Lay judge with limited experience.

Suggestions for contestants: Be respectful, stick to the facts, watch the timer.

Parent judge with no prior experience.

Please be respectful and speak clearly.

Try to avoid using debate jargon and make sure to explain your arguments thoroughly, as anything that goes unexplained may not be taken into consideration.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain - shabbirmbohri@gmail.com. Label email chains with the tournament, round, and both teams. Send DOCS, not your excessively paraphrased case + 55 cards in the email chain.

I debated 3 years of PF at Coppell High School. I am now a Public Forum Coach at the Quarry Lane School.

Standing Conflicts: Coppell, Quarry Lane

If there are 5 things to take from my paradigm, here they are:

1. Read what you want. Don't change your year-long strategies for what I may or may not like - assuming the argument is not outright offensive, I will evaluate it. My paradigm gives my preferences on each argument, but you should debate the way you are most comfortable with.

2. Send speech docs. I mean this - Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for ANY tournament in a Varsity division if you are not at a minimum sending constructive with cards. If you paraphrase, send what you read and the cards. Send word docs or google docs, not 100 cards in 12 separate emails. +0.2 speaks for rebuttal docs as well.

3. Don't lie about evidence. I've seen enough shitty evidence this year to feel comfortable intervening on egregiously bad evidence ethics. I won't call for evidence unless the round feel impossible to decide or I have been told to call for evidence, but if it is heavily misconstrued, you will lose.

4. Be respectful. This should be a safe space to read the arguments you enjoy. If someone if offensive or violent in any way, the round will be stopped and you will lose.

5. Extend, warrant, weigh. Applicable to whatever event you're in - easiest way to win any argument is to do these 3 things better than the other team and you'll win my ballot.

Online Debate Update:

Establish a method for evidence exchange PRIOR to the start of the round, NOT before first crossfire. Cameras on at all times. Here's how I'll let you steal prep - if your opponents take more than 2 minutes to search for, compile, and send evidence, I'll stop caring if you steal prep in front of me. This should encourage both teams to send evidence quickly.

PF Overview:

All arguments should be responded to in the next speech outside of 1st constructive. If is isn't, the argument is dropped. Theory, framing, ROBs are the exception to this as they have to be responded to in the next speech.

Every argument in final focus should be warranted, extended, and weighed in summary/FF to win you the round. Missing any one of these 3 components is likely to lose you the round. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is required. I don't get the whole "frontline offense but not defense" - collapse, frontline the argument, and move on. Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want in the ballot in summary, including dropped defense.

Theory: I believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will not hack for these arguments, but these are my personal beliefs that will influence my decision if there is absolutely no objective way for me to choose a winner. I will vote on paraphrasing good, but your speaks will get nuked. I think trigger warnings are bad. The use of them in PF have almost always been to allow a team to avoid interacting with important issues in round because they are afraid of losing, and the amount of censorship of those arguments I've seen because of trigger warnings has led me to this conclusion. I will vote on trigger warning theory if there is an objectively graphic description of something that is widely considered triggering, and there is no attempt to increase safety for the competitors by the team reading it, but other than that I do not see myself voting on this shell often.

I think RVI's are good in PF when teams kick theory. Otherwise, you should 100% read a counter-interp. Reasonability is too difficult to adjudicate in my experience, and I prefer an interp v CI debate.

K's/Non-Topical Positions: There are dozens of these, and I hardly know 3-4. However, as with any other argument, explain it well and prove why it means you should win. I expect there to be distinct ROBs I can evaluate/compare, and if you are reading a K you should delineate for me whether you are linking to the resolution (IMF is bad b/c it is a racist institution) OR your opponents link to the position (they securitized Russia). I think K's should give your opponent's a chance to win - I will NOT evaluate "they cannot link in" or "we win b/c we read the argument first".

I will boost speaks if you disclose (+0.1), read cut cards in rebuttal (+0.2), and do not take over 2 mins to compile and send evidence (+0.1).

Ask me in round for questions about my paradigm, and feel free to ask me questions after round as well.

