Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

I've been debating since I was in high school and am familiar with most forms of debate. Specifically, I've competed in PF and NPDA. With that being said, I'm open to literally any style of debate. I really like critical theory and alternative interpretations of the resolution, but I'm good with traditional too. The most I really ask of you all as debaters, is to make your cases clear to me. Other than that, have fun, be safe, and don't be mean.

I am excited to judge speech and debate events. I’ve been around middle and high school competitive speech and debate for nearly 20 years. I teach a speech and debate class at LAMP High School.

Before I became an educator, I had a whole career before that! (I’m old.) I’m a retired Air Force public affairs officer, a career that was steeped in real-world communication — sometimes with actual national security implications. I take excellent communication very seriously and am committed to helping students become better communicators.

Speech: I love it when a speech competitor invests fully into the piece, and I forget for a moment that I’m judging a high school competition. Hold nothing back, and pull me in. Pour yourself into your piece. I try to maintain a poker face when I judge, but when you’re tapping into my emotions, you can probably tell. :)

Debate: I despise spreading. I know, I know — that’s how the game is played these days, but I hate it. That’s terrible communication. COMMUNICATE demonstrating evidence of amazing preparation, a strong command of the topic, exemplary communication skills, and phenomenal reason and logic. Then, you’ve got me.

Primarily, I am a coach and educator. I have always felt strongly that debate is a contest of ideas and communication skills. I have no preferences in the round; however, if you speak so quickly that your ideas are diminished, I will have a hard time voting for you, especially if your opponent is more articulate (even with weaker arguments).
I vote on whatever I found to be effective in the round. The more specific your arguments are to what happens in the debate, the greater your chances of earning my ballot. I’m looking for clash and reward debaters who work to ensure it is achieved.

I am philosophically opposed to disclosing my ballot at the end of the round. I will only offer oral critique if I saw something that I think I could share to help you with the remaining rounds in the tournament (adjusting your case, how you could have argued more effectively, etc.). Everything else I am thinking during the round I will note on the ballot.

SOOOOOOO TRAD.

Update for 2024 Blake LDRR

I’ve coached Speech and Debate for 10 years. I did not compete in high school, yet have come to be very involved in the activity. I have been very involved in nat circuit PF during my coaching span (camps, NSDA committees, nat circuit). I sporadically will judge LD, mostly trad local circuit but some nat circuit LD. My exposure to certain types of LD argumentation is limited, but I am willing to vote on anything.

Trad: This is probably where I am most comfortable given my background. However for the round robin, it would be a travesty to have a trad debate in my opinion.

Policy: I am also very comfortable with policy style argumentation. I enjoy judging CPs, Plans, etc

T/heory: I understand the value of theory in debate. I know the parts of theory, etc but have limited experience judging theory debates. I think theory is a necessary check for abuse so if you want to go for it I’m down to evaluate it. You might need to do a bit more work on it in later speeches though to make sure I fully understand why I should vote on it. Please do interactive weighing on standards for competing interps. If you are going for the RVI make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. I feel like just saying “I’m fair and proved I’m fair and therefore should win” is not enough.

K’s: I think K’s are great for debate and can be fascinating to judge. However, like theory, I have limited experience evaluating them. I do not want that to discourage you from running it though. You would probably need to do some adaptations though, such as giving it a bit more time to explain it so I fully understand, as well as how it functions, why you are winning it, and how that means I should vote for you (or the converse if you are against it). Knowing you might need to put a little bit more time into certain things, time allocation will be key. As for Aff K’s you can try but I probably lean a little more to T framework when making a gut check between the two.

Heavy phil: This is probably the hardest round for me to evaluate if I am being honest. A lot of times I get lost in the weeds here. If you want to go for it, make sure you break it down simply for me.

As for spreading and flowing, I will flow on paper and will not flow from the doc. From past experiences judging LD on nat circuit it seems like a lot of spreading is just mumble and incoherent. I am not against spreading as long as it is clear and I can flow it. If you spread analytics at max speed, I might miss one or two. Give a pause between them for me to get to the next one. Slow down for signposts, tags, and cites at the least.

I will not call for evidence or evaluate evidence myself, unless a debater specifically tells me to. I believe evidence weighing and clash should happen in the round and I will not do it for you. If there is direct evidence clash with no evidence weighing, I will call it a wash and try to vote somewhere else. If your opponent is being shady with evidence, call it out and I will look at the evidence then.

I understand debate is a game and am willing to vote on most anything except friv theory and tricks. As an educator, I still want debates to be educational and I don’t see much education happening there. I evaluate debates from the flow/line by line, but arguments that have warrants, reasons why you are winning them in comparison to your opponent’s answers and arguments, and why they matter for the round will greatly be favored. I want you to play to your strengths and debate what and how you enjoy debating. That might require some adaptation and time reallocation based on my experience, but I am willing to listen and evaluate it.

