link evidence with rhetoric and impact

-Using variety of sources is important; I am not impressed with multiple sources if those sources don't directly link with what you are saying. Just spouting off sources is not impressive. The information actually has to say something of importance and connect.

-The more current the information, the better.

-Organization and structure is important; but add some personality and flair to make it interesting and engaging.

-Knowledge of the topic is essential; more rhetoric and logic used in your speech is more impressive than anything

-Professional presentation is incredibly important.

-Don't add humor if it is not your strength.

-Tone should fit the topic.

-DO NOT BE POLITICALLY POLARIZING. Bashing any ideology or person is not impressive and will immediately give me reason to not consider a high ranking. Be respectful always.

Congressional Debate 

• I NEED CLASH. This is congressional debate, unless you are 1st AFF Speech, you should have clash in your speech.  Bring up NEW points and please do not keep bringing up same points as other representatives. 
• When you clash be sure you mention representative's names when referring to their specific arguments. 
• Your speeches need evidence, MINIMUM, one piece of evidence per point. More is appreciated. 
• When using evidence, it should clearly link or I will not consider it. Include dates; the more current and relevant the better. 
• DO NOT read your speech; engage your audience and do this in a original, creative and respectful way.
• I do listen to your speeches and questions, so if you give clearly falsified evidence or logic I will know. Be involved and know parliamentary procedure as well.
• You are judged on the WHOLE round, not just speeches, so if you are rude or aren’t involved don't expect a good score from me.

I coached in Northern Colorado for three years. I now coach in the Denver-Metro area.

Policy: I won't vote on K's. You are welcome to run a K as a DA if that suits you, but I will not evaluate a Kritik at the end of the round. Other than that, I like to hear creative, original, and smart arguments. Debate is a story. I'll evaluate the round through the lens of a policymaker.

LD: LD is not policy, and if you run the round like it is, there's a very high chance I will not vote for you. I'll evaluate the round through the core value/criterion that wins (whoever convinces me their framework is best) and which team fulfills that framework.

Have fun and be nice.

PF:

-Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I prefer somewhere around 6-7. I would prefer you to slow down or pause a tad for taglines for my flow. Also if you list 4-5 short points or stats in quick succession, I probably will miss one or two in the middle if you dont slow down.

-Arguments you go for should appear in all speeches. If your offense was not brought up in summary, I will ignore it in FF.

-I do not think cross is binding. It needs to come up in the speech. I do not flow cross, and as a flow judge that makes decisions based on my flow, it won't have much bearing on the round.

-At the least I think 2nd rebuttal needs to address all offense in round. Bonus points for collapsing case and completely frontlining the argument you do go for.

-Please time yourselves. My phone is constantly on low battery, so I'd rather not use it. If you want to keep up with your opponents' prep too to keep them honest then go ahead.

-In terms of some of the more progressive things- I haven't actually heard theory in a PF round but I hear it's a thing now. If your opponent is being abusive about something then sure, let me know, either in a formal shell or informal. Don't run theory just to run it though. Obviously, counterplans and plans are not allowed in PF so just don't.

-pet peeves:

1) Bad or misleading evidence. Unfortunately this is what I am seeing PF become. Paraphrasing has gotten out of control. Your "paraphrased" card better be accurate. If one piece of evidence gets called out for being miscut or misleading, then it will make me call in to question all of your evidence. If you are a debater that runs sketchy and loose evidence, I would pref me very high or strike me.

2) Evidence clash that goes nowhere. If pro has a card that says turtles can breathe through their butt and con has a card saying they cannot and that's all that happens, then I don't know who is right. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.

3) Not condensing the round when it should be condensed. Most of the time it is not wise to go for every single argument on the flow. Sometimes you need to pick your battles and kick out of others, or risk undercovering everything.

LD:
So first, I primarily judge PF. This means my exposure to certain argument types is limited. I LOVE actually debating the resolution. Huge fan. I'm cool with DAs and CPs. Theory only if your opponent is being overly abusive (so no friv). If you are a K or tricks debater good luck. I know about the progressive things but since I primarily judge PF, my ability to evaluate it is very limited from experience. If you want to go for a K or something, I won't instantly drop you and I will try my best to flow and evaluate it in the round. But you will probably need to tweak it a little, slow down, and explain more how it is winning and why I should vote for it. I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision.

I do not want you to flash your case to me. I want to flow it. If you read to point that it is unflowable then it is your loss. If I don't flow it, I cannot evaluate it and thus, cannot vote on it. Spreading in my opinion is noneducational and antithetical to skills you should be learning from this activity. Sorry, in the real world and your future career, spreading is not an acceptable practice to convince someone and get your point across.

Both:
Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. Have fun and don't be overly aggressive.

James Constantino

I judge LD more often than anything else. I was a CX debater in the early ‘90s, but I’m self-taught on LD. More recently, I have been active in judging Congress as well.

GENERAL NOTE
First, any type of behavior that I find abusive will probably lose you the round. Debate is about the free exchange of ideas, so if you try to win a round with through deception, constantly interrupting your opponent(s), or just making an attempt to erode the integrity of the event, I cannot accept your arguments.

I DO NOT want to be the one to make the decision about who wins a round; I want you to tell me why you won. This means it is your job to tell me the story of the round. Where was the clash? What were the voters? Why do your impacts outweigh theirs? Leave as little up to my discretion as possible. I will do my best not to have my own opinions and background knowledge influence who wins the round. Please meet me half way on this and make your win explicit.


FRAMEWORK AND/OR DEFINITION DEBATE
If you intend to provide framework and/or definitions for the round, I still need to see warrants. Don't merely tell me how to view or evaluate the debate; explain why I ought to do so in your preferred manner. Also, if there are competing frameworks or definitions at play, I need to see work on weighing out why I ought to prefer one side's interpretation over the other. If I don't have reasons/warrants on which to prefer, I'll make the choice for myself, and as I just explained, I don’t want to do that.


SPEED
I can handle moderate speed. I can follow a quickly read and enunciated speech, but if you slurring your words together, hyperventilating, or just being unclear, I will call “clear” twice: once to get you to adjust and a second time to remind you. After that, I will cease to flow and your opponent(s) is no longer responsible to address your incoherent arguments. Unintelligible spreading should only exist in a round where cases have been shared prior to the debate round.

REBUTTALS
It is a debater’s obligation to address both sides of the flow in rebuttal speeches. A debater that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as arguments that go unaddressed are essentially conceded. A team that ignores this bit of adaptation should expect to see speaker points that reflect a performance that I see as half-complete.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I don't need line-by-line work in this speech. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point. As stated above, YOU should be the one to tell me the main clash of the round and why you won.

SPEAKER POINTS
My scale is essentially as follows:

· 30 – Perfection/deeply impressive.

· 29 - Near perfect speaking/execution/argumentation/strategy

· 28 - Good on pretty much all fronts

· 27 - Average

· 26-25 - Below average in one or more ways

· 24 or fewer - Deeply problematic in one or more ways, likely offensive in nature/something warranting an apology to one or more people

CONGRESS

I'm a bit old school here: Congress was a Speech event when I debated. That being said, I still expect warranted arguments which build upon or refute the arguments of other competitors. Outstanding representatives have a speaking style which sets them apart from their opponents.

My email is carolynsearscook@gmail.com carolyncook@smsd.org and I think it would be awesome for you all to start the email chain before I get to the debate so that we don't have to waste time doing it once I arrive:)

I debated in high school in Kansas from 1999-2003 (SME). I coached high school debate throughout college but did not debate in college. I was the director of debate at Lansing High School where I coached and taught from 2009-2018. This (23-24) is my 6th year directing and teaching speech & debate at Shawnee Mission South.

I dislike when debaters are mean. This activity is awesome--I believe that it pushes us and makes us better thinkers and people--and debaters cheapen that opportunity when we choose not to respect one another. Please just be kind humans.

I learned to debate and evaluate debates as a policy maker but also find that I much prefer seeing you do what you do best in rounds. That being said, you know your lit and arguments better than I do (at least you should). So:

1. If you don't think the aff should get to weigh their 1AC against the criticism, you have to tell me why--same if you think that we should abandon the topic as the aff.
2. If you want me to evaluate an argument and your 'warrant' is described as a specific term: that one word is not a warrant. . . you should include a description of WHY your claim is true/accurate/means you win. Debates that are heavily reliant on jargon that I am unfamiliar with will result in me being confused.
3. If you do little work on literature (especially lit I am not familiar with), please don't then expect me to do a bunch of work for you in the decision.

You should clearly articulate the arguments you want to forward in the debate--I value persuasion as an important part of this activity.

Please be organized--doing so allows me to focus on the quality of argumentation in the round. Debates are so much more fun to watch when you have a strategic approach that you execute with care. Talk about your evidence. Warranted and strategic analysis that demonstrates your understanding of your own arguments, and their interactions with your opponent's, make debates better.

I default competing interpretations on Topicality and think T debates should include case lists and topical version of the aff. I think that weighing impacts is important. I also just enjoy good case debate. I tend to find consult and and condition CPs to be cheating...but you still have to answer them. You should always answer conditionality.

I really prefer that you are as explicit about HOW you would like for me to evaluate the debate and WHY this approach is best.

Please speak clearly... if you are incomprehensible my flow will not be great and the quality of my evaluation of the round will likely decrease.

Clear refutations are key to winning the debate. Speed-talking and arrogance are frowned upon. Debates should be consistent from construction to final focus, ideally while supporting a clear framework. Use sign-posts throughout to avoid dropped contentions. Solid evidence should clearly link contentions to impacts. Be civil.

High school debate: Baltimore Urban Debate League ( Lake Clifton Eastern High School).

College debate: University of Louisville then Towson University.

Grad work: Cal State Fullerton.

Current: Director of Debate at Long Beach State (CSU Long Beach), former Director of Debate a Fresno State.

Email for chain: Devenc325@gmail.com

Speaker Point Scale

29.5-30: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year and has a high grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and Swag is on 100. This means expert explanation of arguments and most arguments are offensive.

29 - 29.5: very good speaker has a middle grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and mid-range swag. Explanation of arguments are of great quality and many of the arguments are offensive.

28.4 - 28.9: good speaker; may have some above average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of good quality and several of the arguments are offensive.

28 - 28.3: solid speaker; needs some work; probably has average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of okayish quality and very few of the arguments are offensive.

27.1 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work on the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym. Not that good of explanation with no offensive arguments.

< 27: you have done something deeply problematic in this debate like clipping cards or linguistic violence, or rhetorically performed an ism without apology or remorse.

Please do not ask me to disclose points nor tell me as an argument to give you a 30. I wont. For some reason people think you are entitled to high points, I am not that person. So, you have to earn the points you get.