Please Note: ADD me to the Email Chain [dbraswell@chicagodebates.org]

My Paradigm is as follows,

I am a stickler for structured organized debate. As a previous high school and college debater; I stress the importance of the AFF team hitting all stock issues (Inherency, Harms, Solvency, Plan, and T), signposting, line by line clash, Impact Cal, poise during cross ex, and leaving no argument unaddressed. For the NEG Team, I welcome off case and on case arguments, they must be clearly signposted (If DA- Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact. ETC for T/K/CP/Theory arguments), use line by line, Impact Cal, and politeness as well during cross ex (Keep It Cute). I am a firm believer of strategy as well, so go for whatever strategy you feel works best for you IN the debate round. I can flow spreading however IF you are spreading, IT MUST BE CLEAR AND CONCISE. Actual spreading doesn't sound like gibberish and run-on sentences. If it is a digital debate with files online, PLEASE set up Email Chains and Flash Drives before the round, it takes away from actual debate time. I do signal how much time you have as time goes down and you can finish your sentence when the timer goes off. In the event someone has to go to the restroom, it would be counted as prep time [depending on the situation]. I have judged the following debate/speech events: CX, PF, LD, Congress, College Parli, OO, and other speech events and I am stickler for organization of arguments, persuasion methods used, and being passionate (but not aggressive) in the cross. As I have been a debater, debate team captain, coach, and program assistant; My goal is to educate and build upon your knowledge of debate as well as help you grow as an aware and autonomous being. Debate has played a tremendous role in my growth and development; I hope it does the same for you. I do not disclose unless instructed to by the league however I do believe in giving meaningful feedback at the end of the round.

Respectfully,

Derrick Braswell

I am a judge for the first time. Please keep your delivery to a slower pace and be clear. I would appreciate clear arguments and explanation of your underlying assumptions.

This is my 2nd time doing public forum debate judge. I prefer the debate display solid logic, lucid reasoning, and depth of analysis; utilize evidence without being driven by it; present a clash of ideas by countering/refuting arguments of the opposing team; communicate ideas with clarity, organization, eloquence, and professional decorum. The critera I evaluate the rounds is the quality of arguments made including logical reasoning, maturity of thought, and effectiveness of communication.

Hi, I am a parent judge and here are some of the things about how I judge rounds:

1) Clarity.

Your arguments should be clear (and avoid any ambiguity).

2) Evidences/References/Logic

If you quote any data, back it by an evidence/reference/logic.

3 ) Content.

Be focused and adhere to the topic. You can throw anything, but if your opponent point it out I will take a note!

4) Cross

If you don't contest your opponent's argument, it will stay for me and will get the point.

If someone says sky is orange and you don't contest it; sky is orange for me!

5) Probable Impact

The argument having a larger impact (with greater probability of happening) will get the point.

An earthquake can have larger impact, but if the area is not earthquake prone, I won't buy it.

6) Speed.

You can be fast, but please avoid spreading. If you think you might be too fast - you are.

I am a lay judge who has judged at a few tournaments this year, primarily PF debates.

Rule # 1: Be civil and polite to each other, respect boundaries
Rule # 2: See Rule #1

Rule # 3: Speak slow and steady, do not rush yourself, and do your best.

Strongly advise that you stay within the prescribed time limits. And yes, I will deduct points if that doesn't happen.

Off time roadmaps are appreciated. Eye contacts (not awkward ones), hand gestures and voice modulations would it make more engaging for me.

I do take a copious amount of notes during the round. I intend to provide 3 levels of feedback: overall, individual, and round-specific at the end of every round (if possible within 15 minutes of the finish)

1. I am new to judging, so I would appreciate if you speak in normal pace (marginal slow or fast is ok) and clearly.

2. I am a big believer in fact, so please be correct in your facts.

3. Please be respectful towards your opponents- no mockery or intimidation.

Hi, I am Ratan, and here are some of the things about how I judge rounds:

1) Speed: I would appreciate if you speak in normal pace (marginal slow or fast is ok) and clearly.

2) Evidences/References: If you quote any data, back it by an evidence/reference.

3) Content: Be focused and adhere to the topic.

4) Please be respectful towards your opponents- no mockery or intimidation.

5) Keep your volume level normal, try not to be too loud.

Parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly.

