Nova Titan Invitational
2022 — Nova High School, Davie, FL/US
Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
As a former high school Lincoln Douglas debater myself, I will be looking for the participants understanding of the issues, ability to articulate their arguments, and their ability to respond to the other sides arguments.
If it ain't lay, it ain't slay
This has been updated since TRADITION 2023 It's been simplified substantially.
- yes add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Yes I debated in high school. Interpret that how you will. I place an emphasis on extensions and contextualizing them a lot. Blippy extensions make me sad. I try to look for the "easiest" place to vote-> if it's a wash or it requires me to intervene or do deep analysis on my own that's not on the flow I tend to look elsewhere as I think less intervention= better.
Yes my kids mostly do trad because national circuit is expensive . So I may occasionally be slightly rusty at my first nat circuit tournament of the year. As always, if you have questions please ask and I will answer any and all of them before the round.
I will take off a speaker point every time you say "they don't have a card for that" without justifying why that matters. It makes me think you couldn't find a better response on the flow so you took the easy way out.
LARP- yeah whatever give me your policy case I'll evaluate it.
Phil- please please please tell me how you clash with the opp don't just read me a bunch of Phil and expect me to magically grant you the magic carpet to the ballot.
Theory- I'm cool with whatever. If you run friv theory I'm gonna have a low response threshold. If you spend your entire speech with whiny theory it will annoy me but I'll vote for it if I have to.
Trix- Yes I think they're useful, yes I like them. If you run trix like the aff can't have arguments and your tricks are especially egregious it'll have me looking elsewhere on the flow- I think trix that explicitly exclude the other side are bad (no, definition trix or whatever else doesn't fall under this). If you have questions, ASK ME.
Trix addendum- if you run a bunch of nibs etc and then don't do the work to properly extend them no I'm not voting for them. Just because I pref something a 1 doesn't mean you can do lazy analytical work or bare minimum extensions and expect me to buy them. No, a 10 second extension doesn't cut it. Don't read this at your own risk.
1.5- On T violations- if you give me a TVA and your opp drops it and you collapse on the T shell I'll vote on it in half a second (Update from Glenbrooks experience with a super super well done TVA)
- Please give me a functional alt. No, reject the [insert side] is NOT an alt. I'll consider just about any K but pleeeease explain the link clearly.
3- Identity stuff- I don't know the lit but will vote on it if explained well enough
4- High theory
Strike- non topical affs
- The resolution exists for a reason.
Strike- performance cases
- nope, find somebody else. I don't know how to evaluate it and you'll probably lose. Sorry.
Yes I can be persuaded to vote aff/neg on presumption or permissibility but don't give me some blip argument to flip.
I heavily value contextualized extensions. It'll make me more likely to vote for you.
- Tech> Truth
- If you're in my district and I'm judging you and we keep this virtual debate thing going and you want more clarity on a round and want coach to reach out to me via email or at a CFL/FCDI, they can either email me or find me at a tournament and I'm more than happy to go over the round.
[Insert default don't be transphobic/etc here]. Just don't. This is an inclusive activity, don't make this a non-inclusive space for people.
A) I refuse to vote for paraphrased evidence. Ever. Yes, really. I'll default to paraphrase theory if it's read and extended because I think paraphrasing has zero place in the activity. Strike me if you have a problem with this- if you don't read my paradigm that's on you.
B) Please signpost. If I have to guess where it is on the flow I'm not flowing and that only hurts you
C) Please weigh. PF doesn't know how to use framework, so just give me a good comparative worlds analysis or something- you should tell me exactly where to look and how to interpret the evidence.
D) If you can't produce the evidence your opponent asks for within about 45 seconds I'm treating it as an analytic, not evidence. Be organized and prepared for debate.
E) Do NOT be that person that asks me to pre-flow before the round. If you ask me, I'm starting your prep time should you chose to ignore me and pre-flow anyways or letting your opponent speak if they're first speaker. It will also hurt your speaks.