IF YOU ARE IN HIGHSCHOOL, SKIP DOWN TO THE "Judging Proper" section :)

Cultural Context

If you are a team that reads an argument based in someone else's identity, and you are called on it by another team with receipts of how it implicates the round you are in, its an uphill battle for you. I am a fan of performing your politics with consistency and genuine ethical relationships to the people you speak about. I am a fan of the wonderful author Linda Martin Alcoff who says " where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says." With that said, you can win the debate but the burden of proof is higher for you....

Post Rounding

I will not entertain disrespectful or abrasive engagement because you lost the round. If you have questions, you may ask in a way that is thoughtful and seeking understanding. If your coach thinks they will do this as a defense of your students, feel free to constrain me. I will not allow my students to engage that way and the same courtesy should be extended to EVERYONE. Losing doesn't does not give you license to be out of your mind and speak with malice. Keep in mind I am not from the suburbs and I will not tolerate anyone's nasty demeanor directed at me nor my students.

"Community" Members

I do not and will not blindly think that all people in this activity are kind, trustworthy, non-cheaters, good intentioned, or will not do or say anything in the name of competition or malice towards others. Please miss me with having faith in people in an activity that often reveals people engaging in misconduct, exploitation, grooming, or other inappropriate activities that often times NEVER get reported. MANY of you have created and perpetuated a culture of toxicity and elitism, then you are surprised when the chickens come home to roost. This applies to ALL forms of college and high school debate...

Judging Proper

I am more than willing to listen to ANY arguments that are well explained and impacted and relate to how your strategy is going to produce scholarship, policy action, performance, movement, or whatever political stance or program. I will refer to an educator framework unless told otherwise...This means I will evaluate the round based on how you tell me you want it to be framed and I will offer comments on how you could make your argument better after the round. Comparison, Framing, OFFENSE is key for me. Please indict each other's framework or role of the ballot/role of the judge for evaluation and make clear offense to how that may make a bad model of debate. OR I am down with saying the debate should not be a reflection about the over all model of debate/ no model.

I DO NOT privilege certain teams or styles over others because that makes debate more unfair, un-educational, cliquey, and makes people not feel valued or wanted in this community, on that note I don't really jive to well with arguments about how certain folks should be excluded for the sake of playing the "game". NOR do I feel that there are particular kinds of debate related to ones personal identity. I think people are just making arguments attached to who they are, which is awesome, but I will not privilege a kind of debate because some asserts its a thing.

I judge debates according to the systematic connection of arguments rather than solely line by line…BUT doesn’t mean if the other team drops turns or other arguments that I won’t evaluate that first. They must be impacted and explained. PLEASE always point out reason why the opposing team is BAD and have contextualized reasons for why they have created a bad impact or make one worse. I DO vote on framework and theory arguments….I’ve been known to vote on Condo quite a bit, but make the interp, abuse story, and contradictions clear. If the debate devolves into a theory debate, I still think the AFF should extend a brief summary of the case.

Don’t try to adapt to how I used to debate if you genuinely don’t believe in doing so or just want to win a ballot. If you are doing a performance I will hold you to the level that it is practiced, you have a reason for doing so, and relates to the overall argument you are making…Don’t think “oh! I did a performance in front of Deven, I win.” You are sadly mistaken if so. It should be practiced, timed well, contain arguments, and just overall have a purpose. It should be extended with full explanation and utility.

Overall I would like to see a good debate where people are confident in their arguments and feel comfortable being themselves and arguing how they feel is best. I am not here to exclude you or make you feel worthless or that you are a "lazy" intellectual as some debaters may call others, but I do like to see you defend your side to the best of your ability.

GET OFF THEM BLOCKS SOME! I get it coaches like to block out args for their students, even so far as to script them out. I think this is a practice that is only focused on WINNING and not the intellectual development of debaters who will go on to coach younger debaters. A bit of advice that I give to any debater I come across is to tell them to READ, READ, READ. It is indeed fundamental and allows for the expansion of example use and fluency of your arguments.

A few issues that should be clarified:

Decorum: I DO NOT LIKE when teams think they can DISRESPECT, BULLY, talk RUDE to, or SCREAM at other teams for intimidation purposes in order to win or throw the other team off. Your points will be effected because this is very unbecoming and does not allow this space to be one of dialogue and reciprocity. If someone disrespects you, I am NOT saying turn the other cheek, but have some tact and utility of how you engage these folks. And being hyper evasive to me is a hard sell. Do not get me wrong, I do love the sassiness, sarcasm, curtness, and shade of it all but there is a way to do it with tact. I am also NOT persuaded that you should be able to be rude or do whatever you want because you are a certain race, class, gender, sex, sexuality, or any other intersection under the sun. That to me is a problematic excuse that intensifies the illegit and often rigid criticism that is unlashed upon "identity politics."

Road maps: STICK TO IT. I am a tight flower and I have a method. However, I need to know where things go so there is no dispute in the RFD that something was answered or not. If you are a one off team, please have a designed place for the PERM. I can listen well and know that there are places things should go, but I HATE to do that work for a team. PLEASE FLOW and not just follow the doc. If you answer an arg that was in the doc, but not read, I will take it as you note flowing nor paying attention to what is going on.

Framework and Theory: I love smart arguments in this area. I am not inclined to just vote on debate will be destroyed or traditional framework will lead to genocide unless explained very well and impacted based on some spill over claims. There must be a concrete connection to the impacts articulated on these and most be weighed. I am persuaded by the deliberation arguments, institutional engagement/building, limits, and topical versions of the Aff. Fairness is an interesting concept for me here. I think you must prove how their model of debate directly creates unfairness and provide links to the way their model of debate does such. I don't think just saying structural fairness comes first is the best without clarification about what that means in the context of the debate space and your model of debate.

Some of you K/Performance folks may think I am a FW hack, thas cute or whatever. Instead of looking at the judge as the reason why you weren't adequate at defending your business, you should do a redo, innovate, or invest in how to strategize. If it seems as though you aren't winning FW in front of me that means you are not focusing how offense and your model produces some level of "good." Or you could defend why the model approach is problematic or several reasons. I firmly believe if someone has a model of debate or how they want to engage the res or this space, you MUST defend it and prove why that is productive and provides some level of ground or debatability.

Winning Framework for me includes some level of case turn or reason why the aff produces something bad/ blocks something good/ there's a PIC/PIK of some kind (explained). This should be coupled with a proficient explanation of either the TVA or SSD strategy with the voter components (limits, predictability, clash, deliberation, research burden, education, fairness, ground etc.) that solidify your model of debate.

Performance: It must be linked to an argument that is able to defend the performance and be able to explain the overall impact on debate or the world/politics itself. Please don’t do a performance to just do it…you MUST have a purpose and connect it to arguments. Plus debate is a place of politics and args about debate are not absent politics sometimes they are even a pre-req to “real” politics, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You must have a role of the ballot or framework to defend yourself, or on the other side say why the role of the ballot is bad. I also think those critics who believe this style of debate is anti-intellectual or not political are oversimplifying the nuance of each team that does performance. Take your role as an educator and stop being an intellectual coward or ideology driven hack.

Do not be afraid to PIK/PIC out of a performance or give reasons why it was BAD. Often people want to get in their feelings when you do this. I am NOT sympathetic to that because you made a choice to bring it to this space and that means it can be negated, problematized, and subject to verbal criticism.

Topic/Resolution: I will vote on reasons why or why not to go by the topic...unlike some closed minded judges who are detached from the reality that the topics chosen may not allow for one to embrace their subjectivity or social location in ways that are productive. This doesn’t mean I think talking about puppies and candy should win, for those who dumb down debate in their framework args in that way. You should have a concrete and material basis why you chose not to engage the topic and linked to some affirmation against racism/sexism/homophobia/classism/elitism/white supremacy and produces politics that are progressive and debatable. There would have to be some metric of evaluation though. BUT, I can be persuaded by the plan focus and topic education model is better middle ground to what they want to discuss.

Hella High Theory K: i.e Hiediggar, Baudrillard, Zizek, D&G, Butler, Arant, and their colleagues…this MUST be explained to me in a way that can make some material sense to me as in a clear link to what the aff has done or an explanation of the resolution…I feel that a lot of times teams that do these types of arguments assume a world of abstraction that doesn’t relate fully to how to address the needs of the oppressed that isn’t a privileged one. However, I do enjoy Nietzsche args that are well explained and contextualized. Offense is key with running these args and answering them.

Disadvantages: I’m cool with them just be well explained and have a link/link wall that can paint the story…you can get away with a generic link with me if you run politics/econ/tradeoff disads. But, it would be great to provide a good story. In the 2NC/1NR retell the story of the disad with more context and OFFENSE and compartmentalize the parts. ALWAYS tell me why it turns and outweighs case. Disads on case should be impacted and have a clear link to what the aff has done to create/perpetuate the disad. If you are a K team and you kick the alt that solves for the disads…that is problematic for me. Affs need to be winning impact framing and some level of offense. No link is not enough for me.

Perms: I HATE when people have more than 3 perms. Perm theory is good here for me, do it and not just GROUP them. For a Method v Method debate, you do not get to just say you dont get a perm. Enumerate reasons why they do not get a perm. BUT, if an Aff team in this debate does make a perm, it is not just a test of competition, it is an advocacy that must be argued as solving/challenging what is the issue in the debate.
Additionally, you can kick the perms and no longer have to be burden with that solvency. BUT you must have offensive against their C/P, ALT, or advocacy.

Counterplans/Advocacies: They have to solve at least part of the case and address some of the fundamental issues dealing with the aff’s advantages especially if it’s a performance or critical aff…I’m cool with perm theory with a voter attached. I am cool with any kind of these arguments, but an internal net benefit is not enough for me in a policy counterplan setting. If you are running a counter advocacy, there must be enumerated reasons why it is competitive, net beneficial, and is the option that should be prioritized. I do love me a PIK/PIC or two, but please do it effectively with specific evidence that is a criticism of the phrase or term the aff used. But, know the difference between piking out of something and just criticizing the aff on some trivial level. I think you need to do very good analysis in order to win a PIC/PIK. I do not judge kick things...that is your job.

Affs in the case of PIK/PICs, you must have disads to the solvency (if any), perm, theory, defend the part that is questionable to the NEG.

Race/ Identity arguments: LOVE these especially from the Black/Latinx/Asian/Indigenous/Trans/Sexuality perspective (most familiar with) , but this doesn’t mean you will win just because you run them like that. I like to see the linkage between what the aff does wrong or what the aff/neg has perpetuated. I’m NOT likely to vote on a link of omission unless some structural claim has risen the burden. I am not familiar with ALL of these types of args, so do not assume that I know all you literature or that I am a true believer of your arguments about Blackness. I do not believe that Blackness based arguments are wedded to an ontology focus or that one needs to win or defeat ontology to win.

I am def what some of you folks would call a "humanist and I am okay with that. Does not mean you can't win any other versions of that debate in front of me.