As a new parent judge, I will appreciate if you can speak clearly with relatively simpler sentences. Please do not speak too fast, and do not utilize long sentences or complicated structures, and avoid using acronyms which I probably won't understand. So that I can make a more inclusive judgement, not on the reduced contents. Please do not paraphrase when you first introduce evidence, and make sure your cards are ready to share with the other team. I will evaluate argumentative logic first and care about evidence quality and evidence ethics. Hope you are all polite, respectful, and watch your speech time. At the end of each round, I may need time to sort out the deciding factors from memory and notes, so will not be able to announce the result immediately.

Important: Do not interrupt the other team during cross, as I cannot hear you when both sides talk.

I am a traditional parent judge. I have limited experience of judging.

Please do not read fast; I cannot give you my vote if I do not understand what you are saying.

I want to see you clearly say which arguments you are refuting to in rebuttal and response speeches. Please number your responses so that it is very clear -- please signpost!

I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

Please be respectful to each other. If I see you being disrespectful and unnecessarily rude, I can almost guarantee that you will not get my vote.

I am a parent judge and I have judged a few tournaments. I won’t be familiar with the topic so please be clear and provide definitions. I do not flow, but will take notes. Please convince me why you should win and make sure to WEIGH. Please time yourselves. I most likely won’t understand Theory or Ks but if you explain well I will keep that in mind. In terms of speaking, make sure your words are coherent. In order to win, you need to draw me a clear path of why your arguments and impacts outweigh your opponents.

I am a new judge. This is all new to me. Please talk clearly and slowly. Thank you!

Speech: I appreciate variation in tone and facial expressions. Really feel and believe in what you are saying.

Debate: Be clear and weigh your impacts. Roadmapping and signposting are helpful. I am more of a lay-style judge.

gavinloyddebate@gmail.com - Yes, I want to be on the email chain. -- please format the subject as "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs. Neg School NG." Example: "TOC -- Finals -- MBA BM vs. WY MM."

If you have any questions before the round starts, please don't hesitate to ask.

LD specific stuff is at the very bottom.

Quick Bio:

Hebron '20. Did CX all 4 years. Read K affs/negs sophomore-senior year. 2A Soph, 2N Junior, 2A Senior.

UT Austin '24

TLDR:

Spreading - Yes

Open CX - Yes

Flex Prep - Yes, but only clarifying questions

No Plan Text (Varsity/JV)- Yes

No Plan Text (Novice) - No

Kritiks - Yes

Disclosure Theory -- Ideally, you'll have some proof of mis/lack of disclosure to make things easier, but I'm willing to vote on it.

Cards in Body of the Email - You get 1 per speech given. If there are more cards than that, then you put them in a document.

If you open-source and do round reports with the details of the 1AC, 1NC, and 2NR, tell me right when the round ends, and I'll increase your speaks by .2 after checking.

I do not keep track of your prep unless you explicitly ask me to and there's some reason you can't do it.

General Philosophy:

I conceptualize much of debate as who is winning the "framing issue." How do I evaluate offense, what do I prioritize, post fiat or pre-fiat? Answer this question of debate for me, and it'll give you a strong cushion to supercharge your line by line and gives me very simple ways to conceptualize my RFD.

I'll vote on anything, but some things I'm more comfortable evaluating than others. My debate history was entirely Ks, but don't over-adapt to me.

Reconcile what impacts come first or how to weigh them relative to your opponent's.

If you say something racist or sexist, I reserve the right to drop you and go on about my day.

Disadvantages:

Look, it's a DA; just extend it properly, please.

Ideally, do not read a soft left DA versus a plan text aff.

Counterplans:

Clever counter-plans and PICS are fun. Generics are also fun if run well. I probably lean neg on most CP theory except for consult and solvency advocate.

If a CP text just has "do the aff" or something similar instead of explicitly saying the portion of the aff that the CP is doing, the Aff team can just say "They don't know how to write a plan text. They don't fiat an action - textuality matters so they don't get the part of the CP that claims to do the aff" and that will be sufficient for the aff to win that portion of the CP, or maybe all of it depending on the context.

Kritiks:

4-minute overviews make me cry. Case-specific links are great. Generic links are fine and can definitely be won.

