Advancement of debate

logical progression of ideas

supporting argument with sources

interaction with and connected to other chamber members

proper decorum

proper use of parliamentary procedure

knowledge of laws, and governmental procedures

My paradigm is Communication. This means that if someone is speaking so quickly that I can't pick up what they're saying, then they lose points. As an academic I'm accustomed to jargon, but if that is overwhelming in a speech or debate then that meaning can be lost, so that loses points with me as well.

About me: I began coaching high school debate in the US in 2017, after coaching 2 years in Japan. In that time I have judged PF and LD debate from local novice rounds up to the final round of LD at NCFL Grand Nationals. While not a high school debater myself, I learned the value of debate in college, where I publicly debated my thesis on a potential war in Iraq (this was shortly before the 2nd war). A poll of the lay audience suggested that I "won" on my solid arguments, evidence and impacts... But the poll also showed the majority disagreed with my proposed course of action. So could that really be considered a "win"? Turns out, I had barely touched an underlying value debate that neither I nor the lay audience had recognized was needed. This is just one reason I find great value in both impact-oriented PF and value-oriented LD debate (the two styles I have most experience coaching and judging). Below are things I value when judging a round.

What I value as a judge:

Do the most important work for me. I expect to debaters to do the core work of linking claims to evidence to framework, etc., highlighting key points of clash, and weighing. If reasoning seems to be vague or missing, I will not fill it in for you. For example, don't tell me to cross-apply an argument and assume that I will know how you expect me to cross-apply it--explain how it applies and why it matters.

Speak so I can flow. If debaters speak too fast or use too much jargon, I cannot flow it. When I make the final decision, I refer to my flow. You want your arguments to be on my flow! PF is aimed at educating the public, so make sure a layman can follow along. Even LD should be flowable for opponents and judges. There is no excuse for obfuscation.

Be clear and concise. Use signposts to refer to framework, contentions and sub-points. If a debater has to speak fast to fit all the arguments in, they likely have not distilled their speeches down to the most critical issues. Puns are fun, but my RFD is based on argumentative powers, not added "flowers".

Use Cross-Ex/Crossfire to clarify. Ask questions to reveal and clarify key issues, and answer opponents' questions in good faith. Be sure that both sides get the opportunity clarify the key issues. CX is not an opportunity for one side to extend its own points according to its own prerogative. I frown upon cases that blatantly expect Side A to use their CX time so that Side B can finish laying out a case that Side B couldn't fit within their own allotted time.

Maintain decorum. Be careful not to lose temper in the heat of the round. Do not abuse CX by excessively cutting off or talking over the opposing team. Avoid gestures and comments that would be considered rude in an academic or professional setting. I may down-vote teams that break these rules.

Don't linger on rule violations. I do appreciate teams letting me know when they think an opponent has violated the rules, but don't spend too much time on it. Summarize how the rules appear to have been violated and then move on. Lingering too long on a rule violation runs the risk of leaving other important issues unaddressed, which I may weigh more heavily than the perceived violation.

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.

Last Chance BQD:I took 5th at Nats in BQ so I have a pretty good understanding of the event. There are little to no limits on arguments you can run in BQ so I will be pretty tabula rasa when it comes to argumentation. I, personally, believe the event should be debated pretty lay/accessible but I will not hold that against you if you run technical arguments. Feel free to read the rest of my paradigm for more information.

Basics: I competed in LD from 2016-2020 with experience locally and nationally. Now, I am the head coach of Dublin Jerome HS in Ohio where I coach all events. I have experience with all types of arguments and the remainder of this paradigm just goes over my preferences.

Conflicts: Louisville Sr. HS (OH), Dublin Jerome HS (OH), Alliance HS (OH).

LD:

Framework: You must run a V/VC. I use the framework to weigh the round but I do not vote on it alone. Do NOT make it a KVI because it carries no weight on its own.

Contention Level: I keep a rigorous flow. This means I will ask you to follow a line by line and will record all dropped arguments. This does not mean I will vote on who covers the most ground. You need to extend dropped arguments and weigh them against your opponents. If you kick a contention(s) that's fine, I don't care, just let me know in speech.