F) If you don't mention it in the summary don't mention it in the final focus because I won't evaluate it
H) Defense sticks once applied unless rebutted BUT I think it's helpful to reinforce in summ/ff where the opp fails to garner offense if you think it's a round decider.
I stole the following from Charles Karcher because it's true imo:
- 1] "Fast" PF is actually harder to flow than LD/Policy because of all the cards that PF cases throw at me 2] being able to analyze factual information and draw conclusions is one of the most valuable aspects of debate. "dO yOu hAvE a cArD fOr tHAt" as a response to an argument that scares you makes you lose a lot of credibility to me. 3] Disclosure is probably a good norm in PF, but I don't want to hear disclosure theory in PF rounds. I don't want to hear theory in PF rounds.
- I do not like theory in PF. However, I feel uncomfortable not evaluating arguments because I do believe that debaters should not be ignored in what they say and how they want to debate. Most times when I vote on theory (either the interp or, most often, the RVI) it is because the other team does not understand the technicalities of theory debate even though they may have initially started the theory flow. Don't read theory against teams that obviously don't know what it is. Don't read theory if there is a chance your opponents will out-do you on the theory flow. I am a fan of the RVI, especially in PF.
- I stole this from Quentin Scruggs and largely agree with what is below. If you have other questions let me know.
Congress to me is half speech and half debate. The best congress students have a mix of both qualities. I find myself in prelim rounds and local tournaments frequently rewarding better speakers because there is a greater talent disparity in those rounds, and kids who are phenomenal speakers break. However, you likely are only reading this if you are a student who takes Congress seriously and expects to get into break rounds. Here’s the thing, once you are in Congress break rounds, everyone is a good speaker and the gap between 1 and 12 is really often negligible to me. Therefore, if you expect to make it into the top 6 and move on, you have to give the appropriate speech at the appropriate time. Here is how I classify different speeches. Each one is judged differently
Judged to a higher evidence standard since you are literally setting the table for the entire round
Needs exceptional structure and argumentation. This should read like a debate case in PF/LD. No claim should go unwarranted, no argument should lack a variety of strong evidence, the impacts should be clear and heavily emphasized
Speech is generally easier since it is prepared in advance, so this speech needs to be very well written
Same standards as the 1st Aff/Authorship/Sponsorship
Difference, you must directly refute what the previous speaker stated. You do not need to refute everything necessarily (although better speakers will), but you should definitely pick out whatever was the key point of their case and directly refute.
2nd Aff/2nd Neg-7th Aff/7th Neg (roughly, this depends on chamber size)
Speeches need to address what is happening in the chamber. A good rule of thumb is to always address the claims of the speaker who went right before you plus the key issues of the round up to that point. If you are not making the debate unique by refuting previous speakers and extending previous speakers from your side, you will have a tough time being ranked top 6
Unique arguments are great and you should draw attention to them. However you are not going to win the debate with a rando argument at the very end with limited impacts. Unique arguments are not a replacement for refutation and extension of previous speakers
Closing Affs and Negs (like the last 4 speeches or so)
Crystalize/Weigh voting issues. At the end of a cycle of debate, it needs to be like a final focus in PF or a 2AR in LD. Isolate the key issues of the round and explain why your side is winning. Speeches that do not weigh this late in the cycle do not add anything to the debate and are judged as unnecessary.