I have the most experience with Settler Colonialism, Afropess, Virilio, Heidegger, Cap, and Black Nihilism. However, I also have worked with Ks like Agamben, Baudrillard, Foucault, Security, Queer Theory, Psychoanalysis, etc. That does not mean I will do the work to fill in the analysis for you.

Unfortunately, most framework debates in the 2NR/2AR often become meaningless with a lack of clash. At that point, I functionally default to weigh the aff, but the K gets its links in whatever form they are. If this isn't strategic for you, put the work in and win FW by answering their stuff and not just extending yours.

I'll vote on all the cheaty K tricks like floating PIKS or all in on FW. Similarly, I'll vote on hard right approaches to answering Ks, whether that means going all-in on heg good/impact turning the K.

Root cause arguments are not links. If your only link is just a root cause, then I won't be voting negative.

I seem to judge a fair amount of Wilderson/Warren debates, so here are a few things.

On the state good side -- just winning a list of reforms isn't enough for me. I need to hear a clear counter-theorization of how the world operates and comparative claims to take out social death/equivalent claims. Reforms prove that counter-theorization but don't make a theory itself. This doesn't require reinventing the wheel. Think "progress is possible. institutions are malleable tools of humanity and biases can be overcome."

On the Wilderson/Warren side -- you need to justify your theory of the world rather than rehashing debate's greatest hits. Saying "Jim crow to prison industrial complex" repeatedly does not make a full argument. Ideally, I'll hear some thesis-level explanation, like a few seconds on social death or what the libidinal economy is, rather than just "extend the conceded libidinal economy." The "Jim Crow to PIC" explanation requires the thesis-level explanation to be true.

For both teams -- I've found that I decide most debates by who undercovers ontology/libidinal economy the most. Many arguments on the flow come secondary to winning this and applying it to those other things, so identify what you can afford to give up to make my decision easier. You can still win ontology/metaphysics and lose the debate, but there are fewer scenarios where that's true.

University K's that PIK out of the university or debate suck. Do with that information as you will.

Kritikal Affs:

For the negative - I am a bad judge for going for fairness as a terminal impact. So, I'll probably need some external benefit to fairness like clash. Don't read this as me being dogmatically against voting on fairness. Instead, I need an incredibly robust explanation of fairness with significant case mitigation to vote on it. A couple of conditions that the neg ideally meets at least one of for me to vote on fairness as the 2NR terminal impact include:

1. Dropped TVA/Neg is clearly ahead on TVA that solves all of the Aff's offense.

2. The aff has failed to explain a counter-model for what debate is/should be and concedes that debate is only a game with no implication past that.

3. Significant explanation for how fairness implicates and turns aff offense at the level of the aff's explanation, not just generic claims.

4. External offense not within that framework flow that impact turns the Aff's value claims and implicates the Aff's fw offense.

Independent of all that, fairness is a great controlling IL to filter things, so definitely leverage it as a part of other impacts if you go that route.

Ks vs the K aff are cool. A good debate here is realistically one of the top places I'll give high speaks along with impact turns. I default to the aff gets a perm, but feel free to win they don't. Just winning your theory of power isn't sufficient for me to vote negative, but it definitely supercharges link arguments.

Impact turns are great. Feel free just to drop 10 scenarios and challenge the fundamental assumptions of the 1AC.

DAs -- if a K team is trying to be tricky and give you topic DAs. Feel free to go for the DA and CP, but make sure you have case mitigation or some framing device.

For the aff -

You need to either win a) your model is better than theirs or b) their model is really, really bad if you don't have a c/i.

I find myself voting negative in these debates when the Aff fails to give me a framing argument to filter negative offense.

Be ready to defend your solvency mechanism if it is attacked. I need a coherent story about what my voting aff does. Do I signify a good political strategy, does my ballot literally break the system (lol), does it change mindsets, etc. Presumption is persuasive, so don't disrespect it by under-covering it.

I'm not the judge for rounds where you and the opponent agree to have a "discussion" and talk about important issues outside the traditional speech times of debate. These things are likely important, but I don't want to have to decide on something like that. It requires too much judge intervention for my liking. Strike me if this is something you plan on doing. If you do not strike me and this type of round happens, then I am flipping a coin. Heads for the aff. Tails for the neg.