Case Args: Only go for case turns and if REALLY needed for your K, case defense.…they are the best and are offensive , however case defense may work on impacts if you are going for a K. If you run a K or performance you need to have some interaction with the aff to say why it is bad. Please don't sandbag these args so late in the debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am of the strong belief that Congressional debate is a DEBATE event first and foremost. I do not have an I.E or speech background. However, I do teach college public speaking and argumentation. The comments I leave will talk about some speech or style components. I am not a judge that heavily favors delivery over the argumentation and evidence use.

I am a judge that enjoys RECENT evidence use, refutation, and clash with the topics you have been assigned.

STRUCTURE OF SPEECHES

I really like organization. With that said, I do prefer debaters have a introduction with a short attention getter, and a short preview statement of their arguments. In the body of the speech, I would like some level of impacting/ weighing of your arguments and their arguments ( if applicable), point out flaws in your opponents argumentation (lack of solvency, fallacies, Alternative causes), cite evidence and how it applies, and other clash based refutation. If you want to have a conclusion, make sure it has a short summary and a declarative reason to pass or fail.

REFUTATION

After the first 2 speeches of the debate, I put heavy emphasis on the idea that these speeches should have a refutation component outside of you extending a previous argument from your side, establish a new argument/evidence, or having some kind of summary. I LOVE OFFENSE based arguments that will turn the previous arguments state by the opposition. Defensive arguments are fine, but please explain why they mean the opposition cannot solve or why your criticism of their evidence or reason raises to the level of rejecting their stance. Please do not list more than 2 or 3 senators or reps that you are refuting because in some cases it looks like students are more concerned with the appearance of refutation than actually doing it. I do LOVE sassy, assertive or sarcastic moments but still be polite.

EVIDENCE USE

I think evidence use is very important to the way I view this type of debate. You should draw evidence from quality sources whether that is stats/figures/academic journals/narrative from ordinary people. Please remember to cite where you got your information and the year. I am a hack for recency of your evidence because it helps to illuminate the current issues on your topic. Old evidence is a bit interesting and should be rethought in front of me. Evidence that doesn't at some level assume the ongoing/aftermath of COVID-19 is a bit of a stretch. Evidence comparison/analysis of your opponent is great as well.

ANALYSIS

I LOVE impact calculus where you tell me why the advantages of doing or not doing a bill outweighs the costs. This can be done in several ways, but it should be clear, concise, and usually happen in the later speeches. At a basic level, doing timeframe, magnitude, probability, proximity, or any other standard for making arguments based on impact are great. I DISLIKE rehash....If you are not expanding or changing the way someone has articulated an argument or at least acknowledge it, I do not find rehash innovative nor high rank worthy. This goes back to preparation and if you have done work on both sides of a bill. You should prepare multiple arguments on a given side just in case someone does the argument before you. There is nothin worse to me than an unprepared set of debaters that must take a bunch of recesses/breaks to prepare to switch.

I am a veteran LD coach in Indiana. I teach history and philosophy.

I expect both sides of the debate to present a framework for consideration including a value structure and value criterion. I will not vote on dropped arguments unless it becomes a tie breaker or a dropped argument is essential to the overall round. In other words, spreading will not be an effective strategy.

I will not automatically vote down Ks or Theory, but they need to fit within your framework. Also, unlike Policy, I do not access a default to utility, so arguing exclusively based on impacts without first establishing utility in your framework does not automatically win in voters.

Don't make assumptions about concepts you introduce. If you are going to talk about justice, you need to provide a rational for your conception of justice and not assume that the judge and your competitor automatically agree on your understanding. You need to lay this out in your framework. If your opponent suggests Aristotle and you prefer Rawls, you need to make me care about your view for me to prefer it over the alternative.

Finally, on evidence I will not consider appeals to authority as evidence. I don't care if you quote 17 "experts" who agree with your opinion, that doesn't count as evidence. If you have no warrant and just try to gloss over that deficiency with appeals to authority, you have no argument. Internals matter, and quoted evidence needs to be substantive. If the facts aren't in question, reason trumps appeals.

Hello everyone!

When it comes to debate my philosophy is usually Tabula Rasa. I do not assume any particular paradigm but instead I want you to show me why your argument should be voted on. One thing that I personal enjoy the most with debate is that you are having fun! I think debate is such a fun sport/activity. Even though debate can be competitive, it should be a dreadful event. Instead it should be a time to have fun and share your knowledge and skills with others.

When it comes to platform speeches, I am very traditional in the sense that persuasive language should be avoided in the informative speeches and vice versa. Remember that your informative speech needs to be unbiased.

For limited prep events, I want to see clear organization with main points, subpoints, transitions, etc. The limited prep events should be interesting and provide a new/interesting perspective on the topic/quote.

The interpretive events (Duo, Prose, POI, POE, DI, etc.) I like to see solid character development. I want to see you embody the character/s both physically and mentally. It should not sound it should not sound like you are reading, but you are truly the character you a trying to portray. I do look into how well you are changing your tone, rate, and pitch of your voice.

Most important, you all should be very proud of all the hard work you put into these events. I know that this takes a lot of time a dedication. Even if you don’t win a round, keep your head up and learn from your experiences to do better. You are all brilliant students who are capable of doing amazing things. 

Lay judge.

Long-time speech competitor so I like well-presented cases and clear questioning :-) 

I prefer that students debate in the way they feel most comfortable. My decision is based on who best upheld their V/C and who best countered claims made by the other team.

I have been a judge in some capacity (coach, hired) since 1998. I've seen many trends come and go. I used to be a traditionalist when it came to interp and blocking, but understand how the events have evolved and adapted my judging to suit what the community has deemed appropriate. However, here are some event specific elements of my paradigm.

Extemp - I believe that fundamentally, an extemp speech must be founded on answering the question that is posed. I think the unified analysis is the best way to support your thesis, but am open to other organizational methods. Source citations should include the name of the source and the date for me to give them full weight. I know what's going on the in the world. Do not lie or embellish with me. It will not go well. I would rather have someone give their best try with a hard topic than to have someone make things up or misrepresent the facts of the matter. Especially with having access to the internet, there is no excuse for making things up in Extemp.

Informative - I have been around Informative speaking for a lot longer than it has been a TFA event. This event is one where you can do a speech about anything, but that doesn't mean you should do a speech about anything. It should be something where you are informing us about a topic with relevance to you (the speaker) and which you can "sell" to us as interesting and relevant to us. The quality of visual aides matter. Sloppy VAs speak volumes about the speech. Neat and clean VAs speak well and set a good impression. This should not be Infosuasion (meaning that it is a persuasive in tone, but using VAs). The best informatives have balance in them (pros and cons) and a lot of information that we wouldn't otherwise know but for this speech. Source citations should include the name of the source and the date for me to give them full weight.

Oratory - I think the best oratories are ones where they are relevant to everyone in the audience, as well as the speaker. Oratories that are overly-focused on the speaker tend to be exclusive and I think feed into the perception of this event as "bore-atory" I like advocacy focused on Problem - Cause - Solution or Problem - Cause - Impact or something similar. Source citations should include the name of the source and the date for me to give them full weight. Personal examples are ok, but should not be the main part of the support for your speech. Research is important for good persuasion for a Logos person (that'd be me).

DI/HI - I lump these together because I view good interp from the same lens. I think that the best interpers make you forget that they're a high school student performing at a speech and debate contest. If it is serious, I want to feel like you set me in that scene and that you are your character(s). If it is funny, I want to see the scene play out with the humor being an integral part of the cutting and your performance. I think blocking is a compliment to the performance. It should not distract from it. The choice of literature matters. DIs should present a good exploration of the dramatic curve - in otherwords, don't stay at one level the whole time. Have some development from start to climax to conclusion. HIs should similarly utilize the dramatic curve to build to the climactic humorous scene or event. Audience appropriateness is also an element in my judging for these events. Both in the performance choices and in the literature selection.

POI - Notice I didn't lump POI with the other individual interps. While much of the same is true of the performance elements as those events, I fundamentally believe that POI must have a thematic argument that the program explores. It is not DI with a few poems thrown in. It is fundamentally different from the other interp events. The intro must establish what this argumentative framework is for me to really appreciate the thematic choice. I also believe that the best POIs are inclusive of the audience in terms of interest and relevance - similar to my thoughts on an OO. Book work should be complimentary and not distracting from the performance.

Duo/Duet - In addition to my thoughts on DI/HI, I think how the performers work together is essential to a great partnered interp event.

Impromptu - The speech must be based on the topic drawn. Please do not shoe-horn in a canned speech into whatever quote you drew. Use your knowledge. Distill a message from the quote/topic, take a position on the message, and back it up with examples. I think variety in example areas and mastery of what you're talking about are important. I think the best impromptu speakers used 1:00-1:30 of their prep time to leave 5:30-6:00 for the speech.

Prose - See my DI/HI and POI commentary.

School Affiliation: Coach at Lovejoy High School

Debate Experience: Coaching and judging LD and CX since 2013, PF since 2016

Email: jakecosio123@gmail.com

On CX and LD:

Speed - I don’t mind speed. Please clearly signal that you are transitioning from cards to tags. Slow down for your tags (especially if they are super long) and cites. If you could number or in some way signal me on analytics to help me get my flow to match yours it would be much appreciated. In summation, the more explicit you are with organization the better I will be able to flow. Additionally, I will say “clear” if your words are slurred or say “slow down” if you are simply outpacing my ability to flow accurately.

Theory - I like theory when it is necessary, but dislike the use of blippy theory. If you have any theory (or any other format of arg) that says using specific words is bad, just tell everyone before the round what is preferable. If they bait it after that then I’m all ears, but will have a really high threshold on this otherwise (as in you will have to prove to me why it wasn’t important enough to disclose before the round but is important enough for me to vote on). On other issues, I’m really looking for good internal links to your voting issues. Absent debate, I tend to prefer single actor CP’s to multi-actor and dispositionality to condo.

Topicality - I default to competing interpretations. In round abuse is preferable, but I will listen to potential abuse if well developed and defined. Make sure to clearly link and establish your impact(s) to your standards. I am generally not inclined to vote on T as an RVI.

Kritiks - Being completely honest, I am not the best at evaluating K debate. I prefer strategies going for a mix of DA/CP/T/Case and am much more comfortable evaluating these. I would say you're running the K at your own risk. If you are a K debater, that’s fine, but please take the time to explain your K to me without assuming that I have read your authors and/or have intimate knowledge of their content. To be clear, speak in plain English when explaining everything (even your tags).

Speaks - I generally reward organization, clarity, and efficiency. In essence, the easier you make it for me to flow (without boring me to death) the better your speaks will be. On the other hand, I penalize rudeness and unprofessionalism. I expect a fairly high level of decorum (stand while speaking, don’t use offensive/vulgar language, etc.).

