Tarheel Forensic League State Championship
2022 — Pinecrest HS, Southern Pines, NC/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am looking for debaters to provide a clear argument that is cohesive and flows. The debater’s job is to make sure your audience understands their argument and I look forward to hearing and judging what is shared.
I am currently a junior at Duke. I debated in LD for Cape Fear Academy in NC. I had experience debating on traditional and progressive circuits, but I would classify myself as a traditional flow judge.
preflow before the round pls
- Please keep track of your own prep time and speech times. Also keep track of your opponent's prep and speech times if you want to hold them accountable. once time runs out please just finish your sentence, if you move onto another point im not flowing and also i hate interrupting but i'll have to.
- I will not do any work for you on extensions. Extend your warrant, impacts, and any relevant evidence in every speech.
- Don't assume I know anything. No matter how much I actually know, I will not fill in anything for you. I only know what you tell me in your speeches.
- Faster than a conversational pace is fine, but i'd really prefer if you didn't spread. I will mostly decide based on the flow but persuasion is still a factor especially if the round is close. Weigh and do evidence comparison.
- You can call for evidence whenever you want, you don't need to ask me.
- Flex prep is fine if you need to ask a clarification question during prep time, but you cannot use extra cx time as prep.
- cx is binding
Things I enjoy:
- numbered responses
- being funny in cross
Things I do not enjoy:
- not keeping track of your own time :( + going excessively overtime and making me cut you off
- speaking condescendingly to your opponent
(there is a difference between being confident and being condescending. please treat your opponent with respect)
Hi, I’m Aphe Astrachan (Aphe pronounced aff-ee). I debated at Durham Academy for two years, and am currently a sophmore at Duke University. I experienced a fair amount of success on both the local and the national circuit, so although I tend to prefer more progressive forms of argumentation, I’m still open to your standard value/value criterion debate. Yes, I want to be on the email chain: aa424 at duke dot edu. I want to be on the email chain regardless of whether or not you’re spreading- it’ll save me time if I have to call for evidence, and it’s the only real way I have to see if you’re miscutting cards. Record your speeches, we're not doin speech redos. Also please stop saying stuff like "my time starts on my first word," it's annoying, patronizing, and makes you look like a dweeb.
March/April 22 specifics:
I am big fan of epistemological arguments on this debate, especially critiquing or supporting dialectically constructed standpoint epistemologies.
Larp/Theory/Topicality : 1
Postmodernism K’s: 2 (with the exception of Baudrillard 1, and queer futurism/rage/pess : 1)(I've probably read your lit)
Non postmodern K’s: 3
Identity K's: 2
Howdy folks. I try to be tech over truth in all instances, but that doesn’t mean I hold the same threshold of argumentation for everything. I have especially low thresholds for answering a-prioris, truth-testing, and anything which is clearly untrue. I’m willing to vote off of anything with the exception of racist/ableist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic… arguments. Also on this: Don’t read identity cases if you’re not the identity being represented in case (with the exception of you reading a card at the top of case which makes an argument for why you should be able to read it). My favorite form of debate while I was debating was LARP with healthy doses of theory and topicality mixed in: I’ll vote off of exempted or paragraph theory, but please send analytics if your opponent asks for them. Although it wasn't my favorite while I was debating, I think that introduction to critical literature is the most important thing which debate actually achieves, and thus value K's highly. I didn't run too many K's as a debater but I've read an extensive amount of postmodern theory and should be able to understand most arguments made in most K's. I default to a comparing worlds paradigm, and if you don’t present any framework in round I’ll assume we’re having a nice wholesome util debate.
Although I love doing LARP debate, I think that problem of induction is a really good arg against it, and will definitely evaluate it. I highly encourage debaters going up against LARP cases that aren't running a LARP case themself to at least run it as a one off because it's currently a glaring hole in the middle of most debates that isn't paid enough attention to. Especially phil v Larp rounds please give it a shot, preferably not Hume's version :P
More in depth stuff:
LARP: Hell yeah. This is the good stuff right here. For most of my Debate career, policy/LARP arguments were my bread and butter. I love fun/spicy plans/counterplans, and will vote off of most any type of plan/counterplan. I have nothing against agent cps, delay cps, consult cps, or anything else of the like. If you’re running a plan aff, still be prepared to answer topicality. Just because I think it’s topical doesn’t mean you no longer have the burden to prove you’re topical. I really enjoy arguments that I haven’t seen before, and am always willing to talk about geo-engineering after the round. All of that being said, be prepared to answer argumentation that calls fiat into judgement, and I will accept that none of your plan actually occurs even post fiat given the proper argumentation.
