Tabroom.com

Asheville High Cougar Classic

2022 — Asheville, NC/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Darren Albers Greenville Senior Academy None

Logan Andres Porter Ridge High School

Ramanathan Balasubramanian Riverside HS

nathan bell Cuthbertson High School None

Scott Bennett Northwest Guilford High School

Michael Bischoff North Mecklenburg High School

Megan Butt Charlotte Latin School

Last changed on Tue July 4, 2023 at 12:39 PM EST

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

Charlotte Latin School, formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that now and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I'm not going to do all that work for you.

GENERAL:

COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key.

If you present a framework/ROB, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).

I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.

I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.

Not a fan of tricks.

IN LD:

Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is. If I can't understand what your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.

IN PF:

Please collapse the round!

I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.

Jason Carey Myers Park High School

Isaac Chisholm Bob Jones Academy

Last changed on Sat October 7, 2023 at 4:44 AM EST

Concept Explanation

CREI ORGANIZATION STRATEGY: CREI is an acronym that stands for claim, reasoning, evidence, and impact. The claim should tell the judge what you are arguing. The reasoning should show why your claim is true in your own words. The evidence should show why your claim is true using the words of another. The impact should tell the judge why your argument matters.

RIOT METHOD: RIOT is an acronym that stands for reduce, indict, outweigh, and turn. Reducing your opponent’s arguments means to put the arguments into perspective. Putting your opponent’s arguments into perspective includes breaking the argument down into its core components to show the judge the ridiculousness of the argument, or you can take the weight of their argument and compare it to the other numbers that make the weight of their argument seem small. Indicting your opponent’s arguments is the most common form of refutation. You can indict your opponent based on flawed logic and bad evidence. Outweigh is when you look at the impacts of your arguments and your opponent’s and tell the judge why your impacts have a greater weight using IMPACT CALCULUS. Turning is taking your opponent’s argument and using it to benefit your side. If your opponent presents an argument and you notice it helps your side the same or more than your opponent’s point that out and explain why to the judge.

THREE-POINT REFUTATION STRATEGY:Three-point refutation breaks down the refutation process in an easy-to-manage way. The first step is to say, “my opponent said _______.” Then you follow up by saying “my opponent is wrong because _______.” Then you end by saying “this error is significant because _________.”

VOTER ISSUES:Voter issues give the judge criteria to vote on other than his own. Providing these voter issues will allow you to demonstrate to the judge why you have won the round. Common votes include better evidence, rhetoric, and greater impact weight.

WORLD COMPARISON:World comparisons are a persuasive way to demonstrate to the judge what is happening in the aff/neg (pro/con) worlds. World comparison tells the judge what the world would like if he voted for one side or the other and illustrates why one world is more/less desirable than the other.

IMPACT CALCULUS:Impact calculus is an easy way to illustrate to the judge why your arguments have more weight than your opponent’s. Impacts can have a greater weight depending on timeframe, scope, magnitude, and probability. Timeframe compares how soon the consequences of the impact will happen. Scope observes how many people the impact will affect. Magnitude explains how bad/good the consequences of the impact are (think getting sick vs. dying). Probability measures how likely the impact is to happen.

Lincoln Douglas

Judging Criterion:

I primarily judge on how the debaters engage with the values presented because LD boils down to the values. Focusing on the values requires great LD debaters to rely on mostly rhetoric, philosophy, theory, and history to support their arguments. Using studies and other academic journal works would prove insufficient in LD when they stand alone because the findings only serve to illustrate debaters’ reasoning. Because debaters’ main reliance comes from their own reasoning, they should maintain a conversational pace when speaking.

The next quality I look for in both debaters is accomplishing the goal of each speech for the debate.For constructive speeches, the debaters should focus on communicating their main arguments to the judge, except for negative using some time to refute the affirmative’s contentions of course.To communicate their constructive arguments clearly,debaters should use the CREI ORGANIZATION STRATEGY or a similar strategy (explanation above).