General Congress Speaking Tips
Remember to always use decorum and professionalism
Be consistent in the language you use (don’t flip between bill and legislation randomly)
Important. At the end of the day, you are acting. You are a legislator, not a high school student. You are a legislator whose personal worth is attached to either the passage or failure of this bill because of how it affects the United States citizens. You delivery and disposition should be that of someone who is desperate to see its passage or failure. Show me this is important to you
Role of Cross Examination
I am not paying attention to how many questions you guys ask. I am only really paying attention to the person’s answers. Cross ex should be a time you try to get the opponent to make concessions or show the judges they don’t really know what they are talking about. Be aggressive, but be respectful
Ask lots of questions though. I may not be noting it down, but if you ask a lot of questions, I’ll remember that and it can be used to break ranking ties
Evaluating the PO
If the PO does the following, I am going to rank them top 3 no matter what
Maintains excellent professionalism and decorum
Showcases strong knowledge of parliamentary procedure
Maintains control of the chamber
Makes no mistakes with recency or frequency
One more thing to point out. Running an effective chamber also involves encouraging motions in order to continue facilitating legitimate debate. If there are 3 negs in a row with no Aff, and the debate has been done to death - you should be actively asking for motions and reminding the chamber about how we frown on one sided debate and can move on
One final note about Equity
It is important to be fair to everyone in the chamber. However, this is a competition. You are trying to destroy your opponents and proceed in the tournament. You have no obligation as competitors to ensure all speakers get to speak the same number of times. Now I will admit, other judges may frown on this - so it is risky behavior. I am just letting you know that I will not take points away because you force a motion to call the previous question and end debate when the debate is clearly over and keep someone from speaking.
- stray bullet whoopsies
Please add me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi a lot of you already know me but I'm Amanda, FSU grad. Bachelor in Intersectional Women's Studies and Media/Comm. I competed in LD for four years (Im sure you can find my records somewhere idk, I've judged enough to be qualified anyway), I also competed as a varsity policy team for UMW my freshman year of college pre-covid. I worked at TDC over the summer and I privately coach some kiddos so I've been active in the activity. I also am the co-founder of the Latine and Hispanic Debate Foundation, follow us on ig @landhdebatefoundation
Im most comfortable with Identity K's, K v T-fwk, Method debates <3, LARP, and some phil.
Favorite things I've read/ judged: Borderlands, any Anzaldúa position, Crenshaw, Latine IdPol, Intersectional Fem, Set Col, Black Fem, Queer Pess, and NonT K Affs v T-fwk/Cap.
Least favorite thing: having to judge a round where someone is crying, please don't make someone in round cry. I've literally had a round where the aff and neg debaters were crying in front of me and it hurts my heart.
Alright here are some people I paradigmatically agree with: Deena Mcnamara, Charles Karcher, Delon Fuller, Joey Tarnowski, Elijah Pitt, Lily Guizat, and Isaac Chao.
Standing conflicts: Clear Lake MK, Clear Lake RM, Heights CT, Heritage Independent WT
QUICK hack sheet:
LARP : 2
Tricks: 5 ( i strongly urge you to not read these in front of me, definitely am tired of being the subject of a discord chat after someone loses a round because they didn't read my paradigm)
Traditional-I am perfectly alright with traditional debate. I loved it as a freshman and sophomore. Highly recommend preffing me for a lay judge. I value debaters making strats accessible for all debaters. Make sure that you are weighing and using that short 1AR/2AR to crystalize and extend your arguments. Nothing is ever implied, please use well-warranted args. I have so much respect for strong traditional debaters on the circuit but I will hold you to the same standards as I hold progressive kiddos.
LARP-I'm fine with LARP debate. Policy-making is cool, do whatever you want. Plan texts need a solvency advocate, idc what ur coach says. CP's are cool, make sure there is some sort of net benefit and also if you don't answer the perm I'll be very sad. DA's are fun as long as there is a clear link to the aff, also for the love of god weigh. Your UQ needs to be from like two days ago PLEASE, enough of UQ from five years ago.
K's- K's are groovy. I think non-t k affs are cool, just need clear explanation why that is good for debate. Don't like when it creates assumptions about your opponents identity because that just creates hostile rounds (that I have definitely had and they are not fun). Intersectional Fem Lit was my jam, everyone can read fem (it's not a framework that is meant to exclude people from reading it, love a good fem debate :))
Phil-I love good phil debates, I'm comfortable with standard Util v Kant and more abstract framework debates. I think if you go this route you need to win why your paradigm is ethically relevant, and then be able to win offense/defense underneath that framing mech. Love Derrida, Hooks, and anything that has a little philosophical spice.