On CX specifically:

To categorize myself neatly in some distinct category isn’t fair for anyone, but the closest approximation that I can make is to place me on the policy maker side of tab with a few caveats (as outlined above).

In cross-examination I have a preference for the speakers traditionally assigned to a certain cross-x to be the people that are active during this time. If your partner is answering a significant portion of the questions asked of you, you will be penalized in speaker points. One or two questions isn’t a big deal to me, but 50+ percent of them would see a small penalty.

On LD specifically:

Keep in mind that I am not necessarily expecting (or even wanting) you to run policy args. A good framework with well established advantages of affirming/negating is a completely acceptable strategy to me.

On PF:

Speed - a fast conversational seems best suited to PF for me.

Format of Summary Speeches - I would prefer a line by line, but if grouping is necessary for efficiency I am ok with it.

Role of the Final Focus - Weighing and voters

Topicality - Run it if it is necessary, but I am most likely just going to default to reasonability and gut check it before anything else on the flow.

Plans - I think all offense should be linked directly to the resolution, but you can characterize how the resolution would be implemented. In the instance of Con speaking first, I will not allow the Pro to no link all of the Con offense simply because they present a plan.

Kritiks - I'm really bad at them. Probably not a good idea (see above).

Flowing/note-taking - I will judge based on my flow.

Argument vs style - my ballot will be based on the arguments. Style will not weigh in much to my decision (as long as style does not interfere with my ability to understand you).

A few questions you may want answers to:

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, it should be extended.

Do I vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No

Anything else:

Feel free to ask me questions before the round if you can be reasonably specific.

Welcome to my paradigm page, I am very glad to see you here. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ME AS A JUDGE THAT YOU READ THE THINGS THAT I SAY HERE IF YOU WANT TO WIN MY BALLOT:

To start, my credentials are as follows:

-Nationally ranked 7th in Big Question Debate

-The furthest a debater from Arkansas has ever advanced at the NSDA national tournament

-Arkansas State Champion for collegiate debate.

-Various first place trophies in the debate forms Big Question, Public Forum, IPDA, and Congress

With all of these in mind it is safe to say that I am well versed in all debate forms, though I never competed in policy or Lincoln Douglass debate I do have an great understanding of them.

Now, what does it take to win my ballot?

I am a simple guy, I like solid argumentation that is straight up with the topic and I don't want to see poorly thought out, squirrely argumentation. One would think that would be enough said on the issue, but I will outline what that means.

Public Forum:

-I am traditionalist in debate forms. That is to say that in Public Forum, for example, I do not want to see people running Ks, plans, or especially spreading (brisk speaking is not spreading, spreading is marked by the sharp inhale of breath along with a massive amount of speed! Do not do this if you have any hope of winning my ballot, while I can keep up with you, I am a traditionalist and I know what the format calls for. Don't do it!)

-If you want to win my ballot, make logical arguments and impact them out for me. If you use a weighing mech, then keep using it if you want me to vote on it.

Policy:

-Here I expect to see well thought out plans and argumentation. The restrictions that we have on other debate formats is lifted here, so speed, Ks, and plans are all encouraged. Ultimately do what you're supposed to do as a debater you'll have access to my ballot.

LD:

-*See Public Forum in regards to the rules on speaking*

-This is value debate, please do not lose your value.

IPDA:

-This is meant to be friendly and cordial and you will be judged on that. Don't try to bulldoze one another like you would see in another debate format.

Congress:

-Debaters must further debate at all times to gain the latter half of their points. This is to say that what you need to do (after the authorship/sponsorship speech) is not just give me information, but also refute the other side.

-If I see you just giving me the same information as other debaters you will get no more than a 2 in regards to speech quality

BQ:

-This debate is near and dear to my heart, I competed in it at nationals twice and my senior year it is the debate form that I placed 7th in the nation in. Suffice it to say that I know the ins and outs of this debate especially, and that includes the purposes of each speech. If you violate any of the Big Question principles either in speech purpose or via incorrect argumentation I will vote you down without hesitation.

Public Forum, Big Question, IPDA, and Congress debaters: Do not use a slippery slope argument, a plan, or a K on the resolution or I will drop you.

Beyond that, make sure your arguments are topical and impact them out for you, I am a flow judge and I do not shadow extend your arguments for you. You are not Aaron Rodgers and I am not Davante Adams, there will be no Hail Mary arguments caught by me for you to snatch the dub. Other than that, have fun and go catch some Dubs.

Email chain: jcox2@neisd.net

Debate

Stock issues with slight emphasis on communication skills as a whole. The three appeals should all be made in your case and have equal strength. Stay on topic. Spreading is fine, just understand that I have to be able to understand you in order to judge you. Not doing so might result in some misunderstandings on my part, which would help your opposition. I like listening to you speak, and Debate is a speaking competition. I am finding through the tournament that I am also judging on an offense/defense stature between the two opposing teams. The more time you spend attacking your opposition's case, the better.

Interp

Characterization and emotion are big with me. If you can move me and make me believe you are your characters, you have a great shot at high rank.

Speech (Extemp & Prepared)

Structure is huge, especially in extemp. Using time and space are icing on the cake. Utilizing the three appeals in OO and persuasive speeches are excellent ways to "win me over."

Hi Debaters,

Welcome to the tournament. I hope you have a great competition today.

Please speak slowly & clearly.

I am a lay judge who prefers traditional cases. Please no K's, counter plans, etc. Again, please speak slowly & clearly as possible.

Have fun & Good Luck!

Lynne Coyne, Myers Park HS, NC. 20+ years experience across formats

GENERAL COMMENTS

I have coached debate, and been a classroom teacher, for a long time. I feel that when done well, with agreed upon “rules of engagement”, there is not a better activity to provide a training ground for young people.

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is parallel to that of an instructor. I will evaluate your performance. I see my role as to set a fair, but stringent, set of expectations for the students I am judging. At times, this means advancing expectations that I feel are best for the students and, at times, the broader community as well. I see myself as a critic of argument , or in old school policy lingo, a hypothesis tester. The resolution is what I vote for or against, rather than just your case or counterplan, unless given a compelling reason otherwise.

Below please find a few thoughts as to how I evaluate debates.

1. Speed is not a problem. In most of the debates I judge, clarity IS the problem not the speed of spoken word itself. I reserve the right to yell “clear” once or twice…after that, the burden is on the debater. I will show displeasure… you will not be pleased with your points. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable but I recognize that low point wins are often a needed option, particularly in team events. The debater adapts to the audience to transmit the message-not the opposite. I believe I take a decent flow of the debate.

2. I generally dislike theory debates littered with jargon (exception is a good policy T debate that has communication implications and standards—if you’ve known me long enough this will still make you shake your head perhaps). Just spewing without reasons why an interpretation is superior for the round and the activity is meaningless. Disads run off the magical power of fiat are rarely legitimate since fiat is just an intellectual construct. I believe all resolutions are funadamentally questions of WHO should do WHAT--arguments about the best actor are thus legitimate. I am not a person who enjoys random bad theory debates and ugly tech debates. I judge debates based on what is said and recorded on my flow--not off of shared docs which can become an excuse for incomprehensibilty. I look at cards/docs only if something is called into question.

3. Evidence is important. In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues (particularly empirical ones), in addition to a comparison of competing warrants in the evidence, is important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, I am likely to prefer your argument if the comparison is done well. All students should have full cites for materials.

4. I am not a “blank state”. I also feel my role as a judge is to serve a dual function of rendering a decision, in addition to serving a role as educator as well. I try not to intervene on personal preferences that are ideological, but I believe words do matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic etc will not be tolerated. If I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round, I will intervene.

The ballot acts as a teaching tool NOT a punishment.

5. Answer questions in cross-examination/cross-fire. Cross-ex is binding. I do listen carefully to cross – ex. Enter the content of CX into speeches to translate admissions into arguments. Do not all speak at once in PF and do allow your partner to engage equally in grand cross fire.

6. Debating with a laptop is a choice, if you are reading from a computer I have three expectations that are nonnegotiable:

A) You must jump the documents read to the opposition in a timely manner (before your speech or at worse IMMEDIATELY after your speech) to allow them to prepare or set up an email chain.

B) If your opponent does not have a laptop you need to have a viewing computer OR surrender your computer to them to allow them to prepare. The oppositions need to prep outweighs your need to prep/preflow in that moment in time.

C) My expectation is that the documents that are shared are done in a format that is the same as read by the debater that initially read the material. In other words, I will not tolerate some of the shenanigan’s that seem to exist, including but not limited to, using a non standard word processing program, all caps, no formatting etc..

7. Weighing and embedded clash are a necessary component of debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. A dropped argument will rarely alone equal a ballot in isolation.

8. An argument makes a claim, has reasoning, and presents a way to weigh the implications (impacts). I feel it takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments. If an argument is just a claim, it will carry very little impact.

POLICY

At the NCFL 2023 I will be judging policy debate for the first time in a decade. Here is the warning: I know the generic world of policy, but not the acronyms, kritiks, etc., of this topic. You need to slow down to make sure I am with you. As in all forms of debate, choice of arguments in later speeches and why they mean you win not only the argument, but the round, is important. If you are choosing to run a policy structured argument in another format--better be sure you have all your prima facia burdens met and know the demands of that format.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Please ask me specific questions if you have one before the debate.

I like to see a variety of sources in extemp. Don't just throw it in there to have it, make sure it helps paint the picture.

I like to see some type of extemp walk to help me visualize the speech more.

Threads not the most important to have in extemp, but there should be some solid transitions going into each point.

Significance in all speech events are super important to me. I need to know why I should listen to you.

If using language it really needs to have it's purpose.

Debate:

Talk Pretty

I enjoy role of the ballot and role of the judge you tell me how to vote on the round.

Run whatever as long as you can explain. Key word is EXPLAIN.

Don't be rude to one another or you will lose speaker points.

I will adopt the debaters' paradigms and hear just about any type of argument as long as analytics are given to explain. I won't intervene by providing my own links or analysis if debaters just read cards at me.

Likewise, give me a framework and tell me how to weigh the round. In LD, I want this to be explicitly stated, even if it is a progressive framework. I'm fine with a non-traditional framework. Just explain it to me. In PF, the framework may or may not be explicitly stated, but I should be able to easily extrapolate a standard.

I like an LD 1AR/1NR or PF Rebuttal to be line-by-line, but feel free to tell me what you think is more important/has more weight in the round. I like LD 2AR/2NR to crystallize and give voters-not more line-by-line. Same with PF Summary and Final Focus.

It is imperative that debaters give voting issues and impact calculus linked back to the framework. If you don't, I'm stuck comparing argument to argument.

I am fine with both progressive debate and traditional debate. A bit of speed is fine, but I would prefer that it not rise to the rates in CX. I can follow you, but I'd prefer to have time to digest your arguments. Also, keep in mind that more isn't necessarily better. Be strategic. Introduce what you think you can reasonably handle. I'm fine with debaters kicking out of arguments. Funnel arguments down to what is really important and viable in the round.