Theory/Topicality: Also a huge fan of these forms of arguments. I’ve been known to extempt and collapse on theory, often going for what others might call frivolous theory. I’ll vote on anything with paradigm issues and voters, so make sure you tell me in the theory shell how I or your opponent should deal with it. Same thing goes for topicality. I’m not a huge fan of Nebel-T, but that hasn’t stopped me from winning rounds on it. Go for the RVIs too, those debates are often exciting and get into meta-theory really quickly, which I personally like. Yet again, I have a high threshold for arguments like “evaluate the ____ after the ______,” but won’t just drop them on face.
Tricks: Aight boiz, here’s where things get kind of tricky. Tricks, unfortunately, are real arguments, and I, unfortunately, will vote off of them. With that being said, if your form of tricks is running twenty different spikes layered throughout case, I’m probably not the judge for you. Spikes are ableist, and unless you say “spikes on the bottom,” and proceed to put spikes on the bottom, I’ll have a super low threshold for answering any of the spikes, and will heavily dock your speaks for it. However, I also think tricks can be really fun. Nail-bomb cases and fun theory or pre fiat offense is always fun, whether it be solving a rubick’s cube or doing Tik-Tok dances for the ballot.
K’s: Go for em, run ‘em. I’m most familiar with afropess/wake work/queer futurity/queer pess/queer rage/Baudrillard/Set-Col/Hauntology/Libidinal economy stuff/Necropolitics/Gillespie/Most epistemological or metaphysical applications on ontology and am currently reading D+G, but don’t let that stop you from running your K. Regardless if I’m familiar with your K or not, you still have to explain it fully in round. I won’t vote off of something that’s not explained. Make it clear what the alt does, whether or not you affirm/negate the resolution, and any stances you take. I honestly don’t really get what the difference between the role of the judge and the role of the ballot is, but go for it anyway, just explain it please :) (also K's have real world ramifications feel free to LARP about those if you want idc)(Edelman> Muñoz).
Phil: I enjoy philosophy a lot outside of debate, and am always open to talk about it. That being said, I’m not the biggest fan of phil arguments in round. Things can get really nitpicky, and people end up yelling at one another about how human evolution dictates emotion, and often stumble into making arguments that are perturbing at best and eugenicist at worst. Yet again, if you like em, go for em. Just explain them. I’m probably familiar with any philosopher you’re reading, even if it’s postmodern. Hegel is annoying. Locke and Kant are both ableist, and Kant is racist, but you can still run em if you want. Please read problem of induction against LARP cases its such a good arg that functions as terminal defense.
Speed stuff: I haven't debated in a hot minute, but I've been doing spreading drills every now and again just cuz. I should be able to understand you just fine, but if my comprehension skills are more rusty than I think, I will call clear twice before I stop flowing. That being said, you should be good for anything speedwise.
Speaks: I think I give decently high speaks most of the time, but also am not scared to give 25s because of violence in round. I start round at a base level of a 28, and go up or down from there. +.1 speaks for using pog in round B)
Misc. Im always down to talk about whatever before round starts if we're just waiting for something to happen, so here are some of my interests: Music (https://open.spotify.com/playlist/7pdYJ8smYJSsOCMinuGEL4?si=111f1dc5e0a94d33), postmodern philosophy, drain gang, yeule, lamp, blue period, JJBA, communism, One Piece, bein trans. Also, if you ask me for my email im going to assume you havent read my paradigm, cuz its in here.
I have been judging various events for 2 years. I always try to bury any personal knowledge or belief about topics and judge solely on what is presented in the round by the debaters.
I look for well-defined arguments that are educational and don't assume previous knowledge. I prefer hearing fewer well-defined arguments than a litany of arguments that are spoken at a rapid pace to deliver as much information as possible. I strongly prefer a debater to not use spreading as a method of debate, it sounds like jibberish to me.
I look for respect toward opponents. I like a natural flow of speech and a tone that is passionate but not shrill.
I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.
Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.
1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.
2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.
3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks
4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:
- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**
- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.
- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.
5 Things to Remember…
1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)
After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.
I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.
Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.
Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.
Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.
SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.
29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.
28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.
27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.
26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.
25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.
Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.
***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***
Hi! I am a parent judge for LD, but I have been judging tournaments for a while. I heavily prefer traditional cases (no theory, K's, etc.); counterplans are fine. No spreading, do not be condescending, racist, homophobic, sexist, or anything that attacks a debater's personal beliefs or identification, else I will drop you. I flow crossx, as it is binding. I do not appreciate post rounding, unless you are truly confused and want to understand the outcome better.
Good luck and have fun!
* I'm more interested in how you convince me your position is correct than how much you can take down your opponent's arguments. For example, don't just tell me your opponent has dropped a contention or failed to respond to your refutation of a point; tell me how that helps your position. It's possible to lose a point and still win the argument.
* Try not to rely on speech and debate catch phrases to sell your argument. It is useful to understand these terms to help you build your argument and rebuttal, but it is less useful to rely on them to persuade me. Spell it out for me. What is the problem with your opponent's argument and how does it help you? What makes your argument the better one?
* I am not a fan of so much being crammed into the allotted time that you have to talk really fast. Better to choose your most persuasive arguments and evidence and present them in a way that I can understand.
* Relatedly, rather than quoting huge swaths of your evidence, try to paraphrase and prune direct quotes to the nugget that really sells your point. This will save you time. And please tell me why your evidence sells your point. Don't assume I see what you're seeing!
I'm excited to see what you have to say. GOOD LUCK!!!
Head Coach @ Jordan HS
Wake Forest University – 2022
Jack C Hays High School – 2019
Add me to the email chain:email@example.com
speed is good, pls slow down a little on analytics
if harm has occurred in the round, i will generally let the debater that has been harmed decide whether they would like the debate to continue or not. in egregious instances, i reserve the right to end the debate with 0 speaks and contact tab. violence in the debate space is never ok and i will hold the line. if you have safety concerns about being around your opponent for any reason, please tell me via email or in round.
in light of frequent instances of transphobia, i have no tolerance for it. everyone is learning, however, if you are struggling to adopt different pronouns etc, it is your responsibility to remove yourself from situations where you may cause harm. likewise, it is your responsibility to read pronouns on tabroom blasts, the wiki, etc and abide by them.
you can use any pronouns for me
For online debate: you should always be recording locally in case of a tech issue
please do not send me a google doc - if your case is on google docs, download it as a PDF and send it as a PDF. Word docs > anything else
K/K affs: yes - you should err on the side of more alt/method explanation than less
I view fw as a debate about models of debate - I agree a lot with Roberto Fernandez's paradigm on this
I tend to lean aff on fw debates. The issue that I tend to find with k teams is that they rely too much on the top level arguments and neglect the line by line, so please be cognizant of both on the affirmative. impact turns have their place but i am becoming increasingly less persuaded by them the more i judge.
For the neg - the further from the resolution the aff is, the more persuaded i am by fw. your framework shell must interact with the aff in some meaningful way to be persuasive. the overarching theme here is interaction with the aff
To me, framework is a less persuasive option against k affs. Use your coaches, talk to your friends in the community, and learn how to engage in the specifics of k affs instead of only relying on framework to get the W.
I dont like friv theory (ex water bottle theory). absent a response, ill vote on it, but i have a very low threshold for answers.
I will vote on disclosure theory. disclosure is good.
Condo is fine, the amount of conditional off case positions/planks is directly related to how persuaded I am by condo as a 2ar option. it will be very difficult to win condo vs 1 condo off, but it will be very easy to win condo vs 6 condo off.
i am not persuaded by theory arguments that don't have an in round abuse story
Explain - If you understand it well enough to explain it to me I will understand it well enough to evaluate it fairly.
Debate should be focused on effective public speaking; crucial elements of effectiveness in public speech, for me, are civility to competitors and awareness of audience (me).
While I have been a debater, and I do know how to flow a round, please recognize that I do not take fast notes. If you spread, I will miss and therefore drop many of your points, which may loose you the round. Regardless of outcome, debaters who spread will receive low speaking points from me. Incivility will also result in low speaking points.
I would prefer everybody to be respectful, and enjoy information driven arguments over being fast and overly persuasive
I prefer that there is not speed talking in rounds
I am a Parent judge with limited experience. Please go Traditional. Keep things simple.