Theory-I used to say theory debate was okay as I started to judge it more. I lied. Don't make this round a headache for me to adjudicate. I dislike when 5 shells are read with stat skew standards then is followed by a six page card dump on the aff flow.MAKE THIS EASY FOR ME.I think I need clear extensions of warrants if the debate winds down to theory v (insert anything) or theory v theory debates. By now I've realized that most kids sigh when they get me as a judge and they predominantly read theory, as long as you don't make it messy then I'll be fine lol. This is just a question of adapting, if you can't do that then work on it.
Tricks-This is probably my weakest place in regards to judging but that doesn't mean I won't try. If you want to pref me and read tricks then just make sure they are clear and there is an explanation somewhere in the round about how it functions in the round and I'll try my best to judge accordingly.I hate debates that are just sloppy tricks debate, if this applies to you then dont pref me at all like please don't pref me if you just want to meme around.
Performance-I have a pretty decent ability to judge a performance debate and I think they are pretty dope. However, I don't think that debaters need to degrade their opponent during a round to "get the point across" especially because I think that ruins the integrity of the round itself. If you are going to engage in an in-round performance, please extend it in rebuttals or else I fail to understand how it is important to the aff/neg.
Things to note about my judging preferences:
1. Please use proper pronouns when referring to your opponent-they are not an object, they are a person so don't say "it says". Also just be a nice person, it's not that hard to adapt strategies for opponents that may or may not have the same experiences as you (I will evaluate the round as such and even if you win, I will indeed tank your speaks for being hella exclusionary) :)
2. I STRONGLY hate 1AC disclo. It is the one thing that will absolutely send me into a spiral if I hear that round one. The 1NC is a reactive strat, for the love of god don't complain. Seriously, the only thing we cared about when I debated was past 2NR's so can we just please learn how to actually debate. xoxoxo your friendly 5 year out.
3. I don't understand why y'all think you need to be mean or give off 'debatebro' energy when debating critical args. I have no problem calling you on your BS. Im actually so disappointed that I've had to judge and hear about debates becoming so aggressive it becomes functionally irresolvable.
4. If you are from a prep group or big school, stg please read diverse args and don't docbot the same rebuttal in front of me. If I'm hearing extensions of args that have ink on them w/ no additional rebuttal I will bang my head against a table. Just think for two seconds and make some no-link args rather then spending extra time on an arg that doesn't apply to the position.
Please add me to the email chain email@example.com
I am a debate coach with experience judging at national tournaments at the novice and varsity levels. I prefer arguments to be well structured, articulated clearly (please no spreading but I can understand a considerably faster than conversational pace) and supported by convincing evidence. Please slow down on the tags so I can accurately flow. I don't mind listening to a unique or interesting argument but somehow you MUST link it back to the resolution if you are going to get my ballot.
Plans: All good, just make it relatable to the topic
Counter-plans: All good.
Theory: If there is significant violation or abuse in a round that warrants running theory, I will vote on it but generally not a fan of debating about debate.
Ks: Willing to listen to a good K as long there is a really strong and convincing link back. Not a fan of generic links or links of omission as an excuse to run the K you want to run.
DA: I'm fine with them, we are all good here
T: I think aff has an obligation to be somewhat topical and neg has the right to question whether aff is in fact being topical. That being said, while I generally will not vote on a straight RVI, running T for the sole purpose of creating a time suck for aff and then kicking it in the NR is not a strat that is going to sit well with me.
Conditional Arguments: Anything more than 2 conditional arguments is abusive and puts aff in an impossible situation in the 1AR. I will vote off “Condo bad” in these situations.
Disclosure: Seems like it gets run a lot for no purpose other than trying to get a cheap win. However, If the affirmative is reading a case that is so unique, such as a specific plan text, that the negative would have difficulty engaging with then disclosure is the fair thing to do.
Feel free to ask me if clarification is needed
My college career started back in the 90s when CEDA still had 2 resolutions a year. I have coached in CEDA, NFA, NPDA, IPDA, and a little public forum. I am now coaching mainly in NFA LD.