Experience: Head coach for 8 years at Wichita Northwest. Assistant coach for 3 years at Topeka High. Debated 4 years in high school. I have judged at nationals in debate/speech events 15+ years.

Speed: Okay with moderate to quick pace. Spreading okay on evidence BUT, I prefer slower and more deliberate pace with analysis.

Paradigm: I default to policymaker. Please tell me how YOU would like me to weigh the round.

Positions: I evaluate Topicality roughly on par with other issues in the round. I am fine with generic DA's as long as the links are explained clearly. CP’s and K’s are acceptable as long as text/links are well explained and maintain competition in the round. I evaluate the round pretty evenly between argumentation and communication skills. You have to have both the winning arguments and the ability to communicate them clearly and persuasively.

Novice Rounds: If this is a novice round, I expect to hear case debate and explanations. Please do more than read evidence. Explain what you are reading, what it relates to in the round, and how it advances your position. You should avoid arguing a disadvantage/counterplan/K if you have never read it before or haven't at least talked to your coach about what it means. Overall, I want to see clash and a debate about substantive issues rather than about how the other side debated. Focus on the arguments not on the opponents themselves.

I have extensive experience as a high school and collegiate competitor, and have recently returned to the activity as a Judge.  

I will flow the round well, and signposting where you are and matching up arguments to emphasize clash is appreciated.

I will issue a ballot for a well-formed and defended argument on any stock issue.  If all stock issues are covered then I will conduct an impact analysis to determine the winner of the round.

In my 25th year as the head debate coach at Strake Jesuit. Prior to that I worked as a public defender.Persuasion, clarity, and presentation matter to me. I have a workable knowledge on many progressive arguments, but my preference is traditional, topical debate. Because I don't judge much, it is important to speak clearly and articulate the things that you want me to pay close attention to. If you go too fast and don't follow this advice you will lose me. I will not vote off of something that I don't understand. You need to make my path to your ballot clear. I like certain types of theory arguments and will vote off of them if there is a demonstrated abuse (topicality, disclosure, etc.). My firm belief is that you should debate the topic assigned. I also am a big fan of disclosure. I think that it levels the playing field for all involved. Drops matter. Impacting is important. Giving clear reasons why you are winning offense is the easiest way to pick up my ballot.

*For all email chains - email to jcrist1965@gmai.comand strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org - include both*

I am a parent judge, please speak slowly and clearly. Don't be rude to one another in crossfire. Please time yourselves; I will not be timing the round.

Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.

As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only, where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.

Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in other debate rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.

Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

I am a federal legislative and regulatory attorney who has practiced law for over 20 years. My practice is at the intersection of administrative law, consumer protection, and emerging technologies.

While my work involves addressing public policy concerns, I do not have high school or college debate experience.

For Public Forum, you should consider me a lay judge. I strongly dislike “spreading.” I find competitors who speak/read fast are monotonous and unpersuasive. For me, there is zero value in cramming arguments into a timed speech because it comes across as unintelligent and robotic.

For Congressional Debate, you should also consider me a lay judge. However, my background includes working closely with congressional offices on legislative proposals related to privacy and AI. Additionally, I have testified before Congress on the need for strong federal privacy laws for children.

Experience

18th year in debate. Currently the Director of Debate at SF Roosevelt from South Dakota. Debated 4 years in high school doing traditional LD. Since then I have coached circuit and conservative policy and public forum debate.

Big things - quickly

-Novice: if you aren't prepared for any of the below then don't worry! Just do your thing and welcome to the most educational activity on the planet! Also no matter how unprepared you feel, I didn't know the rebuttal even existed in my first debate! Is this activity hard? Yes. But doing hard things will make everything else in your life easy. All the nerves, preparation, late nights, and beat downs against people whose ACT score blew mine out of the water prepared me for a life where everything was much easier. Stick with it and you'll thank me later! Half of college freshman drop out in their first year, but debaters finish college over 95% of the time - that is no accident!

-Warrants win. Turns win. Weighing wins. Offense wins. Yes I flow.

-Big believer in collapsing in the 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary. Do not go for everything! Your first two speeches add up to 8 minutes and your last speech is 2. How do you expect to go for 8 minutes of argumentation in 2 minutes without sacrificing some serious quality?! Many have tried - all have failed.

-Evidence should be accurately applied throughout the entire debate. It is very annoying when you read 8 minutes of evidence and then never talk about it again. I could have been hanging out with my dogs.

-Quoted evidence is more credible than paraphrased evidence by quite a bit. Paraphrased evidence is more credible than analytics, but only by a little bit.

-I believe the activity is approaching the point where it should be the norm to send all the evidence you read over to your opponent, before your speech, rather than doing this inefficient 1 card at a time nonsense. Whatever you do, please be efficient and it won't be considered prep time.

-If you are at a TOC bid tournament and don't disclose on the wiki then you should consider me a solid 50/50 on voting for disclosure theory.

Small things - rant style

This event should be accessible to all--meaning please keep your rate of delivery in check. No... that does not mean you have to be painfully slow. In fact, you can go fast enough where a typical person would think to themselves "that person is speaking fast." That person, however, should not think to themselves "I can not understand them." 98% of PF debaters are within my expectation here--the 2% should know who you are. Both teams have the right to request their opponent to slow down if they are struggling to keep up. Debate should be for everyone and not just those who can afford debate camp and those who speak English as their first language. If both teams love fast debate, and everyone agrees to it, then let's go all out speed because I enjoy fast debate too (just give me a heads up).

Crossfire is less important to me than most--if something important happens, get it on the flow in your next speech. Grand crossfire is not an opportunity to bring in arguments you didn't get to in the summary. If it wasn't in the summary and the final focus, I probably won't vote on it. Yes, you should frontline in the 2nd rebuttal.

Public Forum time structures are probably not suitable for debating Kritiks with alternatives. However, debating ethics directly related to the topic and arguing it outweighs/should come first is good with me. If you're going the Kritikal route, you should have some fire links to the topic (my threshold is higher on that). Despite having extremely admirable goals and intentions, non-topical K's make this event less accessible and empirically do not make this space more inclusive - otherwise policy numbers would be thriving.

No plan texts or counterplan texts please (Note: a counterplan text is not saying 'another solution is better than the solution being presented by the resolution' -- that's just an argument and you should answer it...)

High threshold on theory. Despite being tech over truth 95+% of the time, I have limited tech expectations on theory since I don't want to punish students who couldn't afford debate camp to learn the technical aspects of theory. If something truly unfair happened in the debate, then go for it by arguing 1) we should have this norm and 2) you violated that norm. To beat theory argue it 1) shouldn't be a norm or 2) you didn't violate the rule or 3) we should have a different norm instead of the one you provided. If you argue theory every debate, I'm not the judge for you. It is a check on unfair debate practices, not a strategy to catch your opponent off guard. I believe I have voted on theory 2 times in the hundreds of rounds I've judged--I have yet to vote on theory in PF.

Random things:

-Link turns need to win a non-unique to be considered offense. You can win a debate with me by going for just this

-Post-dating is good, but you need a warrant for why the date difference matters

-Going for everything is a bad idea. In a typical debate, 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary should start the collapsing process. I agree with the coaches who call 'making choices' the most important skill in debate.

-I am a judge who sees most arguments in gray - not black and white. I struggle with most decisions and not because I didn't understand your arguments.

Finally, debate can be stressful--if you find yourself in an important debate with me as a judge, it might be a good idea to watch the following video. I may be stressed as well and watching it during prep time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZZkZPcxp_I

Questions? Just ask!

Email: bcunningham7373@gmail.com

In addition to doing debate all four years in high school, I'm currently on my fourth year of coaching it. I'm open to anything really, especially if you're able to articulate your points well. That being said, I'm not fantastic with K's. I'm not saying you can't run them, just do so at your own peril. It is greatly appreciated if you explain them. As for speed, you can go fast so long as your clear (especially if I have access to your evidence).

I'm a big fan of T and on case, but like I said, open to anything. I'll also pay close attention to any framing arguments made. I vote on stock issues, that includes things like T and Inherency. A more skilled, more eloquent aff team will lose if they drop or neglect something like that.

Above all else, I love good clash and a friendly, educational debate.

Don't be a jerk (I used to have a different word here, but tabroom has since smited me for my hubris), I will vote you down on it.

I am a coach with an open mind and I love to see someone bring their own individual style to a performance. Don’t be a robot! Be unique and interesting and you will go far.

I have been involved in speech and debate for 28 years. I did policy in High School and debated Parli in College. I have head or assistant coached for the past 22 years.

**I don't hold CX as binding (don't need to ask if I'm ready for...I'm not flowing it).

**I start running prep when you sit down from cross and stop it when you are up to speak again. Helps keeps rounds on time. The increase in prep was to accommodate filesharing, so you should be doing that during prep, not in addition to prep.

**Aff/Pro on my left (facing me your right)

Policy

I consider myself a Communication/Stock Issues judge with strong policy maker tendencies. I like to see REALISTIC impact calc and am likely to vote for the Aff if there is no risk of a disadvantage. Theory/K: I have only voted for 1 K. I think they are a great tool in college debate and usually high school students run them as a generic, underdeveloped off case. If you didn't personally cut the cards and write the K and if you can't explain the premise to your mom in 30 seconds...you probably won't win my ballot with it. CP: need to be able to prove mutual exclusivity and net benefit. IMO CP MUST be NON-TOPICAL. DAs: I really don't buy into ridiculous impacts like extinction and nuclear war and I hate moral obligation arguments. Risk of extinction is not something I weigh. Delivery: I can flow quickly and follow fast argumentation. HOWEVER--communication is important. Abnormal breathing will lose you points as will shotgun-style spreading. Develop deep arguments with claim, data, warrant. Tag Teaming: Don't make your partner look dumb. Time: Aside from the 10 second roadmap, the clock is running. Jump/file drop during prep or CX.

Curtesy and Ethics are a BIG DEAL!

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I do NOT think Plans, CP, or K belong in LD. Keep to the V/C debate. Weigh your arguments. Should be more rhetorical (more your words, fewer cards) than policy. Judged heavily on presentation, argumentation and persuasion.

PF

Please wait to be seated until after coin toss. I need pro on my left and con on my right to help ensure the ballot is filled out in favor of the intended team. PF was made for LAY judges and I don't believe it needs a paradigm.

Congress

Yes...I have a congress paradigm...I like to see structured speeches that present NEW arguments or REFUTE arguments on the floor. Source Citation is important. Treat it like a good extemp. Presentation is important as is overall participation in the chamber. I have judged/parli at nationals for several years. I expect professionalism and good argumentation.

Flow judge: Prefer stock issues, but only use Topicality if the Aff is truly untopical.  Generic disads had better have really great specific links.