If I can't understand what you're saying, I will assume you didn't say it, so please speak clearly and don't spread. No K's, Please no full theory shells, and definitely no tricks.
Would like to see signposting. If you are extending an argument, please mention it. If I can't understand your framework, I can't weigh it. Please present and weigh voters against your framework.
Please remain courteous and respectful of your opponent.
Thank you and good luck!
I am new to judging, but I want to see arguments that are organized, supported with evidence, and logical. Be respectful to others speaking and express yourself clearly. Good luck!
Be respectful, talk at a reasonable pace (no spreading). I'll be flowing, but to make the round as clear as possible, extend and explain your arguments throughout the round. Make sure to explain more complex warrants or philosophy clearly.
Just signpost, make logical arguments, and respond to your opponents' arguments and you will get good speaker points.
I have been an English teacher for 26 years, and I currently teach and coach Speech and Debate. You need to keep both in mind when you deliver your arguments/speeches.
In debate, I value several things. I want the delivery to be persuasive, clear, and easy to follow. Do not spread. I will not catch all of your contentions, and that could hurt the strength of your argument. Even beyond speed, clarity is important if you want me to comprehend your cases. I like for debaters to sign-post their speeches and make clear points in cross examination.
If you want me to be able to accurately evaluate the strength of your argument in LD or PF, I must be able to follow a clear, well-developed argument with contentions that prove the position or value framework.
DO NOT use misleading or false information as evidence. All evidence for your contentions should be from credible sources, current, and relevant.
Delivery matters. While I will still base the majority of my decision on the strength of the arguments, your delivery should be persuasive with good eye contact, clear speaking style, and effective mannerisms.
I also expect a manner of speaking that is respectful of your opponent. I do not look favorably upon speech that is condescending or disrespectful. Confidence is great, but arrogance that is belittling will result in low speaker points every time.
Parent judge. Prefer no spreading and very clear statement of Value, Value Criterion,
I have so much respect for all these kids who are brave enough to try debate.
My only comment is that I prefer the clarity of speech over speed. Please do not talk so fast that I cannot understand what you are saying.
Add me to any email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
My son wrote the rest of this:
I am a lay judge.
I wont be able to understand your points if you speak too fast, cases with 650-700 words are a good pace.
Speak clearly with good enunciation for me to best understand what you are talking about.
Don't use buzzwords, i wont be able to understand debate jargon.
Sign-post well so I am not lost in your speech
Be specific about what you're talking about, don't just say "look at their first response" or "look the the Smith evidence instead".
The easiest way to judge a round accurately is if you have a clear narrative by the end of the round, don't just dump arguments and expect me to understand which one is better than the other, implicate the clash in the round. And quality>quantity, dont go fast in summary/ff to get coverage, just go slow and choose good arguments to extend
Weighing should happen, no matter what kind of judge, weighing should be understandable to anyone, so at least in FF, make sure that I know who to vote for, what they won in the round, why they win.
Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC
Email Chain: email@example.com
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).
- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.
- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.
- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot
- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me
- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.
- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.
- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.
SOME THOUGHTS ON PF
- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.
- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.
- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.
- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.
- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.
- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.
- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.
- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.
- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.
This is my third year judging LD as a parent judge. Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Preference: Traditional or Policy-oriented arguments > Mainstream Critical=Mainstream Philosophy > Theory > Esoteric concepts that can't be explained fully within the time limits.
I prefer traditional rounds with straightforward weighing and voter issues. I value clear logical connections between your arguments and your impacts. Furthermore, I will not extend anything for you. Please sign post, give an off-time roadmap, and try to stay organized.
Under any/all conditions on a lay circuit:
- No spreading
- No theory
- No tricks
- No spikes
- No Ad Hominem
- No Bigotry/Disrespect
For progressive debaters -
- Limit speed to <250 wpm for ALL your speeches - you don't need to email me your rebuttal speeches.
- DAs/CPs are perfect
- Keep your DAs topical
Hello! My fondest memories of high school are from high school debate (PF and Congress) tournaments! I also have memories of terrible judges - I will do my best to not fall into the latter category for you.
- The faster you talk does not = the better your argument.
- It doesn't absolutely have to have been in summary for it to be in final focus, but it really should be.