First, you should not assume that I know anything. This includes your shorthand, theory, or K literature. If you do, given our age differences, you might be shocked at the conclusions I'm going to come to.
Second, if you don't offer an alternative framework I will be net benefits and prefer big impacts.
Third, I presume the aff is topical unless the negative proves otherwise. I don't necessarily need proven abuse either. What I need is a clean story from the final negative explaining why they win and why I'm voting there. T is a voter, and I'm not going to vote on a reverse voter (vote against a debater) unless it is dropped or the carded evidence is really good. I am more willing to ignore topicality and look elsewhere than I am to vote the negative down on it. In rare instances, a negative can win without going all in on it, but that is very, very unlikely.
Fourth, I tend to give the affirmative risk of solvency and the negative, a risk of their DA.
Fifth, I'm probably going to need some offense/risk of offense somewhere on the flow to vote for you.
Sixth, if your K links are non-unique (apply to the status quo as well), you are only going to win if you win your alternative.
Seventh, on conditionality (LD specific)- I will probably vote conditionality bad if you have more than one conditional position.
Eighth, I will vote on them, but I'm not a fan of tricks. Tricks are usually a good indication that you know that you have done something pretty shady but if the opponent let's you get away with it, I'll vote for it.
In closing, I think that pretty accurately describes who I am but just remember I try to vote on the flow, but I tend to only look at the parts of the flow the debaters tell me too. Good luck!
University of Central Florida Alumnus
Four years of LD for Fort Lauderdale HS and former policy debater for UCF.
***Avoid graphic explanations of gratuitous anti-black violence and refrain from reading radical Black positions if you are not Black.***
If you're rushing to do prefs here's a rough cheat sheet:
1- K and performance debates
2- framework debates, general topical debates
3- LARP debates and util debates
4- Theory/ Tricks debates
I will evaluate any argument so long as they are not morally repugnant, actively violent, or deeply rooted in foolishness. I can handle speed but due to the online setting, please go slower than you usually do. Also, be sure to properly extend and implicate your arguments in the debate as well, saying "extend X" and moving on doesn't really do much. In short, tell me why your arguments matter and why I should vote on/evaluate them. At the end of the day do what you do best—unless it's tricks and/or frivolous interps— and have fun doing it.
I am the coach of the Fort Lauderdale High School Speech and Debate team. My pronouns are he/him.
I competed in PF between 2009 and 2013 at Cooper City High School. I studied law/economics/history at Cornell University but did not debate there. To be honest, I didn’t really think much about debate after high school except when reminiscing with old friends -- until August of 2021 when fate delivered me to Fort Lauderdale and back into the world of Speech and Debate. Been judging and coaching like a madman since.
TL;DR consider me the most tech lay judge ever, or the most lay tech judge ever.
-No ad hominem attacks. If you can't be respectful of your opponents then debate is not for you. I shouldn't have to say this but if you're racist/homophobic/transphobic/misogynistic in round I will drop you.
-Don’t be smug, arrogant, rude, especially if you think you’re winning. Nobody likes a sore winner, and I definitely don’t give them good speaker points.
-Theory – Run at your own risk. I don’t read “high theory” so if you’re going to quote Lacan or Nietzsche or whoever, explain it to me like I’m a baby who doesn’t know anything. That said I’ve evaluated Ks that were explained to me in a “lay” way.
-Spreading is relative – but I prefer clarity over speed. I’m OK with fast “normal” speech, but if you’re speaking too fast for me to understand your arguments then I can’t evaluate your arguments and then you can’t win. If you are speaking too I will tap on the desk/table to signal to you to slow down. That said, I’ve only very rarely had the need to ask someone to do so.
-Disclosure – include me in the email chain/speechdrop for your case/evidence. ESPECIALLY if you spread/read fast. I find that I can judge much more effectively and accurately when I can follow along with your arguments on my computer while I flow.
My email for evidence chains: Arthur.firstname.lastname@example.org
-I flow everything and judge the round based on that. Extend all arguments, don’t bring in new arguments in final focus, and weigh your arguments. What are the real world impacts? Why does this matter? I need to know the answers to these questions.