Evidence: You need to provide evidence in a timely fashion. I will use your prep time if you abuse this grace period. I will (likely) not review the evidence. It is not the judge's responsibility to do the evidence analysis. If there is a breach of rules then I will intervene. Otherwise, it is both debaters' duty to show why their analysis of the evidence is better.

PF:

*************Frontline. Frontline. Frontline.*****************

Framing: It needs to be topical and not abusive or I will drone you out.

Line by line: I don't buy the norm of PF to just leave arguments behind. You can and should be consolidating throughout the round, but that means you pull everything together. I will weigh drops against you.

Evidence: *SEE LD* If you would like to have your partner review evidence while you speak, the other team needs to agree. Otherwise, this needs to happen during prep.

Please Please Please ask me questions if you have them. I take no offense at all if you question any one of these comments. As long as you're respectful, I don't care how you debate.

Good Luck and Have Fun!!!

Robert Duncan He/Him/His

Head Speech and Debate Coach, Dublin Jerome HS

Columbus District DEIB Chair

I do not like spreading, especially online as I have a hard time understanding what you are saying if you spread. Also, please try not to mumble as I am somewhat hard of hearing.

I do not like Ks. I do not know how to judge a competitor using one or any kind of progressive debate in LD.

I'm a judge from a very traditional circuit and thus that's gonna be my preference for debate. I'll go into more specific details below.

Speed - Please don't spread. I'm fine with a debater's pace, as long as it's comprehensible. If you do have to spread, please share your doc and analytics on the email chain.

Framework - I understand the basics of framework debate. If you have a complex/unique framework please elaborate. As for addressing, go into however much detail you deem necessary. When addressing, tell me why your framework is important, outweighs, or a pre-req to your opponent's.

CX - I allow answers to go over time. This goes with 2 ideas. 1, please finish asking the question by end of time. 2, please don't abuse this regulation. I won't flow cross, but using answers in rebuttal will certainly strengthen it.

CPs - A fan of counterplans. If you are going to run one, please abide by the rules of the circuit. Also, make sure to establish mutual exclusivity/competition and solvency.

PICs - Please don't run one.

T - Please don't run T shells.

Ks - Please don't run one. I can almost guarantee that I won't fully understand it. Also, odds are this goes hand in hand with spreading, please reference the speed section.

Email - Please add me to the email chain if there is one. carolynvgeruc@outlook.com

National Tournament Contestant 2010

National judge 2012 & 2013

LD Debate

Congress and PF contestant

Winner of the 2010 Trinity High School Speech Award

Look for full arguments

Defend vigorously from all sides

Holistic approach

Background:

Any pronouns, ask for my email to put me on the chain. Former LD/PF/IPDA debater / speech competitor, and es/ms/hs/college coach.

General:

Tech versus Truth: I lean towards tech over truth, but I will intervene in cases where a debater and/or their advocacy is in some way harmful, violent or offensive (i.e. racism, transphobia, sexism, etc). I will always respect the wishes of the non-offending debater(s) in the round, but I also believe my role as an educator requires me to step in when no preference is indicated by competitors. All things equal, I will happily vote for an argument I don't believe if it won the round.

Speed: I find that online debate tends to exacerbate issues with speed (ex; lack of clarity, lagging, etc). Be mindful of this.

I'm stealing a quote from my good friendEva Lamberson's paradigm: "Rounds should be accessible to your opponent. This means that you should, of course, use inclusionary language, correct pronouns, content warnings if necessary, etc. but also means that you should not spread complex Ks or tricks or anything otherwise unnecessarily high level against novices, lay debaters, etc. If you do this I will be supremely annoyed and you will be very unhappy with your speaks. What is the point of winning a debate round if your opponent never has a chance to compete?" In general, I am very dissatisfied when debaters intentionally and unnecessarily make debate more exclusive and difficult to engage in.

Use of evidence: I believe debate is, at least partly, an educational activity, and evidence ethics are an academic issue. In the same way you might fail a paper or be academically punished for plagiarism, you will face consequences if you choose to misrepresent or manipulate evidence.