Topicality:

I am not anywhere near the best judge for T. If your A strat is Topicality, then I'd recommend striking me or having me hover around a 4. If you are forced to go for T in the 2NR/answering it the 2AR, then hold my hand through the RFD and explain how things should interact.

If you're put in a position where T is your only option, don't worry and keep the things below in mind.

I default to competing interpretations.

Give me a case list, especially if it's a weirder interp.

Go slower than you would with a DA/K/CP. I find it harder to flow T than other off-cases at high speed.

Make sure you tell me why I should vote for you rather than just have floating offense.

Weird and Random Technical Things:

Speech times are a rule, while things like topicality are a norm. That means I'm willing to entertain a debate about the benefits of topicality/FW vs. a K aff. If you speak over the timer, I will not flow or evaluate what you are saying, even if it is a part of your argumentation.

No, the neg will never get a 3NR.

I greatly dislike completely new 1AR cards if the argument was made in the 1NC and dropped in the 2AC. There is a big gray area here for what it means to be "dropped," but you should be able to realize what is abusive or not.

1NC/1AC mistakes -- if you read something like a CP or T and forget to read some critical component or have a massive typo in that critical component (where relevant), the 2NC is not an "oopsie, we can revise that" speech. This also includes situations where a policy aff forgets to read a plan text in the 1ac. If your T/FW shell is missing a violation in the 1NC, you do not get to create one in the 2NC. If you read a CP text with a massive typo including part of the text of a different 1AC from a previous round rather than the 1ac you are debating, you don't get a new one in the 2NC. However, if you have a typo in your speech doc and verbally correct yourself in the 1NC, I am completely ok with that revision. I'm sure other judges and people in the community have different opinions about what the 2NC/2AC can and can't do, but I'm going to be transparent about my bias. Theoretically, you could argue to change my mind in the debate, but it will be an incredible uphill battle.

Off-case positions should be clearly labeled in the 1NC.

I'll generally evaluate inserted rehighlighting of the opponent's evidence. There is obviously a point where a team could abuse this -- don't do that. But, I think that teams should be punished for under highlighting/mis highlighting their evidence. Due to time trade-offs/competitive incentives, I think that forcing you to verbally re-read the evidence punishes you more. Essentially, one or two key inserted rehighlightings is fine, but if you're inserting the entire 1ac re-highlighted, that's not ok.

Don't say "brief off-time roadmap." Just say roadmap, please.

The only thing I want to hear in your roadmap is the name of off-case positions and specific case pages. If there's a large overview, then maybe add that to the roadmap. "Impact calculus" happens within one of those flows, so just signpost in speech rather than making it a part of the roadmap.

Please don't send pdfs. Verbatim > Unverbatimized Word > Google Docs > Pdfs.

LD --

I am not evaluating tricks.

In order of args I'm best suited to judge (best to worst) -- K, LARP, Phil, Tricks.

Most of my thoughts on policy debate apply to LD. However, the way y'all debate T, theory, procedurals, etc sounds like a second language to me that is vaguely mutually intelligible to my own. I'm not great for these arguments in policy, so I'm probably even worse for them in LD. Y'all will need to be very clear and overexplain argument interaction to get my ballot

I am a parent judge with some experience in judging but not with fast debate. Please avoid using terms that parents do not understand.

For Policy Debate specifically, I evaluate the round based on the clarity of your point, evidence, and ability to handle cross-examination of issues. I will consider your framing but will vote for a more credible, logical, and understandable case most of the time. I also prefer summarizing your argument and points at the end of the debate, especially in rebuttals.

Background

I have experience in just about all types of debate. While some distinctions between formats I see similarities rooted in intentional relationships, education and rhetoric. I do not see the judge as a blank slate. So I have some things that I think, based on my experiences as a debater, social science teacher, coach, parent and program director effect my role as a judge. We all have filters.

Personally, I debated NDT for the University of Houston in the early 80's. Achieving out rounds at major national tournaments and debating at both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. I have coached all debate events and many speech events. My policy teams won St. Marks and Memorial TOC tournaments and enjoyed success nationally. My students were also successful on Texas UIL and local circuits. I have had debate teams, LD debaters, extemp speakers and congress entries placed 1st or 2nd in Texas and have also coached a state oratory champion.