-Cross – It’s always tragic to me when competitors make great points in cross and then don’t bring up those points at all in any of their speeches. If it’s not in a speech I can’t flow it.
-Falsifying evidence/lying in round will lead to an automatic loss. On a related note – I don’t like paraphrasing. if you do so you better have that card in hand ready to show me. I have dropped competitors more than once for “stretching” / “creatively interpreting” evidence.
-Tech>over truth, but if the arguments you are making are based on outright obvious falsehoods you will not win. 2+2=4, the sky is blue, earth rotates around the sun.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round.
Deena R. McNamara, Esq.
UPDATED SPRING 2023
Please include me on the email chain- email@example.com
I competed in LD and policy debate in high school. In college, I competed in LD and CEDA. College LD and CEDA (back in those days) were very similar to circuit LD. Debaters used T, theory and even Ks back in those dark ages of debate. We were the pioneers who established what LD has evolved into over the last couple of decades… You're welcome?!
I have been a litigation attorney over 25 years. I have judged LD on and off for the last 18 years. Both of my children competed in LD. Even though my kids have already graduated from college, I have remained in the community as a debate coach and judge. I am currently coaching LD for American Heritage Palm Beach. I believe that debate is life changing for students of all backgrounds and abilities. Although I am not an educator in the traditional sense, I view my role as the judge not only to adjudicate your round fairly and to the best of my abilities, but to teach you something that you could do better next time to enhance your skills and arguments.
I have judged at high level competitions and in out-rounds at Harvard, Yale, Emory, Bronx, NFL/NSDA nationals, CFL nationals, Duke, Florida Blue Key, Wake Forest and many others. I always familiarize myself with the topic literature prior to each tournament. I pay attention to every detail in the round. I can flow your case as fast as you can say it… I will keep saying clear if you are not clear. I want to hear every word that you say as it matters in the round. You will never see me on FB or playing computer games in round. It makes me very angry to see that is common practice amongst the judges on the panels that I sit on. I take the round very seriously and I even flow CX. I will not view your speech doc unless my hearing fails me or I am reviewing your evidence for context and accuracy. I care about your round and will do my absolute best to judge it as fairly as possible. (By the way, please don't text in a round that I am judging until you are waiting on the RFD- thanks.)
I try to be a tabula rasa judge; however, like everyone I do have certain dislikes and preferences.
If you are going to engage in a FW debate then I expect you to present a value/value criterion framework with philosophical support for the position. I am especially familiar with Kant, Ripstein, Korsgaard, Rand, Aristotle, Locke, Rawls, Rousseau, Hobbes, Mill, Bentham, Petit, Christiano, Moore and probably a few others that I cannot think of off the top of my head. I expect detailed frameworks and contention level arguments that link to the framework. You cannot win on FW alone, unless it has offense sufficient to affirm or negate the resolution.
I like Ks when they are well-written and have an alt. I am familiar with Agamben, Butler, Baudrillard, D & G, Foucault, Hedva, Ahmed and some other random authors that I have come across since I started reading these books. Just ask me and I will let you know my level of familiarity with the arguments. If you decide to run a K, then provide me the link and alternative. It is insufficient to say, "reject Capitalism" and leave me hanging as to what happens after we reject it. On the ROTB/ROTJ args, you have to make them specific; don't just tell me that you win because you minimize oppression of minorities. Who? How? Also, please weigh your arguments against your opponent's FW or ROTB/ROTJ if they provided a different one. Don't tell me things like "they keep biting into my K" as some justification you expect to win on. Seriously- I need analysis of arguments, not just blippy responses that you think qualify as extensions or arguments against your opponent's args. If you make a blippy argument, then that is how I weigh the argument in the round- minimally. I know that your time is limited in round, especially in the 1ar, so I do take that into consideration.
I am fine with Plans and Counterplans. Please make sure that they are sufficiently developed. Please do not read generic DAs- make sure they are relevant and specific to the argument made by your opponent.