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters let it overcomplicate their arguments or worse. Some may even allow it to further make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you will probably be sad at the end of the round.

PF: Focus on framework building + topicality (aff) and examining exclusivity + counterplan burden (neg). Weighing on impacts, uniqueness of cons, and magnitude. Speak clearly, slow to medium fast, do not spread. Signpost as you go through your case. Crossfire should be prepared and effective at asking/answering clarifying and combative questions.

LD/CX: Tabula Rasa + Hypothesis Tester: view resolution as hypothesis that the affirmative team tests through their plan. Heavy focus on resolution debate instead of plan-focused debate, and open to non-standard options for negative teams to use against the affirmative. Generic topic attacks, inherency arguments, counterplans, counter-warrants, and conditional arguments are generally all accepted.

WSD: Content, style, strategy. Content on prepared motions should be a given and of high priority. Less so on impromptu (but never unimportant). Tend to put heavier weight toward strategy: For example, if prop mentions a solution but does not fully address/explain and that it is a potential argument that works in opps favor, does that mean prop side made a mistake, or is that a tactic to further that particular argument opp addresses in order to show prop was aware and prepared for opp taking the bait? This would be an example or steering the debate using hidden counterplans or subtext to "force the hand" of the other team.

While reply speech is important, it is helpful to be more than just summative. Ask the audience to think more about the world you have created vs the world the other team has created (clash). Ensure the judge leaves with a strong sense you are right/better/more efficient/inclusive/utilitarian/ethical/whatever, and give the reason(s) why.

Quality is better than quantity- make your ideas concise and organized, and say the most important ideas before diving into more minute things if time allows. Given that, avoid speaking quickly in order to pack in as many words as you can- good ideas impress me more than amount of ideas. Be respectful no matter your opponent’s background,experience level, or argumentation style. I’d like voters- most of all have fun and be proud of the work you do!

I was involved with debate in high school for two years where I completed in Public Forum debate and several speech events. I have spent the last 8 years working with various high schools with their programs, and judging at multitude of tournaments during those years. I have also been a tournament director for over 30 tournaments, and am currently an assistant coach at the school I teach at. I am a more traditional judge overall, but I have no issues with progressive and spreading as long as it is meaningful to the debate. I want clash between sides, and I want good coherent arguments with evidence and reason. Make sure you are directing your claims to the judge and that I understand what you are talking about. Organization is key for me and you should have and order to what you are saying. Impact calculus is the key thing for me overall though, tell me why your argument works, the probability, and the impact. Good luck to both sides.

LD: To me, LD is still, at least somewhat, a Value debate. It isn't Policy debate for a reason. Yes, I understand that it has gotten more progressive, but understand judge adaptation too. However, you can still run a somewhat progressive case while respecting a Value Debate premise. That's the sweet spot. Weigh the impacts of both sides of the resolution. Give evidence (empirical, theoretical, philosophical), and give voters. Convince me which world I would rather live in - the affirmative or negative. In other words - if you don't tell me why, I'm not likely to vote. Spreading evidence only gets you half way.

CX: See most of LD, except remove the Value Debate part. Weigh impacts of both sides. Direct CLASH! I will not vote solely on T unless it is completely unanswered by the aff. Give empirical evidence - not a card that is just someone's onion that you are trying to pass off as evidence. Negative, clash with the aff's case, but bring some offense too.

CX and LD - be kind, professional and understandable.

Debate Paradigm:

I am about as traditional as traditional can be. I typically won't disclose, please don't ask about it.

I am not a fan of:

-the k debate

-plans/counterplans in debates other than CX

-not standing when you are speaking or during CX

-disclosing before the debate starts

-talking fast unnecessarily

-being a part of email chains, I shouldn't have to read your evidence, I should be able to hear it and understand within the confines of your speech

I prefer:

-a slower more methodical debate

-actual discussion on the topic/resolution

-standing up when speaking

-understanding what the debater is saying

I am as fluid as the room needs me to be.
I'll gladly accept Impact Calc, Logic, Ks, Spreading, CEDA-style, Theory, FIAT, DAs, Ts, and just about everything else.

I look for the quality of the debate, and mark high in forms of forcing clash and counterattacks.

Understand that I am an expert on this content, so I do not need filler or backstory.

I want to see teams take calculated risks and show backbone.

I WILL VOTE AGAINST ABUSIVE MANIPULATION OF TEXT/CARDS/INFORMATION

Best of luck to all!

Email: shawn.daugherty@nkcschools.org (prefer SpeechDrop to email chain due to school computer 'firewall' from overpaid IT staff...)

Extemp Debate:

Be aware that I am a newer judge. These preferences apply as a result:

1. Please do not spread. I prefer a 4/10 talking rate. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow which will be much to your detriment.

2. Please limit the use of jargon. Anything beyond what the average intelligent being would understand is probably going to go over my head. I also do not like the practice of excluding those who are newer to the format by the overuse of this. If absolutely necessary, explain the meaning. Thank you.

As a judge, my other preferences are as follows:

1. In general, I am truth over tech. However, please don't assume that I know everything about a topic. Explain.
2. Cross - I don't flow cross (I still carefully listen), but if you want it to be relevant in decision, bring it up in your speech. Please be assertive in cross, not aggressive.
3. I will not tolerate any offensive or rude behavior. Rude = eye rolling, laughing at opponents, etc. and will cost you several speaker points. Offensive = racist or homophobic etc. arguments, attacks on opponent rather than args, etc. and will get you the lowest speaks possible.

I typically judge speech and LD, for reference.

Interpretation events paradigms:

I have no problem with materials that are edgy or considered "triggering" - this are events that are meant to raise awareness of issues and to allow competitors to push boundaries. Please do not chew gum.

Speaking events paradigms:

I have no problem with materials that are edgy or considered "triggering" - this are events that are meant to raise awareness of issues and to allow competitors to push boundaries.

Debate events paradigms:

I expect competitors to speak clearly and not race through their points. Quality over quantity is important to me. If I can't understand you, then I have a hard time voting for your side. I like evidence, evidence, evidence. I want your points backed up with valid sources. I expect civility - debate can happen without being rude and disrespectful.

Add me to email chain: adriennedavis@me.com.

I am a parent and an attorney. Both my children competed in multiple debate events in high school and I've judged at a local traditional circuit for 6 years. I may keep a modest flow during round, but speaking skills and presentation are also important to me in making my decisions.

I will listen to any type of argument as long as its argued well and you explain why I should vote on that issue.

I flow what I can hear and understand. If its not on my flow, I'll assume you didn't say it. You can not count on me to read through all your evidence as a substitution for understanding your words. This effectively means that if you spread such that I can not keep up or understand you then you won't get my ballot. I'll stop writing if you're going too fast, that's how you'll know.

I have tremendous respect for the bravery it takes to compete in this debate. Good luck!

You will lose my vote for anything offensive, abusive, or unethical.

FULL PARADIGM CAN BE FOUND HERE! This page is meant to be something you can read right before round and get a general idea of what's up

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

Bullies get dropped

If your argument needs a trigger warning, either ask before the round S T A R T S or don’t read it. Don't say mid speech "trigger warning!" because judges cannot just up and leave a round the same way you can, and you're not actually giving any students time to react. I think like 90% of tw are super performative and framed as “imma read this, deal w it”

www.ImpactInstituteDebate.com

@Impact.Institute_ on Instagram for 100% free, high quality, virtual Congressional Debate resources.

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

Any pronouns work, but do not call me mister

Congress 2016-2019 for Eagan High School in MN, traveled a little bit but certainly wasn't a circuit kid

Congress coach 2019-present at Armstrong and Cooper High Schools in MN

Parli (NPDA) for the University of Minnesota 19-20, 20-21 (I read topical affs and cap/ableism on neg)

PNW CARD Debate for 1 semester (closed research packet, but I loved sliding in Marxist lenses)

Congress judge first, but pls don’t assume I'm not a "debate" judge :)

Overall, I prefer chess over checkers. But both are valuable games!

Email chain or questions/critiques/whatever AFTER the round: Davi3736@umn.edu

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

LD:

-Ask before you spread. I probs can't understand your spreading, I'll clear/slow you until I can, but 70% is a decent starting point

-Not flowing off a speech doc but pls share it w me

-Tech>everything: I used to say “except for xyz” but instead, just be a good debater. I’ll vote for stupidity idc. However, “get good” is probably an able normative response to “speed bad” so b careful w ur language. Wipeout, war good, dedev, truth>tech, idc just say it w your chest and let it rip.

-Judge instruction is my fav part abt this activity, followed by conceding fwk, followed by turns of any kind

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

Congress:

#AbolishPOs (don’t worry I still rank y’all)

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Judge Paradigm: Steven Davis

• Retired teacher of 40 years, the past 15 years offering assistance at Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, Kansas
• “Yes” – old enough to be your grandparent (and then some maybe); and for those in the know, "Yes" -- I dodrive the school bussesthat get us from the school to tournaments, etc.
• I have re-developed -- for me -- a genuine enjoyment of judging in recent years, and I strive to be as fair as possible.
• I hope that my love for all things speech and debate has been evident throughout these so many decades of involvement with these activities.

FORENSICS: If possible, I PREFER PUBLIC ADDRESS EVENTS

I do enjoy listening to and evaluating speech rounds. More often than not, rounds are close and final rankings (especially when points are not awarded) do not show how close some rounds are.

When I finally resolve rounds, I place a premium on those that speak clearly, are organized, and convince me that they care about what they are talking about. In all Public Address events, speakers make choices and thus should "sell" those messages because they do care.

Extemp ...I expect to hear a very well organized speech, with clear analysis and, in the end, support for assertions made. The most important component of extemp is that the speaker provides his or her answer to the question posed. If no answer is clearly provided, and explained, I will not typically rank that speaker very high in the round. Additionally, I do listen for sources and appropriate citations. I am pretty sure I believe that the source — if quoted or paraphrased — provides you a basis for most (if not all) your internal conclusions. I don’t count sources per se, but I expect there to benumeroussources cited and incorporated into your assertions, analysis, and conclusions.

Oratory ...should be presented with some passion, you should really be selling me your message and there should be some semblance of speaking from the heart present. In some ways, I am a traditionalist and prefer the oratory that sets out to identify a problem and then offers me solutions for that problem. I understand that today a lot of oratory is “dramatic” in its presentational form, but this is often over-killed and does not impress me.

Informative ...should likewise be presented in a way that makes the audience truly believe you care about the topic selected. Organization is very important . . . and internal analysis and development is critical to ultimate success. If visual aids are a component of the speech, I need to be able to see them, and they should support the message. Visual aids for mere glitz do not always make the point the speaker desires, AND too many visuals actually get in the way of the good speech.