Public Forum

How I Decide Winners:

- The most important thing in picking me up as a judge is offering framing and comparative analysis. Specific judge instructions are key. Tell me what to vote off, why to vote off of it, and how it interacts with your opponent's offense. The more you tell me what to do, the less I have to think, and the more objective my ballot will be.

- My judging philosophy in PF tends to be what I describe as "the path of least resistance" or the "cleanest" way to vote. In other words, I'm more likely to vote for an argument that had very little interaction from your opponent versus trying to resolve a twenty argument long back and forth about who accesses nuke war. In other words, be strategic and don't just focus on the clash.

What I Like To See In PF:

- I am typically very persuaded by link clarity or strength of link arguments. I much prefer well developed link stories over well developed impact scenarios. Most PF debaters tend to lean towards the latter, but, as a judge, I will almost always vote for the argument with a smaller impact but far better explanation for how it is actually accessed. In other words: do more work on the link level.

- I really like impact scenarios that are specific to your link story. Often times, PF debaters will show X policy causes some arbitrary increase in X bad thing, and X bad thing can cause (insert maximum possible damage). But there isn't specificity on the policy/rez itself causing a certain portion or quantity of said impact.

- Extend last name + date on evidence AND actually extend the point of your evidence/arguments. Far too often, I see PF debaters extending "contention one" or "smith evidence" with no explanation of what it actually says/how it impacts the round, beyond the first speech it was introduced in. I have a low threshold for extensions, but I won't tolerate failing to even give me the tag of an argument or piece of evidence.

- Whatever is in final focus, should have been said in summary. I lean believing that defense is sticky, but can be persuaded.

- 2nd speaking team should frontline in rebuttal, always. At the very least, address offense/turns on case.

- Please, please sign post. The #1 problem I see with PF debaters: the lack of structure and organization in speeches. I will get lost, and your arguments poof into oblivion when that happens. The more you tell me what is happening and where on the flow I should be writing, the better my flow is!

What I Do Not Like To See In PF:

- Don't paraphrase. It undercuts debate, and often leads to really, really poor evidence norms. If you paraphrase, I expect you have fully cut cards available. If you are sending docs, you better include fully cut cards. To clarify: fully cut cards = actually highlighting/underlining of the evidence read, not just a blob of text from a source.

- Disrespectful comments, attitudes, or expressions. I see this most frequently in PF debate. Elitism will not win you rounds, at least with me.

- Perhaps one of the hottest takes I have is that I really prefer you don't use jargon much. I find PF debaters over-rely on jargon (half the time without even understanding what it really means). I much prefer you actually explain what you want me to do. This isn't to say I am anti-jargon, but rather, I think less is more.

- PF cases are increasingly more difficult to flow. With the popularity of paraphrasing and every single line being another argument or critical piece of information, it causes me to always feel "behind" in flowing. Pair that with fast speaking in the 1AC/1NC and you'll find a lot of gaps in my flow. If this applies to you: send a doc or speak slower if you don't want me missing your 6 word sentence that is an entire "card".

Progressive / Circuit in Public Forum Debate:

- Public Forum debate is still a relatively new event. It is "finding itself", so to speak. I am, generally, very willing to allow debaters to test those bounds. This means I am fairly okay with progressive concepts in PF, and am fairly competent at evaluating them. However: I do think debate should be accessible to your opponent (see more on that above). So, be mindful of whether the argument you're going to introduce into the round creates barriers for engagement.

K's/theory in PF often lack the level of structure and nuance you see in other events, which is fine! But it means that the way I evaluate these arguments it highly dependent on how they are introduced and debated.

Ultimately, you're the debater and I want you to have fun/enjoy debating. It's not my job to tell you what to do in a debate round, as long as it's moderately respectful. Read stock arguments or four blippy contentions or a k - I'll evaluate it all the same.

Lincoln Douglas

How I Decide Winners:

- The most important thing in picking me up as a judge is offering framing and comparative analysis. Specific judge instructions are key. Tell me what to vote off, why to vote off of it, and how it interacts with your opponent's offense. The more you tell me what to do, the less I have to think, and the more objective my ballot will be.