During cross-examination,debaters asking questions should make sure to only ask questions that let them gain information for their refutation, however,please do not only ask yes/no questions,give your opponent the chance to slip up when they are over-explaining an answer to one of your questions. The questions should be concise so the opponent cannot claim to “not understand” your question and waste your CX time, and the questioner should not let opponents waste their CX time by giving long answers. Therefore,questioners should let their opponent answer their question plus one sentence and then politely cut them off.The questions a debater asks should indict one of three elements in an opponent’s case: reasoning, evidence quality, and impact weight.Debaters answering questions should keep their answers concise and answer only what their opponents asked them, so they do not accidentally give their opponent more ammo for when they start their refutation speech. However, when answering questions,you should not only answer with a “yes” or “no.”You need to explain why the answer is “yes” or “no,” especially when a “yes” or “no” answer damages your argument in the eyes of the public.

During refutation speeches, debaters need to focus on both attacking their opponent’s arguments and bolstering their own. For attacking,debaters should use the RIOT METHOD (explanation above). Along with this method,debaters can use the THREE-POINT REFUTATION STRATEGY(explanation above).For bolstering arguments, debaters should not just repeat their argument in different words; instead,debaters should try to focus on what their opponents said and counter the reasoning or evidence their opponents used during refutations.

Finally,debaters should end the round with a strong closing speech.Strong closing speeches NEVER summarize what each debater said during the round. Instead,strong closing speeches tell the judge why you won the round.The best methods to use to tell the judge how you won include VOTER ISSUES,WORLD COMPARISON, and IMPACT CALCULUS(explanations above). Debaters should also make sure to relate their concluding arguments back to their value and why their value should be preferred during the round.

During all these speeches,debaters should relate all that they say in support of their side back to their value. Remember this is a debate about VALUES. Therefore,the debater who convinces the judge to prefer their value wins the round.Without convincing the judge to prefer your value, you will miss the whole purpose of this format and probably lose.These are the strategies that will make you a great LD debater.

Breakdown:

CONTENT: 70%

Values – 30%

Logical Reasoning – 10%

Impacts – 20%

Supporting Materials – 10%

SPEAKING: 30%

Conversational Pace – 15%

Non-fluencies – 10%

Tone and Non-verbals – 5%

Dinesh Chopra Charlotte Country Day School

Steve Clifford Asheville High School

Julie Coiron Myers Park High School

Pierre Coiron Myers Park High School

Abhaya Das Riverside HS None

Georgia DeFrancia Asheville High School

Uttam Dey Ardrey Kell High School

Venkata Gontla Ardrey Kell High School

Amy Grace TC Roberson High School

Tom Hamilton Myers Park High School

Last changed on Mon June 12, 2023 at 10:33 AM EST

Hi,

Welcome to Nationals

This is my first year as a judge, so I’m looking forward to judging at the National level for the first time. Please know that I am always listening, but I do look at my computer a lot during the round. I want to make sure I am giving fresh feedback, and I want to be sure that I am following the rules of your individual event if I haven’t judged your event before. In worst case scenarios, I can just go with my gut

1) I am completely opposed to “k” or KS” or any of the practice of progressive debate. If you try to change the topic, or move the topic to another item, I will drop you and give you zero speaker points. I cannot express how serious I am about this issue.

2) I do not disclose - ever. Please do not ask

3) Do not spread. If I can’t keep up with what you are saying, I will drop you. You will also lose all speaker points for this infraction too

4) Never bring me anything about shell theory, or anything related to debating about the value of your event, or the importance of debate as a whole. You’ve made it this far using your event. I don’t buy that you’ve suddenly decided that the event that has gotten you this far is somehow thoroughly flawed.

Additionally,

Please speak so that I can hear you. Enunciate and show your passion for your topic and event.

In terms of my philosophy, I feel that it is important to study all parts of the spectrum of political ideology to connect with all potential debaters. I consider both far left and far right theory. I just finished The Courage to be Free by Florida governor DeSantis, and I will be starting Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women's Anger by Traister next.

Finally, be respectful and try to have fun. Nobody is being given a college scholarship today. Perspective is important. I have three more degrees than you do. Don’t come into your round with me thinking that you’re going to show that you’re smarter than me.