- Don't card dump in rebuttal. Don't read a new contention disguised as a response. If your opponents do this call them out for it and I'll drop the argument.
- Don't ask for more evidence than you need and use this as more prep time.
- You do not need to give an off time road map, in fact, perhaps do not.
- Winning in cross does not = the more speaking time you have. Ask and answer quickly, concisely and politely.
I am a former LD coach and camp instructor who is now assisting with the Charlotte Latin School (NC) team. Though I will listen to kritiks, plans/counterplans, disads, etc., I prefer a good standards debate. If you choose to offer theoretical approaches, just be sure to explain and impact them clearly. NEG, avoid trying to win the round by spreading; instead, give substantive responses to the AFF case in addition to your case.
I do flow carefully and will make my decision largely based on coverage, argument quality, clash, and impacting. When you address standards, you should actually explain your argument rather than simply cross-applying arguments that don't necessarily fit your point. I can handle speed as long as you signpost and enunciate; if I cannot understand what you are saying, then your point won't be on my flow, and I won't vote on it. Please make CX count by asking substantive questions. Remain civil. You will not impress me by being arrogant, condescending or rude to your opponent. When tournaments allow, I am happy to offer a critique at the end though I generally do not disclose.
If you are a novice, please know that I am a friendly and accessible judge. I work with primarily with novice LDers and really enjoy that process. Feel free to ask me questions if you are confused during the round. I will write specific and constructive comments that you can later use in practice, and please don't hesitate to speak with me outside of the round about your performance. Above all, remember that your round should be a learning experience! It's NOT all about the "win." You should take something valuable from the round regardless of a win or loss.
Background info: Former Policy Debater (Ohio), History, Government and Econ Teacher (NC), American History Professor (NC) BA in History and Poli sci, MA in American History (emphasis on Women's history). I now coach LD, PF, Congress and Speech events and have had the pleasure of jumping into World Schools.
I'm pretty easy going and do not mind spreading in LD so long as you are clearly speaking when doing it. Not such a fan of PF speaking super quickly as that's not really the point of that event. Make good use of time but don't rush it. Outside of that in these events feel free to ask for any other concerns you may have. Happy to answer before a round starts.
Update on WSD: I do value the flow but also want to see WS norms happening in the round. Take POIs and engage with each other when time allows. I'm not a huge fan of first speech getting into refutation as two other speeches do that I would rather 1st speech take some POIs and develop your sides case. Please remember this is WSD US centric arguments happen based on the motion but I really value some international attention happening regardless of motion as I think it shows broader understanding of the World as a whole .Not to mention a countries decisions do not occur in a bubble and international events do impact other countries decisions, US included.
This is my fifth year as a parent speech and debate judge, most of which has been spent judging public forum and lincoln douglas debate.
Please be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please follow the rules and treat everyone fairly.
I appreciate speaking that is reasonably paced so that I can follow your arguments, so a little quicker than conversation-paced speaking works best for me. You will have enough time to make your arguments without rushing through them. I will listen carefully to your evidence, and to me, a few pieces of strong evidence are far superior to a lot of weak evidence.
I have little knowledge of your topic and have not prepped so do not assume that I know the literature, arguments, or acronyms.
Please convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.
I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:
Please speak clearly and not too fast. Have logical connections between your arguments and impacts.
I'm Andrew, he/him, a former policy debater and erstwhile LD coach, and a current Computer Science/Philosophy double major at UNC. I'm pretty comfortable with LD, but I definitely have a preference for a more Policy-inflected style as opposed to trad LD. You should feel comfortable running either traditional or progressive arguments in a round I am judging, any small preference I may have will be far outweighed by your confidence in your case. Please feel free to ask questions about me or my paradigm pre-round; I will only answer questions that might be relevant to the debate if your opponent is present.
I am, or at least I try to be, as low-intervention as is practically possible in-round and when voting. Obviously I have opinions, both on resolutions and certainly on the activity of debate itself, but I will try very hard to forget those opinions when I am looking at the flow at the end of the round. Similarly, I will absolutely not make arguments for you which are not on my flow, no matter how obvious they might seem to you! If you want me to weigh an argument, you absolutely must bring it up in your speeches.