Impromptu ...a lot depends on the topic area and topic chosen. I do not believe that impromptu is stand up comedy, but do appreciate a speaker that can present his/her/their speech in a conversational manner during which the speaker is enjoying themselves. Not to be forgotten, the better organized speech will be highly regarded by this evaluator.

In all of the above events, I do believe that movement must be natural and supportive of the speech. Movement offers needed transitional support, and too much movement really hurts the overall effort. Additionally, I believe that too many gestures do more harm than good in that they just distract from the message. Use gestures to reinforce your message AND make them as natural and spontaneous as possible. Finally, your delivery needs to be clearly presented so that you are heard AND understood. As is sometimes difficult for the debater to understand, in the Public Address events "Speed TRULY Kills" . . . and conversational styles more often prevail than not.

I hope that each entry in a speech event enjoys his/her/their presentations. "Fun" may not be the exact word I am looking for, but you can truly tell when the speaker is in the communicative zone . . . and not just going through the motions.

ONE ADDITIONAL NOTE:

Although, "Yes," I prefer judging Public Address events . . . but when asked to evaluate interp or acting events, I will strive to do my very best. It is not that I can't, it is just that I prefer the speech events.

Thus, REGARDING JUDGING Interp Rounds:

I have worked with interp students over the years. Fortunately, I have always been in a situation where there was a unique interp coach available as well.

When asked what I would like in interp . . . I think it comes down to the following:

1. I look for a piece that is presented in an interesting manner. The content needs to flow and the cutting needs to make sense.
2. I look for consistency of characters. Are they believable? Are they relatively easy to follow throughout the presentation.
3. I look for a presentation where the combination of facial expressions, gestures, and vocal development blends together to provide believable characters.
4. I am not opposed to movement, but I prefer that the presentation be confined to a limited area. In a sense, I still believe that except for Duo, these are INTERPRETATION events, and the primary presentation should be focused and confined to a small area in front of one's audience.
5. A note about PRO/POE/POI. After judging at nationals last two years ago, I had an epiphany. This really regards the use of your notebook as a prop. I still hope that the notebook is somehow incorporated to suggest you are "reading" material, but I also understand and accept the notebook as a potential prop to be used during your performance.
6. In the end, I believe I know what I like, and I will rank student performances accordingly; and when the situation presents itself, I will try to explain why I ranked students as I did. Please understand that I know with 100% accuracy that my views and another judge’s views may not coincide. And that is OK by me! It is, in part, the reason why we have multiple judges in a round.
7. AND in situations where we rank performances without any other type of evaluation (like points), I hope that all competitors understand that the section will no doubt have numerous very, very good performances, yet I have no option to give a tie, I must rank top to bottom. This is the way it is! I can only promise performers that I will try to do my very best in making my final ranking decisions.

Good luck! The best to you in your future forensic endeavors! I truly hope you enjoy yourself during your presentation!

In speaking events, it is extremely important that you always keep the interest of your audience with relatability, organization and good vehicle. Delivery should feel conversational with a good pace and easy to understand. Speeches should have good organizational structure that makes it easy for the audience to follow along and sources that help build credibility. Lastly, speaking events should include motivated gestures, facial expressions and a variety of vocal expression.

In interpretation I appreciate natural acting and blocking with a purpose and feeling the real emotion. The audience should feel the emotions of the characters. I also look for believability of the characters.

In debate, I should be able to follow along with the story created which means you should have clear explanations. I do not appreciate being rude or aggressive towards your opponent and I do not appreciate excessvie spreading. If I cannot understand what you are saying, it makes it hard for me to take in your arguments. It is not how many arguments you can get in, it is who has the strongest case.

If you plan on emailing the case to your opponent, please include me in email: cassy_molina@yahoo.com

Email chain please: columbus.debate.team@gmail.com

PF:

PLEASE DO NOT PARAPHRASE YOUR CASE OR MISCUT EVIDENCE

PF/LD

1. CLARITY IS KEY!! That applies to speech, organization, signposting, etc.

2. Please warrant your claims and evidence once brought up, not later in the round or next speech (see point 1)

3. Speed is fine, I only judge what I can flow however, so I cannot say I am going to get everything down if you are spreading. I definitely prefer slower more traditional rounds. With that said, if you want to spread make sure your opponent is okay with it. You shouldn't spread/speed in PF, it's in the rules and norms of the event. It is called PUBLIC forum for a reason.

4. I studied philosophy during my time in university. Please do not throw out theory or K's without having done the necessary background research to really know what you are talking about. The round will be messy because of it, which takes us back to point 1 on clarity.

WORLD SCHOOLS:

1. Slow down, this isn't policy. You not only need to argue effectively, you need to persuade.

2. Principled arguments > specific examples and evidence. Not to say you shouldn't have specific evidence, but often the more philosophical grounds of reasoning get left out in favor of, basically, carded evidence

3. New arguments in the back half of the debate are unadvisable and don't allow the other side enough time to have a developed response.

4. Keep your eye aware for POI's, if you see one but are choosing to ignore it, indicate verbally or with a hand motion.

Nancy Dean- Director of speech and debate at Western High School in south Florida. I have been the head coach for 19 years, main interest is Congress

Speak clearly, do NOT spread. I look for well thought out arguments, no canned speeches. There must be clash or there is no debate. I stop listening when there is one-sided debate.

I read the bills so make sure you are on point with your arguments, refute and extend. Rehash will not be cool. Where you get your sources is important to me.

The PO will most certainly be considered.

Do not be rude, but again, clash is important. Look and play the part of a representative/senator. You are not a kid in high school, be well polished. I'm good with NO handshakes. :)

My background/history: I studied speech/communications and have spent the last two decades first as a broadcast journalist and now as an executive in charge of strategic communication and change management for a large government agency. I have been judging since 2019.

Persuasion and influence depend on the strength and clarity of an argument. That's what I look for in every round.

I make my decision based on thoughtful, well-organized arguments where impacts are clearly defined. Convince me your argument is best. Tell me why. Be creative, but keep your arguments relevant.

I have to be able to understand your words — including the text of evidence - in order to judge most fairly and appropriately.

Quality of arguments is always more important than quantity. I love clash! Be respectful and kind.

Your primary focus should be on presenting sound arguments and countering your opponents' arguments, not just looking for opportunities to attack an opponent's style or method flaws.

I am generous on speaker points for those who speak in a natural way and command attention through eye contact and body language.

Some of my other favorite things? Passion about your position, anticipating an opponent's arguments, smart and spirited cross-examination (pay attention to your opponent's answers and work them into your counter!)

Bring your best self to the round...and have fun! I promise to do the same.

Email: andreadearden@gmail.com

Not new to PF debate but appreciate debaters who are deliberate in telling me what contention is being addressed throughout the round. I believe PF should be accessible for anyone to judge, so don't go too fast. Make sure impacts are realistic, and weighed. Finally, and most importantly, honesty matters and evidence should be used to support your cases and statements. More the better.

Update 4/1/2023

*If you are scanning this philosophy as a nonmember of the community, seeking out quotes to help your political "culture war" cause you are not an honest broker here and largely looking for clickbait. I find your endeavors an unfortunate result of a rage machine that consumes a great deal of quality programs without ever helping them thrive or grow. Re-evaluate your life and think about how you can help high schools and middle schools around this country develop speech and debate programs, core liberal art educational, to improve the quality of argumentation, that otherwise is lacking. In the end, as an outsider looking in, you are missing a great deal of nuance in these philosophies and how they operate in the communities (multiple not just one) around the US and the world.

If you have landed here as a representative of Fox News or an ally or affiliate, I would like to see the receipts of the bias that has and continues to perforate your organization from Roger Ailes to Tucker Carlson and more. Here is my question, when you learned about the Joe McCarthy era of conspiracy theory, along with the hysteria and demonization of potential Americans who are communist (or sympathizers) and "pinko" (gay or sexual "deviants"), is your gripe with McCarthy that he had a secret list without evidence, or do you recognize that a core problem with McCarthy is his anti-democratic fear that there actually ARE communists, gay, trans, bisexual, Americans?

My next question is when and where you think it is acceptable for a person with strong beliefs to exist in democratic spaces. Bias is inevitable and part of this debate game. Organizations attempt to manage types of bias and coaches and debaters learn how to adapt to certain bias while attempting to avoid problematic bias. What do you think? Would right leaning presidential candidates vote for an argument that affirms trans athletes in sports? Should a trans judge leave their identity entirely at the door and embody a leading republican presidential candidate who is against medical care for trans persons? Both answers are no. The issue you seek to lambast for viewership clickbate is much deeper and more complicated than a 3 minute video clip can cover. Thank for reading.

REAL PHILOSOPHY
Background: Indiana University Director of Debate as of 2010. Background is primarily as a policy debater and policy debate coach.

Email Chain: Bdelo77@gmail.com

The road to high speaker points and the ballot

I reward debaters who have a strong knowledge of the topic. Those debaters who can articulate intricacies and relationships amongst topic specific literature will meet what I believe are the educational benefits of having a topic in the first place.

Using evidence to assist you with the argument you are trying to make is more important than stringing evidence together in hopes that they accumulate into an argument. “I have a card judge, it is real good” “pull my 15 uniqueness cards judge” are not arguments. Ex: Obama will win the election – a) swing voters, Rasmussen poll indicates momentum after the DNC b) Washington post “Romney has lost the election” the base is gone… etc. are good extensions of evidence.

Less jargon more eloquence. I get bored with repeated catch phrases. I understand the need for efficiency, but debaters who recognize the need for innovation by individuals in the activity will receive more points.

Speed: I expect I can digest at least 70% of your speech. The other 30% should be general human attention span issues on my part. I firmly believe debate is a communication event, I am saddened that this has been undervalued as debaters prepare for tournaments. If I agree with X debater that Y debater’s speech on an argument was incoherent, I am more and more willing to just ignore the argument. Computer screens and Bayesian calculus aside, there is a human in this body that makes human decisions.

Should affs be topical?

Affs should have a relationship to the topic that is cogent. If there is no relationship to the topic, I have a high standard for affirmatives to prove that the topic provides no “ground” for a debater to adapt and exist under its umbrella. Negatives, this does not mean you don’t have a similar burden to prove that the topic is worth debating. However personally I think you will have a much smaller hill to climb… I find it disturbing that debaters do not go further than a quick “topical version of your aff solves” then insert X switch side good card… Explain why the topical version is good for debate and provides argument diversity and flexibility.

Policy debate is good: When I prep our files for tournaments I tend to stay in the policy-oriented literature. This does not mean that I am unwilling to cut our K file or K answers, I just have limited time and job related motivation to dive into this literature.

K Debate: Can be done well, can be done poorly. I do not exclude the arguments from the round but nebulous arguments can be overplayed and abused.

(Updated 3-2-2022) Conditionality:

1) Judge Kick? No. You made your choice on what to go for now stick with it. 2NRs RARELY have the time to complete one avenue for the ballot let alone two conditional worlds...