Shelley Holland Porter Ridge High School

Kaz Holley Riverside HS

Bella Jacobs Myers Park High School

Alfonso Jara Riverside HS None

jennifer jones Hire None

Ashish Khetan Ardrey Kell High School None

Amy Klett Myers Park High School

Michael Lemon Carolina Day School

Gopal Manne Riverside HS None

Eli McGee Bob Jones Academy

Last changed on Fri October 6, 2023 at 3:52 PM EST

Concept Explanation

RIOT MEHTOD: RIOT is an acronym that stands for reduce, indict, outweigh, and turn. Reducing your opponent’s arguments means to put the arguments into perspective. Putting your opponent’s arguments into perspective includes breaking the argument down into its core components to show the judge the ridiculousness of the argument, or you can take the weight of their argument and compare it to the other numbers that make the weight of their argument seem small. Indicting your opponent’s arguments is the most common form of refutation. You can indict your opponent based on flawed logic and bad evidence. Outweigh is when you look at the impacts of your arguments and your opponent’s and tell the judge why your impacts have a greater weight using IMPACT CALCULUS. Turning is taking your opponent’s argument and using it to benefit your side. If your opponent presents an argument and you notice it helps your side the same or more than your opponent’s point that out and explain why to the judge.

THREE-POINT REFUTATION STRATEGY: Three-point refutation breaks down the refutation process in an easy-to-manage way. The first step is to say, “my opponent said _______.” Then you follow up by saying “my opponent is wrong because _______.” Then you end by saying “this error is significant because _________.”

VOTER ISSUES: Voter issues give the judge criteria to vote on other than his own. Providing these voter issues will allow you to demonstrate to the judge why you have won the round. Common votes include better evidence, rhetoric, and greater impact weight.

WORLD COMPARISON: World comparisons are a persuasive way to demonstrate to the judge what is happening in the aff/neg (pro/con) worlds. World comparison tells the judge what the world would like if he voted for one side or the other and illustrates why one world is more/less desirable than the other.

IMPACT CALCULUS: Impact calculus is an easy way to illustrate to the judge why your arguments have more weight than your opponent’s. Impacts can have a greater weight depending on timeframe, scope, magnitude, and probability. Timeframe compares how soon the consequences of the impact will happen. Scope observes how many people the impact will affect. Magnitude explains how bad/good the consequences of the impact are (think getting sick vs. dying). Probability measures how likely the impact is to happen.

CLASH: Clash illustrates to the judge where each side differs from the other. If both sides have different arguments, but two deal with healthcare in some fashion, one of the clashes for that debate would be “healthcare.”

Lincoln Douglas

Judging Criterion:

The next quality I look for in both debaters is accomplishing the goal of each speech for the debate. For constructive speeches, the debaters should focus on communicating their main arguments to the judge, except for negative using some time to refute the affirmative’s contentions of course. To communicate their constructive arguments clearly, debaters should use the CREI ORGANIZATION STRATEGY or a similar strategy (explanation above).

During cross-examination, debaters asking questions should make sure to only ask questions that let them gain information for their refutation, however, please do not only ask yes/no questions, give your opponent the chance to slip up when they are overexplaining an answer to one of your questions. The questions should be concise so the opponent cannot claim to “not understand” your question and waste your CX time, and the questioner should not let opponents waste their CX time by giving long answers. Therefore, questioners should let their opponent answer their question plus one sentence and then politely cut them off. The questions a debater asks should indict one of three elements in an opponent’s case: reasoning, evidence quality, and impact weight. Debaters answering questions should keep their answers concise and answer only what their opponents asked them, so they do not accidentally give their opponent more ammo for when they start their refutation speech. However, when answering questions, you should not only answer with a “yes” or “no.” You need to explain why the answer is “yes” or “no,” especially when a “yes” or “no” answer damages your argument in the eyes of the public.

During refutation speeches, debaters need to focus on both attacking their opponent’s arguments and bolstering their own. For attacking, debaters should use the RIOT METHOD (explanation above). Along with this method, debaters can use the THREE-POINT REFUTATION STRATEGY (explanation above). For bolstering arguments, debaters should not just repeat their argument in different words; instead, debaters should try to focus on what their opponents said and counter the reasoning or evidence their opponents used during refutations.

Finally, debaters should end the round with a strong closing speech. Strong closing speeches NEVER summarize what each debater said during the round. Instead, strong closing speeches tell the judge why you won the round. The best methods to use to tell the judge how you won include VOTER ISSUES, WORLD COMPARISON, and IMPACT CALCULUS (explanations above). Debaters should also make sure to relate their concluding arguments back to their value and why their value should be preferred during the round.