- My judging philosophy in LD is framework first. I determine who wins framing, to then evaluate which impacts matter or do not matter. Win framework, and win an argument under framework (or win an argument under your opponents) - and weigh. My ballot is that simple. If nobody "wins" framework, I will generally give priority to like-arguments (example: neither side wins framework, but both debaters discuss the economy).

What I Like To See In LD:

- Unique framework debates and well justified frameworks. like learning interesting theories, and hearing different perspectives of a topic. Challenge norms and think outside the box.

- Technical debates, i.e. in-depth flow debates, good weighing, strategize.

- Be entertaining. I judge a lot of rounds at a tournament, and the more interesting you are, the more likely you are to capture my attention. Online debate exacerbates attention-span issues.

- Give content warnings if appropriate.

- Unique arguments - reading stock DAs and generic framing is boring. Do something interesting.

What I Do Not Like To See In LD:

- Pointless values debates. They don't matter.

- If you do circuit with me as your judge, I am unlikely to vote off of tricks. I find them uneducational.

- "They don't achieve their FW" is not a response to framework, and leaves their framework 100% untouched and unrefuted.

- A source isn't sufficient to explain why something happens; articulate to me why they came to that decision/conclusion.

-------------------------------------

Generally, I just want to see engaging and respectful rounds. Otherwise, I am open to you doing whatever it is you want/like! This paradigm is meant to give context to how I think as a judge, but not to limit you. Have fun!

General Notes

My name is Johnathan Hurley and I am very excited to see you all compete! A few quick notes about me:

1. I am a student at the University of Kentucky, studying Communications and Community and Leadership Development;

2. I am a former Congressional Debater and limited prep competitor, and as a result, my style of judging is somewhat influenced by personal experience; and

3. I use he/they pronouns, please be cognizant of this in the round. I heavily discourage the use of gendered terminology for myself or others.

Below you'll find a breakdown of my PF and Congress paradigms.

Public Forum

Procedures

By and large, I prefer to be able to sit back and enjoy the debate. You all should come in knowing the procedure, please refer to the tournament invite and relevant handbooks, but I am open to clarifications and questions as needed. The same principle goes for timing and whatnot during rounds, I would like to be as hands-off as possible on that front.

I am more than capable of understanding when competitors spread in round; I will not drop you over this but I would advise against it in general as most judges would.

General Notes

Public Forum is not a policy-based event, it's a philosophy-based event. What I mean when I say this is that I do not want to hear any sort of plans or counter plans, that will result in an immediate drop. Rather, I want to hear the broad implications of the resolution from the perspective of your side (PRO/CON).

When adjusting to my judging style, I heavily recommend you all use a diverse set of arguments. I like to hear about the economic, political, and social implications of your side not a hyper-focus on one member of that group. Diverse argumentation will be rewarded, as will unique sourcing.

Inclusion

Please only use the term "judge" to refer to myself and your opponent's name and/or "opponent" to refer to them.

Congressional Debate

Presiding Officers

The Presiding Officer starts with my 1, it's theirs to lose. An inefficient PO will not be ranked at all. Show me character, show me knowledge of the procedure, and show me that you have what it takes to lead an entire chamber of intelligent individuals in civil discourse.

General Expectations

This is Congressional Debate, not Congressional Extemporaneous Speaking. The expectation is the focus is on civil discourse and stepping into the role of a Congressperson. Introduce the facts, explain the voting issues. use RELIABLE sources, and refute in a fair and respectful manner.

One of my personal pet peeves is the use of gendered pronouns in Session. Please make it a point to use Senator/Representative in place of Mr/Ms.

Early Cycle Speakers

Anyone who speaks in the first pair of cycles has a fairly simple job: prove to me that the problem the bill is seeking to address exists and prove to me whether or not the bill effectively addresses. Heavy clash and rebuttal is not expected for these speakers and can often take away from their ability to frame the debate.

Mid Cycle Speakers

Anyone who speaks in the middle of the debate on a piece of legislation has the job of expanding on their side's arguments. Elaborate on the previous speaker's points and add your own. A heavy clash is expected at this point in the debate.

Late Cycle Speakers

The final pair of speakers are vital to cementing your side's victory or defeat. At this point, your speech should be telling me why your side won, not introducing new mountains of evidence. Traditional clash does not work here, you need to adapt and address voting issues while also offering refutation.