Please feel free to spread to a reasonable extent, but if I feel you are trying to simply overwhelm the other team rather than actually engage in debate I reserve the right to give you bad speaks. Please signpost very clearly: if you are going so fast and in such a monotone that I can't pick up your tags, you're going to be in trouble later in the round. I will say "clear" if needed. Please also indicate where on the flow I should be looking if you're going line-by-line if it might be at all confused.
Framework debate is fine but, admittedly, not my favorite. It is fine to concede FW on the neg and just read offs and turns. If you plan to read some metaethics, please make it clear what exactly is going on or you run the risk of giving me a headache.
I like plan clash debates, and I am quite comfortable weighing policy v policy. Please read topical counterplans, I will not hesitate to drop you on T if you run an abusive CP (specific actors, excluding a small part of the aff, that sort of thing). 50 States is fine I guess but you had better argue it very well. I will also weigh perms, so it would probably be good to be sure your CP is exclusive.
I like theory debates, but please make it clear you actually understand the blocks you are reading. Try to avoid very jargon-heavy blocks; if you want jargon, read a K. On the other hand, theory can be engaging and interesting, and I will vote on theory. I am usually convinced by the argument that using the ballot to influence the behavior of debaters in the future and shape norms is probably both real and a voting issue, so please don't drop theory. Finally, please don't try and weigh your plan against your opponent's theory.
I spent most of my time in policy cutting and running Ks, I am most familiar with them. Feel free to run K affs and Ks as offs on the neg.
Styles have since changed somewhat, but I am still familiar with most of the major K authors. I'm in particular good on bio-power (really, Foucault in general), Heidegger, Rousseau, and Kant. I also just finished reading Afropessimism, but I'm not as experienced with afropess Ks.
However, consider that the opposing debater is likely less well-versed than I; make sure to carefully signpost, give good answers in CX, and generally don't try to squeeze a win out of deliberately confusing your opponent.
If you have some super-weird K lying around burning a hole in your (metaphorical) tub, please read it; I live for weird Ks.
I am a strong believer in disclosure, and I will verbally disclose at tournaments which permit it. I learned the most when I was able to hear what the judge thought about the round when it was still fresh in my mind and I was able to ask questions.
I try to ensure my disclosure is actionable: what changes could you have made so that you won the round, what cards might seem missing from your case, or what you might want to try out should you encounter an unusual argument again. Ideally, everyone should leave a round having learned something they can use in the future.
I will include all major points I discuss post-round on the written disclosure as well.
My names is Keri Schacht, I am a second year judge. I really enjoy judging.
I prefer slower speech, with a mutual respect between opponents. Clear and concise speech is also always a plus, with a positive attitude along with a passion for whatever subject they are discussing. I also look for the person who is able to better convince me of their side of the argument.
Overall, I look for confidence, eye contact, respect, and a love for debate in each and every opponent.
I am a parent judge who has been judging for two years. I would not consider myself an expert, but you can see I've judged several rounds over the past two years.
I like when you speak slowly and minimize jargon. What persuades me the most are irrefutable facts.
This is my first time judging debate AND I have never debated formally myself. This is literally my "first day".
I appreciate logical arguments, and will not know your jargon.
In my day job, I do international management consulting with a UK-headquartered company that helps small and medium-sized businesses in the developing world.
Please no spreading. I value quality over quantity.
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
I am somewhat new to judging. As long as you don't spread or read any complex phil or ks you should be fine. You should consider me similar to a flay judge who feels pretty comfortable with judging generic theory and *really* simple k's (like cap, anthro, setcol). I also would prefer a more policy heavy debate to phil debate, as I'm not too familiar with some of it. I have mainly judged lay debate so far, so it's always a safe idea to read lay cases in front of me. If I'm on a panel, you obviously can do whatever you want but I would appreciate some extra judge instruction if you want my ballot because there's a fair chance that I won't understand your dense literature.
I have been judging LD debates since October 2021 as a parent judge. While English is my second language, I have been in the country for more than 20years and am a professor in the field of marketing. Therefore, I don't expect you to purposefully slowdown just for me.
Some basic principles I follow for the judging:
1) Logic and impact come as the most important factor for winning the debate;
2) Techniques matter: please speak at a reasonable speed to clearly communicate your evidence and arguments in an organized manner;
2) Professionalism is the bottom line: be respectful when responding to the opponent's questions or arguments;
3) Enthusiasm and energy will be always appreciated.