T, theory and misc.:
I am amenable to topicality arguments as they will probably be necessary to attack cases that fail to argue the resolution as stated. (I am not a huge fan of non-T affs unless they are predictable for the topic…or you can just be topical in some way. I think you can link to the resolution somehow!)
Don't just run a generic theory arg because you expect that I will vote on it before your opponent's case. It has to be a legit violation. You have to try to clarify in CX and CX is binding. I am fine with theory ONLY to check abuse. Again, check it in cx. I am fine with flex prep too. I am not a fan of disclosure theory because it is harder for smaller programs/lone wolf debaters to be competitive when they are prepped out by larger programs. However, I do expect the Aff to email the entire Aff before reading the 1AC and the neg to email the NC that will be read prior to reading it, etc. This does not need to occur a half hour before the round unless the tournament rules say otherwise. I do expect debaters to flash cases and evidence in round or to provide hard copies. If your wiki says that you will run disclosure theory if….. (insert made up rule here), then please do not expect me to vote on that. Like I said, theory is supposed to check abuse in the round. I am not voting on what happens outside the round. Also, T is different from theory. If you do not know the difference, then please do not argue with me after the round. I will explain the difference to you, but I won't engage in a lengthy debate with you on it. I get my fill of arguing in Court with pain in the a$$ attorneys. I expect you to address all of your opponent’s arguments and uphold your own in each of your speeches. No new arguments are allowed in rebuttals, but extensions and refutations of ongoing arguments are encouraged (and necessary if you would like to win!) Speaking quickly/spreading is acceptable if you slow down for the tag lines and key arguments; I will yell clear. However, your arguments need to make it onto my flow. I am a flow judge, but if I cannot understand you, then I cannot evaluate your arguments. I will have a copy of your case, but I do not want to rely on it. Communication is critical in the round. If I am reading your document, then I am not listening to you. I can read at home… I want to hear the arguments made in round.
LD as a sport:
LD is a sport. It requires hard work and endurance. You are an LDer because you choose to be. There is no other event like it in debate.
However, LD can also be toxic for some debaters who feel excluded, marginalized or bullied. Please make sure that you are courteous to your opponent. If you are debating a novice or an inexperienced varsity debater, please do not spread like you would in an out round. Try to adapt and win on the arguments. Just be kind to them so that they do not leave the event because they feel they cannot keep up. They may not have the private coaches that you do. It is tough on the circuit when you do not have the circuit experience because your school does not travel, or you do not have the funds to travel. Some debaters are in VLD, but do not have the experience that you do. If you are the better debater and have the better case, then you will win. We want to encourage all LDers because LD is truly the best event.
Please be considerate of triggers and of past experiences that your opponent may have suffered. It is not fun to judge a round where a competitor is crying or losing their cool because of something that is happening in round. No round is worth hurting someone else to win. Plus, if you act like a total d-bag and are so disrespectful that I am angry (which takes a lot to get me angry) then you will lose and be given low speaks.
Voters and what I like to vote on:
Please give me voters. It is helpful to me as the judge to see why you thought you won the round. If I think you are wrong, then I can tell you on the ballot and you will learn from it. If you are right and I agree with you, then I can use your voters in the RFD. I tend to vote on offense and who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. I do not have a strong preference of aff or neg so do not expect me to default neg. However, the aff's burden of proof is a bit more difficult. Just be clear on why you affirm or negate. Finally, I do not necessarily follow the strict "layers" of debate. So if you are curious as to what I will vote on first (in terms of theory, T, Ks, etc.), please ask me in the round. I always want debaters to be clear as to how I will evaluate the round.
Please do not say "my opponent conceded the argument" when they really did not and please do not ask me if you can use the rest of your cx as prep. The answer is obviously “no.” Also, there are some new acronyms and phrases floating around that I am not familiar with so please ensure that you explain your arguments so I do not miss something important in your case. Lastly, please do not read off of a script. Flow and make arguments in the round; that is the fun part of debate!