Respect is my number 1 priority. Intentional disrespect of another competitor for any reason will heavily impact my decisions.

I prefer clear, concise, easy to follow debates. Please sign post and clearly reference both your previous points and your competitors. Make it clear why I should vote for you. Avoid dropping arguments but highlight those that have been dropped by your opponent. Stay respectful to your competitor. I take this point very seriously :). I have been judging since 2008 but still consider myself less technical/more lay person.

Hello All. My name is Riley Murray and I am a debate coach and former college and high school debater. I am a tabula rasa judge, so I want to see clear warrants and convincing logic above all else. Make sure to be polite and speak at a pace that is easy to follow for judges and opponents. Debate is meant to be an educational exchange of ideas, and I believe those are our best rounds. Have fun!

I use she/her pronouns.

I have coached all forms of debate, with students as state champions, national qualifiers, and national outrounds (mainly in LD, but also CX, PFD, and congress). While I am a coach of 20+ years, I like to be treated as a lay judge. My philosophy is that regardless of the style of debate, you should never assume that your judge knows more than you and it is your responsibility to educate them on the topic. That means:

1) I prefer speech habits that emphasize persuasiveness and understanding. Don't spread, make sure to signpost, and think about how you can use your voice to emphasize key points.

2) Avoid topic-specific jargon. We are not researching this stuff to the level that you do as a competitor. Don't throw out an acronym without telling me what it stands for, unless it is a universally-known one (i.e. NATO). Sometimes even terms of art in the resolution aren't really known to the judge, so it is helpful to clarify. That also goes for complex ideas and theories.

3) Explain your arguments/contentions. Just reading card after card does not showcase your logic. Remember the warrant -- WHY does that evidence matter? And with that said, what is the impact? I love a good impact.

I flow the round. If you spread, make sure I can understand you, or it will be for naught. If you act uncivil or rude to your opponent(s), it will be difficult for me to be sympathetic to your arguments. It is important that evidence supports logic.

I have been coaching Speech & Debate for the past 20 years. I was a competitor for all 4 years of my high school career. I've judged numerous local, regional, state, and national tournaments. The highlight of my judging career came at the 2020 NSDA National Tournament when I was selected to judge Lincoln-Douglas Finals. When it comes to levels of debate, I've seen them all. Below are my event-specific areas of focus that I suggest debaters in the rounds that I judge should consider (but I'm open to whatever you feel works best for you...these are simply my preferences in round).

General notes:

Speed is a factor in every round that I judge. If you spread or speak at a rate in which I would have to read your case on paper to understand what your argument is you will not win a round with me. Delivery matters but so does content. Off-the-wall kritiks I am not a fan of, either. Whatever your position is, it must be logical.

Lincoln-Douglas:

Frameworks are a must. Voters are a must. Go down the flow - stay in order - don't deviate and make your arguments clear at all times. Don't waste time in-round ever. Definitely do not spread...Lincoln-Douglas is meant to be spoken well, not fast (some speed is okay, but nothing excessive). Remember content is good but delivery of the content well is also important. This is the way.

Policy:

The biggest thing I look for in policy is consistency. I am not a fan of kritiks, out-there cases as the Neg, etc. For the round I much prefer standard policy debate. Plans and counter-plans are a must. Go down the flow. Do not spread. Make the round friendly for both teams. Keep track of arguments won on both sides and give me a good crystallization at the end of your final rebuttals. Do not spread. Did I say not to spread? In case I didn't, don't spread...just don't. To make it clearer, spreading = I'm not a fan.

Public Forum:

Speak at a good rate of speed (fast is okay but you absolutely should not spread in PF). Be civil at all times. Do not be condescending unless you want to be marked down severely for it (or possibly lose a round). Be professional in crossfire & grand crossfire. Do not waste excessive amounts of time calling for cards (it's easy to try to be abusive with prep time but I am not the judge to try that with because I am a fan of debating, not evidence scrutinizing so unless you can prove something definitive by calling a card, don't waste too much of our time in-round doing so). Overall, be kind to each other and have a good debate and all will be well. I have spoken.