Currently, I consult and do debate on the side from home. I'm 62 years old. Concerns or questions about a judge that age are addressed below. The two biggest concerns are usually handling "speed" and "progressive" arguments. Speed with style and good technique is one thing speed that seems like a stream of consciousness is another. As for what progress is or progressive is, well that depends on your experiences.

I am open to alternative approaches to resolutions but also enjoy frameworks employed in the past. Debating and coaching in Houston and teaching at the UTNIF for a decade definitely shaped my my ability to listen to different types of frameworks - or what the debate is supposed to mean or accomplish. I have coached at so many levels, for many years on different topics - instead of seeing differences I see many similarities in the way arguments are framed evolve. I debated when it was highly questionable to do anything beyond policy debate - even counterplans, much less conditional frameworks, but being from a small squad (in a different info environment - when access to research and evidence was definiteley privileged) we pursued the edge strategies - such as hypothesis testing to level the field. Coaching in policy we ran all range of arguments. Over time shifting to a more critical approach. Once again in response, in part, to the changing information space. On an education topic we went deep all year on Critical Pedagogy and on a criminal justice - Constitutive Criminology. There are very few rules in debate. What policy debate means and what my vote means are for grabs by both teams. I'm not into labels at way to define myself. If I had to pick a term it would be: Critic of Argument

A couple of notes

Speed, unless evolution is really off track, speed can't be any faster, even from when we debated in college. Speed is rarely what set the best debaters apart. However, these are my first NDT rounds this year. (I'm contemplating grad schools in the mountain west for next year) Make sure acronyms, initialisms etc. are clear first before ripping through what will be new information for me. I suggest making sure each of you arguments (CP/K/DA - plan objection if you're old -) have a quick efficient thesis that makes sure I understand your position and its potential in the round before you take off speaking more quickly.

Evidence

I evaluate your proofs. Proof is a broad term - much more than published material.

I consider evidence to be expert testimony. A type of proof. The debater who presents experts to support their claims should lay the predicate - explain why that source is relevant and qualified to be an expert - when they present the evidence. Quotations submitted as evidence with just a publication title or name and date often fall short of this standard. Generally I don't want to call for a card after the round whose author was not qualified when presented in constructives. I will call for evidence on contested points. However, that evidence has been well qualified by the team presenting it and the debaters are usually talking about lines and warrants from the card. It is highly unlikely that I will call for card not qualified and/or not talked about in rebuttals. If a piece of evidence is not qualified in a meaningful way during a debaters speech - it is unlikely I would call for it after the round. I've seen traveling graduate students from England just dismantle top flight policy teams - they had proofs that all knew and accepted often with out some of the "debate tech" norms found in academic policy debate (NDT/CEDA). See the comments below on what matters in rebuttals!

Notes on Education

Spurious "quick claims" claims of a specific educational standard thrown out with out all elements of an argument are problematic. I am a life long educator who has witnessed and evolved with debate. Often teams quick claim Education as a voting issue. As an educator, I often see performance methodology (like only reading names and dates to qualify evidence or "card stacking" reading only the parts of a card that favor you - even if full context sheds a different light OR speed reading through post-modern literature as probably much more important than a debate tech argument) as serious education issues that could be discussed - and much more primary to education - than debate tech one offs.

I find "debate tech" like spreading and some uses of technology in round serve to privilege or tilt the playing field. This doesn't mean to slow to a crawl - fast and efficient - but also accessible to both the other team and the judge. So winning because the affirmative can't respond in depth to 8 off case arguments is not persuasive to me. Be bold - go deep on issues that you think are yours. "Debate Terms of Art" often fall in this category. Language choice should be accessible - even if it means adapting to your opponent as well as your judge.

Evidence often is not enough

Most debates aren't won early - the changing information space has created a lot of equity. But there two things debaters do in my experience in rebuttals that make a difference. After they have strategically collapsed or decided which issue to go for they:

1. They talk authors and specific warrants contained in the evidence - usually contrasting opposing authors and warrants. These warrants are prima facia - they are best when clearly identified - even in the opening speeches.