I flow rounds. Alerting me to clear contentions and off time road maps assists me in completing my flows. I am absolutely not capable of flowing if you SPREAD, in fact, if you choose to SPREAD, I will stop flowing and listen. I prefer to hear you present your arguments verses reading your prepared material. The documents will provide me the name of your source when I review before making a final decision. I favor up to date resources as changes happen daily, when presenting your argument I focus on the year of the evidence to include in my flow. Cross fires should be civil. I generally look to typical speech characteristics when determining speaker points, such as speaking with clarity and articulation. I also consider the general characteristics of giving a speech such as how you present yourself through your demeanor both individually and as a team, as well as with your opponents.

I am a lay judge and have been judging speech and debate for about 8 years. I believe that debate should include a clear presentation of your arguments and evidence. I also believe your speeches should be well organized. In the end, I will value argument over style, but the way you present your arguments is important to my understanding of those arguments. If you call for evidence, please have a legitimate reason for it. I don't like spending a lot of prep time on it. I expect you to time yourselves, but I will be timing too. I like clear, organized flows with clear voters at the end. I weigh heavily on impacts so compare your impacts and convince me that yours are stronger. Please be civil and respectful to your partner and competitors.

My background is in theatre and speech. I love judging speech events and will typically vote for the presenter who has the strongest emotional connection to their piece and the audience. There must be an effective balance of design, style, and presentation. The pieces that showcase who you are as a performer as well as communicating something new and fresh are welcome.

Jay Rye - Head Coach - Montgomery Academy

Experience- I have been involved with L/D debate since 1985 as a former L/D debater, judge, and coach. I have been involved with Policy debate since 1998. I have coached Public Forum debate since it began in 2002. I have served as part of the CAP for World Schools Debate at the NSDA National Tournament for the last 3 years, and I have judged, while limited, some Big Questions Debate over the past 6 years. While at many tournaments I serve in the role as tournament administrator running tournaments from coast to coast, every year I intentionally put myself into the judge pool to remain up to date on the topics as well as with the direction and evolving styles of debate. I have worked at summer camps since 2003 throughout the United States.

Philosophy

I would identify myself as what is commonly called a traditional L/D judge. Both sides have the burden to present and weigh the values and/or the central arguments as they emerge during the course of the round. I try to never allow my personal views on the topic to enter into my decision, and, because I won't intervene, the arguments that I evaluate are the ones brought into the round - I won't make assumptions as to what I "think" you mean. I am actually open to a lot of arguments - traditional and progressive - a good debater is a good debater and an average debater is just that - average.

While for the most part I am a "tabula rasa" judge, I do have a few things that I dislike and will bias me against you during the course of the round either as it relates to speaker points or an actual decision. Here they are:

1) I believe that proper decorum during the round is a must. Do not be rude or insulting to your opponent or to me and the other judges in the room. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with that approach to debate.

2) Both sides must tell me why to vote "for" them as opposed to simply why I should vote "against" their opponent. In your final speech, tell me why I should vote for you - some call this "crystallization" while others call it "voting issues" and still others just say, "here is why I win" - whatever you call it, I call it letting your judge know why you did the better job in the round.

3) I am not a big fan of speed. You are more than welcome to go as fast as you want, but if it is not on my flow, then it was not stated, so speed at your own risk. Let me say that to the back of the room - SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! If you have a need for speed, at the very least slow down on the tag lines as well as when you first begin your speech so that my ears can adjust to your vocal quality and tone.

4) I am not a big fan of "debate speak" - Don't just say, cross-apply, drop, non-unique, or other phrases without telling me why it is important. This activity is supposed to teach you how to make convincing arguments in the real world and the phrase "cross-apply my card to my opponents dropped argument which is non-unique" - this means nothing. In other words, avoid being busy saying nothing.

5) Realizing that many debaters have decided to rely on the Wiki, an email chain, or other platforms to exchange the written word, in a debate round you use your verbal and non-verbal skills to convince me as your judge why you win the round. I rarely call for evidence and I do not ask to be on any email chain nor will I accept an invitation to do so.

6) I do pay attention to CX or Crossfire depending on the type of debate. Six to nine to twelve minutes within a debate are designated to an exchange of questions and answers. While I don't flow this time period, I will write down what I believe might be relevant later in the debate.

I’m good with speed.

Debate

please use off time road maps.

I don’t flow cross fire so if something important happens bring it up in your speech.

if you know how to weigh impacts, please weigh impacts.

I will disclose if you would like to know the results.

IE

Just follow the rules and have fun

I am judging based on confidence, expressions, and movement. Make sure you use the space wisely and speak clearly.