If competitors are doing an email chain for evidence; Sanchez-villa@trinityrocks.com

Competed in the Louisville, Kentucky Circuit in high school for three years. Graduated with a major in Political Science from the University of Louisville. I am an assistant coach of Trinity High School for the Speech & Debate team and have held that role for four years now. I say this to highlight that I have years of experience in this event and am familiar with many debate styles, philosophies, frameworks and am aware of changing trends in the debate world, that being said Debate is an educational tool and a time for students to practice analytical thinking and persuasive skills in a unique environment unlike school, so please do not spread at a rate that is so fast that it can never be repeated in a public environment, dont go so fast that the only way to flow is off a speech doc because I will ignore it. Evidence calling is a new thing with the advent of technology post-covid but do not make the evidence calling period so long that it delays the debate and ends up being wasted, call for cards that matter to the judge, not your team. Great debate, for me, is one where both sides are understanding of what the other person's case is stating and evaluating and clashing at that crucial point. There are a lot of debates where people run past each others points and do not actually attack the meat of what is being debated causing me to weigh two worlds that have very little to differentiate from. Competitors should be critical of evidence (yes please do stake the round on thats not what your evidence says, and I will read evidence of contention if I believe there is merit to it not claiming what it means, bad card cutting happens to everyone) and claims being made and any connection that they do not make for me as a judge I will not flow. Make my decision for me with your final speech.

You could call my debate paradigm rather traditional as I competed in high school and collegiate debate in the early 2000s and have coached for seventeen years since. I value persuasion in argumentation, but I also flow and focus on the issues that the competitors want me to focus on to reach my decision. I like creative and interesting arguments, so make them!

Also, I do my best not to intervene so if you want me to focus on something in a round, then you better tell me. I am not going to carry across/impact arguments for you or make up arguments that you did not make against your opponent's position, even if their advocacy carries significant weaknesses. I am also not going to ask for evidence without being called upon to do so (and if you want me to look at evidence at the end there had better be a good reason).

Rudeness will not be tolerated. You can be assertive, yet polite. If you ask a question in CX/crossfire, allow time for the opponent to answer and do not prematurely cut them off. I hated that as a competitor and I hate it still.

Make sure evidence is ready to hand to the other competitor or team when they call for it. If you do not have it, it will negatively impact speaker points AND I will not start running prep time for the other side until they have the card(s) they need. So you will be forfeiting free prep time to the other team if you are not organized.

Keep in mind that time limits provide a maximum, not a minimum. I would rather have you make a really efficient and clear rebuttal or summary or Final Focus that is a minute rather than have someone "fill time" with nebulous issues that do not matter.

Finally, is very important in the final speeches for debaters to write my ballot for me. Tell me what argument(s) you are winning and why they win you the round. Do some weighing of issues there too.

TL;DR Primarily a Trad coach who also enjoys K's, Tricks, and Theory. I'm fine with LARP but at least run interesting arguments.

Bio: I've coached LD since 2013, and competed since 2009. I've coached students to stage at the NSDA national tournament, and had a lot of local success in Ohio. I'm the director of LD curriculum at Triumph Debate which I co-founded.

I strive to be a tab judge, and am pretty much always tech over truth.

Email: m.slencsak@gmail.com - Please put me on email chains. Please.

Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 400+ local rounds

If you cite sources you need to follow evidence standards (this is mostly an issue in Ohio). In my opinion paraphrasing in unacceptable in both LD and PF.

Debate camp is for trying out new arguments and debate styles. Just have fun with it.

Conflicts:

Liberty HS (OH)

Triumph Teams

General

- Please provide me with a clear way to evaluate the round. If you don't I won't be happy when I try to figure out who won.

- Rounds should be accessible to your opponent. This means that you should, of course, use inclusionary language, correct pronouns, content warnings if necessary, etc. but also means that you should not spread complex Ks or tricks or anything otherwise unnecessarily high level against novices, lay debaters, etc. If you do this I will be supremely annoyed and you will be very unhappy with your speaks. What is the point of winning a debate round if your opponent never has a chance to compete? (more on this in the trad v. circuit section)

- If we're online please just always send speech docs.

- I'm probably not watching the video, so don't stress about that.