2. They can tell a narrative - or give examples of the mechanics, warrants, internal links in the card. They can also explain sequences of events - what would happen if I voted for your argument/position or team.

From an educators view - this is the goal of debate.

Counterplans and debate tech

Counterplan "micro theory" has really evolved. That is my term for many variations of counterplans that drive focus away from clash on the topic. Superficial, procedural and timing exceptions or additions counterplans. I actually spent time reviewing two articles on the history of PICs and their evolution prior to writing this. The excessive use of academic debate "Terms of Art" is problematic, sometimes exclusionary. I prefer head on collision in debate - and debaters who figure out how to position themselves for that debate. I prefer the debate come down to clash on field contextual issue as opposed to "side swiping" the topic. Just my preference.

I also find that this type of debate tech functions as a tool of exclusion. The debate should be accesable to your opponents without an overreliance of theory or tech debates. If they are used as time sucks that rubs me the wrong way going to your Ethos as a debater.

I do not and will not vote on or enforce a preround disclosure issue. Settle that before the round starts. Take it over my head if you object. If you ask me to adjudicate that - you might not like the answer.

How we treat each other

This is something that might trigger my voting in way you don't expect. Let's work on accomodating each other and creating safe spaces for academic discourse and the development of positive intentional relationships.

I am a parent judge, so please go at a good pace and explain everything thoroughly so I can keep up with your case.

Good luck and be respectful!

1. Please speak slowly. If you speak too quickly, your points may be missed.

2. Enjoy the experience and be nice!

My background is 90s policy debate for Vestavia Hills HS & Georgetown University. I'm confident that I can handle aggressive pace and esoteric arguments. However, I demand clarity, appreciate intonation, and I am more likely to vote for arguments that I personally believe are true. Please don't read bad evidence. I might punish you for that. Personally, I have an undeniable preference for justice-based arguments like human rights and economic egalitarianism. However, I aspire to be non-interventionist/tabular as a. You can win just about any argument if you make a compelling case within the debate.

This is the very first time that I'm judging a speech & debate event. I would appreciate it if you could not talk too fast. And please understand that I may not be able to provide the most constructive feedback while I'm still learning to be an effective judge.

Hi

I have started participating in debate tournaments as judge since 2021. I have judged LD and Parli in CFLs. I like debate participants finding weak point in their opponents argument and exploiting that to prove their point. I get to learn a lot through debate and topics getting discussed. I enjoy the seriousness of time keeping and structured format. Looking forward to judging more.

This is the first time that I've judged this type of debate. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. Thank you.

I am new to judging, so please try not to speak too fast so that it's easier for me to follow. I may not be able to give you points if I do not understand what you are saying.

Good luck and be respectful!

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

Hi,

I am a parent judge so please speak slowly, tell me your points clearly and why they make the most sense. Good luck and have fun!

I'm a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. Please don't spread.

Time yourself and your opponents.

I'm an intermediate-level parent judge with several years of experience judging mostly PF.

I believe the primary goal of debate (and speech) is to communicate effectively and persuasively. Make compelling arguments supported by solid evidence and reasoning and use examples to illustrate your points whenever possible. Aside from constructing your own case, make sure you adapt to your opponents' arguments and avoid talking past each other. Remember that it's not a sign of weakness to acknowledge an opposing viewpoint.

I understand some of you prefer rapid-fire delivery but please prioritize clarity and enunciation over speed and density. This way, I won't miss any of the key points you are making. Keep in mind that I cannot give you credit for things you said but I never heard.

Please do not introduce new arguments in the final speeches of the debate. I will not consider them.

Most importantly: always be respectful to each other, relax and have fun!

In my judging round, I would like to hear:

1. clearly emphasized opinions, which would be repeated in the middle and at the end of the speech.

2. convincing facts or reasoning to support the opinions/attitudes.

3. in debate, pointing out why opponent's arguments are not right/sufficient

4. polite and attractive language, better with some humor

Arguments and rebuttals should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery.

Arguments may be grouped and should each be addressed individually.

Rebuttals should address the important issues and extend arguments individually.

No preference about evidence but prefer When/Who if possible and needed.