During all these speeches, debaters should relate all that they say in support of their side back to their value. Remember this is a debate about VALUES. Therefore, the debater who convinces the judge to prefer their value wins the round. Without convincing the judge to prefer your value, you will miss the whole purpose of this format and probably lose. These are the strategies that will make you a great LD debater.

Breakdown:

· Content: 70%

o Values – 30%

o Logical Reasoning – 10%

o Impacts – 20%

o Supporting Materials – 10%

· Speaking: 30%

o Conversational Pace – 15%

o Non-fluencies – 10%

o Tone and Nonverbals – 5%

Public Forum

Judging Criterion:

The primary quality I look for in a public forum is great teamwork and support. One of the primary aspects of PF is learning how to deliver a cohesive argument with another person. If PF debaters don’t acquire this skill, the whole educational experience in PF becomes lost. The secondary qualities I look for in a great PF team are accomplishing the goal of each section of the debate and using proper argumentation strategies.

The easiest way to show great teamwork in PF debate is to watch how members of the same party support each other in the British parliament. When party members representing the same party give a great speech in parliament, their fellow party members will knock or smack the table to applaud their efforts. Using this same model, I encourage all PF debaters to knock or smack the table loud enough for me to hear to demonstrate public support for their partner. Some judges may not like the noise though, so for other judges, I suggest nodding your head instead.

The more difficult way to illustrate teamwork in PF debate is to make sure you and your partner are on the same page when speaking. I cannot tell you how many times PF partners have contradicted each other in later speeches all because they were not on the same page. Therefore, PF debaters need to make sure all the arguments they make are cohesive. The best way to maintain cohesive arguments is to take notes on what your partner said during their speech(es). If you tune out your partner’s speeches, contradictions become more likely because you cannot remember what your partner said.

Now, let’s move on to discussing how to accomplish the goal of each speech. Constructive speeches carry a lot of weight because the constructive speech introduces your side’s arguments. During this time, the first speakers should solely focus on introducing their main arguments and not refuting or producing counterarguments against their opponents.

I know crossfire comes next, but I’ll get into it later because it deserves its own section at the end. For now, let’s move on to the rebuttal speeches. The rebuttal speech is the time when one of my pet peeves for PF gets triggered. Sometimes the second speaker for either side will start introducing completely new arguments. You should NOT introduce new arguments in the rebuttal speech. What you should do for the rebuttal speech is refute the opposing side's arguments, and the team B second speakers should defend their side. This is one of the speeches other than the final focus where you can put into practice your table knocking and smacking skills.

The summary speech is the trickiest speech to understand for a PF novice. Though this speech is titled “summary speech,” the speech itself should not just summarize everything that both sides have said during the debate. Instead, the summary speech should boil down the debate to the main CLASHES (explanation above). Identifying the clashes will help your partner with the final focus speech as well because identifying the clashes sets up and outline for what the final speech from your team will cover.

Between the summary speech and final focus speech, a PF team can show off just how well they work together. The final focus is not meant to rehash any old arguments or continue your side’s refutations. The final focus speech needs to tell the judge why your team won the round based on the identified clashes. The best way to demonstrate how your team won is by identifying how your team’s side either solves or has a greater weight on each of the clashes using IMPACT CALCULUS.

The last section of the PF format I will explain is the crossfire. Teams should share the crossfire time as equally as they can, so each person has the chance to ask and answer questions. If the teams do not share the crossfire time equally, it will appear as if one team is badgering the other or one team will appear less competent. For the first crossfire, the questions should focus on gathering answers your partner can use during the rebuttal speech. These questions should indict one of three elements of your opponents’ arguments: logical reasoning, evidence quality, and impact weight. The second crossfire should focus on figuring out where both sides differ so the debater giving the summary speech has an easier time identifying the clashes. The grand crossfire needs to focus on asking questions that get your opponents to concede to your identified clashes. Questions would include challenging the other team’s chosen clashes by making them admit that their clashes do not relate to the topic or are too narrow in scope for the topic.

Now, I’ll briefly explain my preferred method of argumentation. Every argument a debater makes should follow the CREI ORGANIZATION STRATEGY (explanation above) or a similar strategy. For this format, your support should come from reasoning, studies, theory, and history. Using philosophy is not worth it in this format, because there is not enough time to cover the depth of the principles. As for speaking rate, debaters should use conversational or slightly faster to ensure the judge understands their arguments. For refutation, debaters should use the RIOT METHOD (explanation above) and the THREE-POINT REFUTATION STRATEGY. These are the methods you can use to become a great PF team.