- I have ADHD and can lose focus easily. Please try to make sure you're engaging and feel free to yell into a mic, or do something in round if you feel as if I've zoned out.

Public Forum

• Warrants and Links are more important to me than impacts. I'd rather your argument make sense and have some probability of happening, rather than end in extinction. Of course, I still expect good impact calc.
• Impact calc is important. Explain why your impacts are more important than your opponents. This is especially important given the lack of frameworks in PF
• Try to present you case in a way I would actually want to hear it, were I not forced to be judging the round. Be interesting, use unique arguments, vary your rate and volume of speech, etc. Do something to differentiate yourself from everyone else at the tournament.
• If you're circuit or plan on reading prog, I have a very low tolerance for prog in PF. Theory is fine to fight abuse, Topical K's are fine, T is probably necessary at many points in PF.

Circuit

- I primarily coach, and exclusively competed in traditional LD. Please keep this in mind. It's not that I don't understand circuit or can't flow spreading, I just don't have as much experience here as I do with Trad debate.

- Phil: I enjoy this. Just try to keep the debate accessible and make sure you're explaining things well.

- LARP/ Policy: Not my favorite rounds to judge, but feel free to do it, I won't hold it against you. Provide clear weighing mechanisms (and use them to weigh). I prefer more interesting arguments to generic ones.

- Tricks: Go for it

- K's: I prefer it if we keep things vaguely topical, but you do you.

- Theory & T: I weirdly enjoy theory debates when it's done well. T is fine with me as long as it's not to out there.

Traditional

Framework is the lens through which I'll evaluate the round. That means to win the round you need to show how you best achieve whichever framework won the round.

Values - Are a waste of time and should just refer to some sort of generic good concept.

Philosophy - I'm cool with anything from a philosophy standpoint and enjoy seeing interesting takes on the topic. Personal Preferences are Hobbes, Kant, and Rawls, and I'm not a fan of libertarianism. I'll still evaluate everything fairly though.

“They do not achieve their fw” is not a response to the fw. “My fw is a prerequisite” is almost never explained and I usually cannot figure out a single reason why it matters or is true.

If what you really want is the util debate, then just run util. Traditional debaters do this thing where they’re like “my framework is rights” but it’s clearly just util.

Trad vs Prog

I believe some of the best education in debate comes out of traditional vs progressive rounds, that said, it is largely based on how the progressive debaters acts towards the trad debater.

Trad debaters - Don't whine about progressive debate being bad, don't read spreading bad shells that a teammate gave you, don't read K's bad, etc. Engage with the arguments and refute them, and you'll be fine.

Prog debaters - It is your job to keep this debate accessible. This means doing things like accepting your opponent won't read a counter interp, but if they engaged with the theory argument just going with it. This means politely explaining the K in cx (both substance of the K, and how K's operate in general). As long as you're polite, and make the round accessible and fair, we won't have any issues. Feel free to ask for guidance before the round if you have ANY questions on this.

I borrowed parts of this paradigm from Eva Lamberson. Thank you Eva.

Thank you for reading this paradigm, I will award references to horses with a very small bump in speaks as a reward for actually reading my paradigm.

General Experience and Views

I've been participating in debate, as either a coach, judge, or competitor since 2017. Most of my competitive experience is in Congressional Debate, but I have ample experience with PF and LD as well. For all events, I will weigh heavily against students who spread in their speeches. I don't want to be shared on your cases, it should be able to speak for itself and you should be articulate enough for me to be able to flow everything.

Congress

Clash is my number one priority for congress, this is what makes or breaks a round. If you do not incorporate clash with other students in your speech (with the exception of authorship and first negative speakers), then you are not going to do well. You should also be clashing during questioning by asking hard-hitters, not softballs or fluff.

I prefer for there to be some signposting during a congress speech, although you have limited time so I won't be too harsh on this. At the very least there needs to be some organizational structure.

As a congress judge, I DO FLOW. This means that I will be weighing not just on individual speeches, but how you are able to defend yourself in your own questioning period and how you respond to clash with your arguments in other student's questioning periods. If someone clashes with a point you made and you have no response in questioning or in another followup/crystallization speech, this will reflect poorly on your ballot.