Speaker points at circuit tournaments:
When I award speaker points, I judge you based on quality of arguments you made in the round, your analysis and weighing as well as CX. CX is extremely important if you want to get top speaks. (At locals, I might inflate these a bit based on the competition.)
30- you are a top seed and have not dropped a round- you were perfect!
29.5- you are a top seed, have not dropped a round- you were almost perfect!
29- you are a top seed, maybe dropped a round- did an excellent job!
28.5- you are expected to break, dropped a round- did an excellent job!
28- you are expected to break, dropped a round or two- still did an excellent job!
27.5- you are probably 4-2 and did a good job.
27- you are probably 4-2 or 3-3 and just need to work on analysis, cx or other in round skills.
26- I am glad that you are at the tournament- keep working, go to camp and stay in this event because it is the best!
please add me to the email chain
New Paradigm 2/19/23
Top level thoughts
I have voted on pretty much everything. I prefer depth and clash to running from debate. Engaging will be rewarded.
Don’t be a jerk to your opponent or me. We are all giving up lots of free time to be here. I won't vote on oppressive arguments.
I think preparation is the cornerstone of the value this activity offers. You shouldn’t rely on theory to avoid reading.
I don't think it’s possible to be tab, but I try not to intervene. Arguments must have a warrant or they aren’t an argument. This applies to all debate styles. (Ex. "6-7-4-6-3" is not a full argument)
I shouldn’t have to have background on your argument to understand it. I have read and seen a lot, but that will be irrelevant to my decision. I won’t fill in gaps for you.
I think most debates are way closer and more subjective than people give them credit for.
Collapsing is a good idea generally.
I will not flow off the doc. That is cheating.
Don’t let my preferences determine your strategy. I’m here for you! Don't over adapt to me.
General thoughts on arguments
Ks: My favorite literature. I have a fair bit of experience with most lit bases commonly read and I really enjoy clash of civ and k v ks debates. I wish I saw more K v K debates. I dislike long overviews and super generic links. I think critical literature is great, but I think you should at least attempt to tie it to the topic if possible. Spec advantage links are great. I will vote on non-T affs and I will vote on T. Usually that ends on the TVA flow.
Policy Args: I have the most experience evaluating these arguments (I debated them for 8 years). I think comparing evidence and links is more important than generic impact weighing. Turns are OP, and I will vote on smart analytics. I only really read evidence if debaters don’t give me a good mechanism to avoid it. I tend to default to offense/defense paradigm, but I’m open to whatever framing you want to read.
Frameworks: I find phil frameworks interesting and fun. I wish these debates were a bit deeper and used actual phil warrants instead of just extending tricky drops. I think LD is a really great opportunity to get into normative ethics.
Theory – I find frivolous theory a bit annoying (despite what my pf teams might have you believe), but I flow these debates pretty thoroughly and evaluate them pretty objectively. I will accept intuitive responses even if they are light on proper terminology. (i.e not explicitly saying the word counter-interp)
Tricks – Lots of different tricks that I view differently. Things like determinism and skep are better than mis-defining words or 15 spikes. I find good apriories interesting. I have a fairly low bar for intuitive responses. I will probably not vote on “evaluate after x speech”. If I cant flow it I wont vote on it. Hiding one-line paradoxes in tiny text after cards is obviously a waste of everyone's time
2nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline
If it takes you longer than a min to produce evidence, it doesn't exist. I think you should just send all cards before you read them.
If I think you inappropriately paraphrased, I will ignore evidence. Read cards to avoid me thinking your paraphrasing is bad.
Use email chains. Send cases and cards before you start your speech. Stop wasting everyone's time with outdated norms
Hi, I am a new judge. I am looking forward to an exciting and healthy competition. I would like to see a well-rounded speech, fluent in delivery, eye contact with audience, and factual supporting data. Make sure that you embrace a qualitative perspective, be smart, be concise, and be respectful. If you can feel free to also be creative. GOOD LUCK!
I am a new LD judge who favors good clash, good weighing and simplifies the round persuasively with big picture analysis. Ok with Ks if you go slow. I use they/them pronouns