Breakdown:

· Content: 70%

o Impacts – 30%

o Logical Reasoning – 10%

o Clashes – 20%

o Supporting Materials – 10%

· Speaking: 30%

o Conversational Pace – 15%

o Non-fluencies – 10%

o Tone and Nonverbals – 5%

Shanna McLamb Cuthbertson High School None

Philip Meissner Bob Jones Academy None

Carmalita Monroe Myers Park High School

J Moss Chase High School

David Mustard Cuthbertson High School None

Chuck Nicholas Bob Jones Academy

Last changed on Sat October 31, 2020 at 10:17 AM EST

I am an ex-traditional policy debate coach (Stock issues judge) that has been coaching LD since 1990. I usually administrate tournaments rather than judge except when I have been at Catholic Nat's and NSDA Nat's.

Speed: Adapt to the judge who prefers a few well-developed arguments to spreading. I will flow as fast as I can, but it is up to you to communicate to me the compelling/persuasive reasons why you should earn my ballot. Speak clearly and articulate your words and you'll do fine.

Flex Prep. No. Speak within the time constraints and use prep time to see Evidence.

Evidence Challenge: If you doubt the veracity of evidence, then challenge it at the next available opportunity. Remember evidence challenges are all or none. If the evidence has been proven to be altered or conjured, then your opponent loses. If the evidence is verifiable and has NOT been materially altered, then you lose for the specious challenge.

Arguments: A few well-reasoned claims, warrants, and impacts are very persuasive as opposed to a laundry list of underdeveloped assertions/arguments.

Theory Arguments: Not a big fan of sitting in judgment of the topic with critiques. But I do weigh the issue of topicality as germane if made during the constructives.

Philosophy: It's been labeled Value debate for a reason. I encourage the discussion of scholarly philosophies.

Framework: There is a Value that each side is pursuing as their goal. There is a value criterion that is used to measure the accrual of the VP. The last steps include why the Value is superior and why the VC is the best way to measure that value.

Decision-Rule. While repetition often aids learning, I prefer that you tell me what the established standard for judging the round has been and why your arguments have met the threshold. Write the ballot for me.

PFD: I have coached and judged PFD since the event started.

I prefer a framework and a few well-developed arguments to the spread. Point key words as you read your case. Be polite in C-X and ask closed-ended questions. Tell me why your arguments are better by weighing impacts.

Gail Nicholas Bob Jones Academy None

Ellen Oveson Greenville Senior Academy None

Ryan Parimi Bob Jones Academy

Last changed on Mon November 20, 2023 at 4:25 PM EST

Ryan Parimi - Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Email: ryan.parimi@gmail.com

About me:

Recent college grad--majored in English with minors in German, Chinese, and Business. Went to a very conservative school. Taking a gap year before law school.
College and high school debate coach/teacher (LD, PF, Parli)
High school and middle school mock trial coach
College moot court coach
Founded my university's debate program
Founded a speech and debate camp in Jakarta, Indonesia
Summer debate instructor at Yale, Drew, and U. of Washington

General Debate Philosophy:

Some describe me as a "hipster"; though I enjoy modern philosophy and theoretical arguments, my philosophy of debate centers on clear arguments and conversational, persuasive speech. After all, you’re trying to win me—not just win arguments in a vacuum. I want to be convinced.
I like aspects of both traditional and circuit debate. I wish the traditional community wouldn't let its fear of everything turning into policy keep it from adopting some helpful circuit norms, and I wish the circuit community would stop trying to convince itself that a total departure from traditional debate turns the activity into anything but an esoteric game with no real-life application.
Examples of cases that would be great for my taste: a Cap K that is linked reasonably to the resolution, argued in a traditional style; a traditional case that demonstrates a deep understanding of the philosophy behind its framework; a tech case that restores my faith in humanity by making semi-reasonable arguments and doesn't force me to flow 10 subpoints of copy-paste garbage from the debate wiki.
Tech over truth (within reason). You should probably run your tech case for me if you're trying to decide between tech and lay.
I ♥ when impacts, late-round weighing, and voters actually connect to the framework.
LARP starts and ends with an L :)

Speed:

Prioritize clarity over speed. Spreading is lame, but I can understand it and won't vote you down solely because you chose to spread. If you spread, you better be good at it: your articulation better not go down the drain, you better stay organized, etc. Email me your case or give me a printed copy before the round if you plan on spreading.