A final score for a congress round is not supposed to be equal to your average speech score (though it can be and often works out that way), it is an indicator of your overall performance in the round, including factors like questioning, decorum, chamber presence, etc.

For POs, you do not need to stand out or be the most visible person in the room. In fact, it is often better for you to do your job as unimposingly as possible. As the leader of the student congress, you have a responsibility to uphold all rules and procedures and you should not rely too heavily on your parli or other students to help you fulfill that role. Make sure you are calling out prefacing and not unfairly prioritize certain people during questioning. Otherwise, you should not seek to impress me all that much. If the round runs smoothly and there are no major conflicts or hiccups, you will do well as PO. Finally, I really really really don't want to see any POs state the number of speeches and questions given during the round and I don't want to hear about which bills passed and failed. Orders of the Day is clearly defined in the rule book as a calling back of any tabled bills that have yet to be voted on, nothing more.

PF and LD

These debate events are much more independent so as your judge, I don't want to have to hold your hand or walk you through the round at all. I will be keeping time but I expect you do the same. Don't spread in your constructive, don't be abusive in questioning, be mindful of your decorum while your opponent is speaking, and I'll be happy.

For how I weigh rounds, it will vary depending on the content of the debate. I'm not always going to favor the side that wins on framework if their case is simply worse and they lost on most contentions. Similarly, I'm not always going to favor the side that had the greatest number of contentions extend if that speaker was spreading or their framework was inadequate. Make voting issues clear and convincing in your FF/NR2/AR2 and if your voters match the extended framework, that's how I'll weigh most rounds.

During CX, don't waste your opponent's time by bringing in new arguments. You can make arguments in questioning, but don't sit there and just pre-flow your case during CX, that's annoying.

Background and general views

I've been doing this for a decade now, so this isn't my first rodeo. I can adapt to pretty much any debate style, so do what you prefer. I don’t want you to be so focused on trying to please me as a judge that you lose sight of your case or your coaching. The one exception to this is spreading; I shouldn’t have to have your case in front of me to understand what you’re saying and I will drop over this.

I enjoy a lively, energetic debate, so don’t be afraid to be assertive. As long as you’re not blatantly rude, I won’t dock your speaks for being aggressive.

I prefer not to be added to email chains. If a piece of evidence is called into question, it’s up to you to prove why it should or shouldn’t be considered. As for emailing cases, refer to my comment about spreading.

Public Forum

I prefer when your FF speeches contain more weighing than summary. I want you to identify the voters and explain exactly how you outweigh your opponent on the key issues. For extensions and drops, I expect you to remind me what the card is and why it’s so important.

Cross isn’t for establishing new arguments, so I won’t flow any new ideas you bring up. I’ll make note of anything conceded during cross as well as general participation, but cross won’t factor too much into final scores or decisions. During GC, I want to see both partners on each team participating.

It’s up to you to attack your opponent’s case. No matter how silly a point may seem to you, I’m going to flow it through if you don’t effectively refute it.

I am the speech and debate coach at Hazard High School. Congressional Debate is my favorite event and I have coached many state finalist and champions and as well have had students do well at national tournaments. I enjoy all aspects of congressional debate but really like best is the role of Parli. I am here to facilitate a smooth chamber. My preference is to remain unobtrusive yet be of value and assistance to the PO, judges and the participants.

I also coach interp, limited prep events, and public speaking. I love to see the character come through the performance, the passion evident in the speech and the clear and concise analysis in delivery of your view on a topic.

My paradigm is pretty straight-forward. I believe debate is an educational opportunity designed to promote discourse. While I can handle speed, I do not prefer it as I believe that it detracts from the intentions of the activity. I prefer lots of clash. Having the ability to provide a strong line-by-line response is effective. Use your evidence to your advantage. Don't assume I will make the connections for you. If you want me to flow it, say it.

In Congressional Debate, there is no need to preface how many times you have spoken. It's a waste of time. Your name and your school is sufficient. As a Parliamentarian, I will be as hands off as possible. If you think there is an issue, that is up to you as representatives to ask the PO. Try to be as direct as possible in your questions. Lots of time is wasted in prefacing.