I tend to believe that one conditional substantive test of the plan advocacy is good (agent CP, process CP, or ?) and I am open to the idea of the need for a second advantage CP (need to deal with add-ons and bad advantages) or K within limits. I'm not a fan of contradicting conditional advocacies in how they implicate 2AC offense and potential.

Beyond 1-2 conditional arguments, I am torn by the examples of proliferating counterplans and critiques that show up in the 1NC and then disappear in the negative block. There is a substantive tradeoff in the depth and quality of arguments and thus a demotivation incentive for the iterative testing and research in the status quo world of 3+ conditional advocacies. The neg's, "write better advantages" argument has value, however with 2AC time pressure it means that 1ACs are becoming Frankenstein's monster to deal with the time tradeoff.

Plans: I think the community should toy with the idea of a grand bargain where affirmatives will specify more in their plan text and negs give up some of their PIC ground. The aff interp of "we only have to specify the resolution" has pushed us in the direction where plans are largely meaningless and aff conditionality is built into core 2AC frontlines. The thing is, our community has lost many of its fora for discussing theory and establishing new norms around issues like this. Debaters need to help be the change we need and we need more in-depth theory discussions outside of the rounds. Who is the Rorger Solt going to be of the 2020's?

Reading evidence:
I find myself more willing to judge the evidence as it was debated in the round (speeches and cx), and less willing to scan through piles of cards to create a coherent understanding of the round. If a debate is being had about the quality of X card, how I SHOULD read the evidence, etc. I will read it.

Sometimes I just have an interest in the evidence and I read it for self-educational and post-round discussion reasons.

Judging:

I will work extremely hard to evaluate the debate as the debaters have asked me to judge it.

I'm a traditional LD coach/judge. I coach CX, as well, but don't care to see CX-style argumentation (CPs, Ks, etc.) in LD (or PF) rounds. That includes CX-style speed. I look for who resolves clash by winning the substantive issues, preferably with a coherent story or clear voters in the rebuttals. I think your values framework is central to warranting how I should interpret the resolution, and any corresponding arguments you make about obligations of how to act should be internally linked to this framework.

In CX, I'm a real world policy maker judge. I see CX as a training ground for future policy makers and voting citizens, so I want to know if plan makes the world a better place or not. When it comes to weighing the round, I'm not swayed by the magnitude of impacts if they are logically absurd, and I'll accept analyticals that tell me why they are so. I'll vote on T but not if the plan is clearly topical. I'll listen to critical positions, but I am unlikely to vote for them unless they are impacted back to a real world impact. If I can't hear the warrant in a card because of your speed, I'm unlikely to find it persuasive.

Weigh

I begged you

but

you didn't

and you

lost.

-Rupi Kaur

I was a former LDer and congressional debater, and now I’m the assistant coach at Loveland High school. Reading this paradigm will greatly increase the chance that I give you the win (especially if your opponent doesn’t read it). I will get upset if you ask me for my paradigm (because there’s a lot), but I’m more than happy to clarify specific stuff. I’m a lay with most speech events, so sorry in advance. I have general debate paradigms and specific event paradigms.

General debate:

1. Spreading is for cowards. If I don’t understand you, I’m not going to flow. If both teams spread, the team that spreads the least gets the most speaks (and will most likely win).

2. DO NOT SPEAK OVER TIME. I’ll start ignoring you, and think about my wonderful mother nagging me to do chores. The longer you speak over time, the more annoyed I’ll get.

3. Every time you don’t signpost, weigh or have voters a small puppy dies. In addition, if you reframe, or clip cards the dreams of hundreds of small children perish. Luckily, if you meta-weigh (probability > magnitude), a small kitten gets adopted into a loving home.

4. Tech > Truth. I have the right to choose the side that persuades me the most. In addition, debaters must meet the burden of proof, clash, and persuasion for me to give them a win.

5. Please inform everyone in the round if you have a trigger. Also, please be kind to each other. The debate community needs to be a safe place for everyone.

6. I don’t disclose after round. If you ask me the other person will get a default win. Congrats you played yourself!

7. Friv theory, no. It’s annoying when debaters complain too much. Ks need to have solvency and topicality.

8. Please time yourself; however, I am the official timekeeper. Do not argue with me on time, or I’ll whip out a case and start debating you. Jk, you’ll just get a default loss.

9. If you have an anime reference in your speech I’ll give you extra speaks, and my respect.

10. At the end of the day, the debate should be fun, educational, and respectful. You are incredibly talented and NSDA was intended for you to show off that talent to the world.

Individual event paradigms:

LD:

1. The framework is everything in LD. the framework needs to have a clear thesis and connect to all of the contentions (or I can’t weigh it). I expect strong vvc clashes throughout the round. Otherwise, you turn LD into PF for one, yuck!

2. Broad values like morality and justice remind me of hangnails. I hate hangnails, and I will hate your case, and probably give you the loss (values like these tell me nothing about your moral blueprint for the round).

3. The impact analysis should all revolve around the framework, rather than a cost-benefit analysis method like PF or CX.

4. I hate counter-plans in LD. If you want to run them, policy debate would love to have you.

5. I judge less on evidence and more on phil and theory for LD.

PF

1. PF is card-heavy, create an email chain with your opponents before the round. I have the right to ask for cards (remember, if they’re clipped the dreams of hundreds of children will perish thanks to you).

2. The rebuttal speech needs to cover the flow and have impact analysis. You have four minutes, use them!

3. 1st speakers that collapse (focus on a few arguments, and weigh) in their summary speech will steal my heart, and force me to give them very high speaks. You should also have comparative world weighing in the summary speech (crystallization speech is another good speech for that).

4. The crystallization speech needs to have clear voters and extend the summary speech. My RFD is mostly dependent on the voters alone. If you don’t have clear voters (or none at all) not only will you lose the round, but small puppies will die (refer back to general debate paradigms).

5. If GCX turns into a chaotic mess similar to four raccoons fighting over trash, I have every right to stop it. In addition, if your cx turns into a rebuttal speech, I’ll end it.

Emma Baldwin and Aiden Hurst are the best (and my favorite) Pfers in Colorado, so just do what they do and you’ll win this round and any round.

Policy

1. My first general rule applies, especially to CX. Cowards don’t deserve to win.

2. I don’t want people in public flashing me, and I don’t want teams to flash cases to each other.

3. I judge on stock issues. If neg is able to win on any stock issue they win. Unless they run a counter plan. Then the round is just a comparative analysis on ads and disads.

4. In terms of stock issues, topicality is the most important for me. If I see an off-topic set col, I’ll drag your desk outside of the room as Senor Chang did to Annie Edison in Community.

5. Be kind to your opponents in the round, or face the wrath of a default loss (this is more of an issue in policy debate than any event)!

Congress

1. My brother was the greatest congressional debater of all time, so I may be a little harsh with my scores (I have high expectations).

2. Congress is all about persuasion and substantive argumentation. If you spread you are failing in every aspect.

3. PO must follow basic parli pro and must make the session a fun environment for everyone.

4. Just like any debate event, I expect arguments to be responded to. Each speech has an expectation to respond to arguments from speeches prior. Even if someone gives the greatest constructive in the world during the last speech of a bill, I’ll give them a low score (they need to respond to previous arguments).

5. To get a high ranking in the chamber you need to engage (speeches, questions influence on chamber).

About Me:

I'm a 6th year Speech and Debate Coach. I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

I don’t mind different forms of argumentation in LD. Ks, Plans, Counterplans, etc are all ok in my book. Not a fan of progressive cases in PF, but I will still listen to them.

Not a fan of Theory-shells in Debate at all. Unless there was a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS violation in the round, do not run it.

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you pull a House of Pain and "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

At this point I would consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical), and I value tech over truth more often than not.

More "techy" stuff:

Frameworks should always be extended. If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(Impact card) means we outweigh on scope,” then move on to the next point. I love details and contextualization, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. Please. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and clash that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side. Voter Issues are always a good thing, and can possibly win you the round in a close debate.

LD Stuff:

If your plan is to spread, and I cant follow on the flow and miss things, that is on you. LD's purpose was intended to separate itself from Policy tactics and allow argumentation that anyone off the streets can follow. Call me a traditionalist or whatever, but spreading just to stack arguments is not educational and hurts the activity. You cant convince me otherwise so dont try.

Im perfectly OK with any kind of case, but my preference is this order: Traditional>K>Disads/Plans/CPs>Theory (only run if there is perceived actual abuse in round, dont run frivolous stuff)

Not super knowledgeable on all the nuances of LD, but I do enjoy philosophical debates and am vaguely familiar with contemporary stuff.

Add me on the email chain: josemdenisjr@gmail.com

One may call me a traditionalist, but I am not a fan, at all, of speed or anything policy related drifting into LD or PF debate.

The reason PF was created was to eliminate all of the lexicon/jargon and to make it easier for a judge off of the street to follow. The reason LD was created was to examine the values within our society that can be held dear to how we function as human beings. When debaters ignore those foundational components, they may as well go into policy debate. If you feel the need to run theory, topicality, kritiks, and do everything else but debate the actual topics, policy is always looking for more teams. I would encourage you to join it to try and save it.

I don't think that judges that put paradigms as "...I will give you one half of a point if you make a Pokémon reference..." are doing any good to PF or LD. Keep that stuff/junk in policy. There's a reason policy is dying around the country, and that is a part of it. It's juvenile, it's nonsensical, and it is non-educational. Judges should be here to help you learn how to improve your communication skills, critical analysis, writing, and research skills...not point bait you.

I judge speech and interp based on the rules and based on the round--comparing the performances in the round. I think author's intent is important for interp. I think communication skills, organization, rhetoric and evidence is important in speech events.

Denslow, Keith Edit 0 3… Judging Philosophy
Keith Denslow,
Skiatook High School,
Skiatook, OK

I have taught academic debate for 32 years. I have coached both policy debate and value debate on the high school level plus NDT and CEDA for 2 years on the college level. I have coached regional, district, and state champions.

I give up. I embrace the absurdity which is post-modern debate. If you debate on a critical level, then it is your burden to understand and explain the philosophical position you are advocating and offer a rational alternative to the worldview.

Topicality is an outdated mode of thought with tries to put up fences in our brain about what we can and can not talk about. It harms education and the marketplace of ideas. As a negative, only run Topicality if the argument is 100% accurate not as a test of skill or response.

It is important that anyone arguing counterplans have an understanding of counterplan theory especially how a counterplan relates to presumption. DO NOT automatically permute a counterplan or critique without critically thinking about the impact to the theory of the debate.

Style issues: Civility is important. Open CX is okay. Clarity must accompany speed. Numbering your arguments is better than “next” signposting. Detailed roadmaps are better than “I have 5 off” and prep time doesn’t continue for 2 minutes after you say “stop prep” Flash evidence faster!

Tabula Rasa

Speech

I am a parent judge.