Framework:

I’m fine with traditional and more modern frameworks. Just make whatever you’re using clear. Be aware that I have a pretty good understanding of the philosophy behind most frameworks...don't try to BS me on Kant or Rawls or something. I will know. That being said, I believe it is on the debaters to call each other out on stuff like that. I'm going to flow it unless it's crazy.
Please don't throw the framework debate away.

Kritiks and Theory:

I haven't judged many Ks because I come from a pretty traditional circuit, but a well-developed K could certainly convince me. Similar to the philosophy behind traditional frameworks, I'm pretty familiar with the critical theories behind most Ks.
Theory arguments are fine when there is actual abuse--just explain clearly. Don't throw in an RVI just because someone happened to mention something was abusive. Save those for something truly egregious.
I will not vote for disclo. Don't even try it. It sucks, everyone knows it sucks, and I'm not even sure why we still let people get away with trying to win on disclo in 2023. Similarly, reading tricks is basically your way of telling me you're scared you can't win the round legitimately. Why would I ever reward that?
Just putting this here again to remind you: LARP starts and ends with an L :)

Other random stuff:

I like reading Alexander Pope, collecting shoes, listening to Chinese rap, and exploring Marxist criticism.
I will follow the NSDA rules for LD whenever questions come up that the rules address. I follow tradition/best practices for anything else. If you have questions about specific preferences, just ask before the round.

Yogesh Patil Ardrey Kell High School

RJ Pellicciotta Cary Academy

Liz Schall Hire

Dan Shaw Hire None

Natalie Shaw Hire None

Sarah Siddiqui Myers Park High School

Taylor Sluder TC Roberson High School

Michelle Smolowitz Myers Park High School

Elise Stock Hire None

Jim Thompson Northwest Guilford High School None

Lilac Thompson Northwest Guilford High School None

Joseph Vallecillo Chase High School None

Michael Zhou Cary Academy

Last changed on Fri November 10, 2023 at 4:49 PM EST

What preferences do you have, as a judge?

[Updated on Nov. 10th, 2023]

Any progressive arguments, tricks, theory, I can't evaluate. Substantive arguments only, please.

[Update ended]

[Updated for PF judging on Sept. 29th, 2023]

While most of content here is still relevant for PF, I am adding a couple of points specific to public forum debates that help you understand my preferences.

Have a clearly outlined constructive speech. It would be a huge plus if you start with each of your critical points in an emphasized one-liner, because that saves me time to summarize it for you.
I generally don't question or ask for evidence, unless your statements are outrageously contradicting with common sense or my knowledge. That does not mean the opponents won't poke holes and challenge you. Which brings my next point.
I value quality rebuttals and that counts heavily toward decision making of who wins/loses. Meaning if you cannot refute your opponent's critical points effectively, those points will stand. You can think of this process as point reduction. Both you and your opponents start at a perfect 30-point. Every time you have a strong rebuttal, you are reducing points from your opponents. Every time you defend your constructive points well, you are reserving/keeping points for yourself.
Last but not least, substance is more important than presentation. It's even okay to stutter during debates, and it won't count against you unless your arguments are not cohesive, which shows you are less prepared.

[Update ended]

I have been judging PF for many years but this is only my second time judging LD. So I strongly prefer normal conversational speed because English is not my native language. High speed is a huge no-no as your arguments, no matter how strong, will be ignored if I cannot make of what they are.

Along the same line, please reduce the usage of jargons to get the most credit out of your claims and arguments.

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.

Arguments should each be addressed individually in a concise manner, with a clear pause before moving to the next argument.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

I prefer each rebuttal making a brief reference to the specific issue advanced in constructive speeches.

Same as constructive speeches, rebuttals should be delivered succinctly, with emphasis on the most important keywords.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Citations after article introduction.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Empirical

Please explain your views on critical arguments.

Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Make sure they have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand.

Login to Tabroom

Asheville High Cougar Classic

2022 — Asheville, NC/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

Judges