Cavalier Invitational at Durham Academy
2023 — Durham, NC/US
LD Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hi All I'm Aadesh (he/him/his),
I was a Ld'er (class of 22) who debated LD for 3 years and PF for 1 year. I am open to hear any argument but keep in mind that I have mainly run phil and policy and probably understand those types of arguments better (look at my wiki from past years for examples: Durham AA). Be ready to explain whatever it is you are running and how it functions in a round, if you don't understand it, you probably don't know how to explain it very well. So my biggest piece of advice is to run what you are comfortable with! I strive to make debate a safe space, please let me know if there is anything I can do the help! =)
email (1AC please start email chain): firstname.lastname@example.org
Here are some quick tips (Lmk before round if you have any questions):
1) Clear coherent and well-explained arguments win rounds
2) Go fast but be clear - if I can't understand you I can't flow you
3) Send a speech doc if you can
4) Miscut evidence a no no (if you believe the opponent has miscut a piece of evidence let me know after the round has ended)
5) Be respectful
6) Understand your own arguments
7) Please record your speeches, if you cut out and I don’t hear your arg, and you don’t have a recording for me to listen to afterwards, I will not evaluate the arg (Zoom Debate)
8) I will time and cut off when appropriate
9) Have fun, tell jokes, and make me laugh
10) I have not debated the novice topic, so buzzwords could be explained more
11) Well warranted argument will probably need well-warranted defense likewise non-well warranted arguments can be met with not well-warranted answers
12) Theory is fine, but I do not have a high standard of response against "friv" theory
13) Disclosure: probably a good thing? that being said, I probably wont vote off disclosure theory against lay traditional affirmative where abuse is exaggerated by the neg.
Have a good time!!!!
for the chain- email@example.com
reagan '21, duke '25
qualified to the TOC twice (8 bids total)
if you're a hardcore policy team, i would not pref me high. i did k debate of 3 of the 4 years i debated so that should probably tell you how well versed i am with policy things. if you do end up having me in the back and only read these arguments, don't worry. you just have to simplify and connect the dots for me more than you would for other judges. for k teams i am probably in the range of a 1-3 and policy teams from a 4-6.
my sophomore year i read settler colonialism and linguistic criticisms like anzuldua. my junior year i read a baudrillard aff and a bunch of k's on the negative like semiocap, wilderson, settler colonialism, and baudrillard. my senior year i only read warren on the aff and neg.
- clarity > speed
-tech > truth in most instances
- don't be problematic. i am unafraid to vote on microaggressions. (racism, sexism, death good)
- clipping is bad but needs proof (L and 0 speaks for the team who does it)
- try entertaining me! judging can get boring sometimes so enjoyable rounds are always good
- zoom debate can be miserable if you aren't careful. please have a good mic, try and have your camera on, and don't speak over others during cx because nothing can be heard
- these debates can either be really good or really bad - please don't make them bad
- im familiar with antiblackness, set col, cap, and baudrillard. even if i may know what you are reading, you still need to do nuanced analysis on the thesis of your k.
- i never understood long overviews cause you re-explain all of what you said on the line-by-line. if you do have a long overview, try and make it the least redundant as possible.
- i have a deep deep deep hatred for links of omission. please make them specific.
- framework determines the rest of the debate. you need a model of debate that is preferable and probably should have offense on why the other side's model is bad for debate.
- if you read a kritik against a K aff, i will reward specific engagement by holding affirmative teams to a higher standard for permutation explanation.
- you can kick the alt
- just cause you won your theory of power doesn't mean you won the round :P
- i read k affs a lot but that doesn't mean i wont vote for t usfg. it just means i know a lot about how it should be ran
- clash as an impact>>>>
- fairness and limits > education and ground
- often negative teams forget to do impact comparison when going for t-usfg - this is the easiest way to win my ballot
- subjectivity debates matter and can implicate a lot of the flow
- i think switch side is very persuasive and solves a lot of offense
- i lean towards competing interpertations but will still vote on reasonability
- case lists are nice
- i appreaciate intent to define arguments
- impact comparison is pretty important
- good counter interp ev is really cool.
- like t-usfg i am more persuaded by limits fairness and clash than education and ground
- smart, creative counterplans are appreciated if executed well
- i like counterplans that are textually and functionally competitive, but your counterplan by no means has to be. i mostly just think you should have a solvency advocate.
- i lean neg for most counterplan theory except for consult, condo, solvency advocate. theory debates get wack so do a lot of work here to make it make sense
- i need instruction for judge kick.
- impact comparison is especially important for these debates
- evidence comparison is also pretty important
- turns case arguments when executed correctly are strategic and beneficial for negative teams
- 1ar gets new arguments to new uniqueness, links, or impacts in the blocks
- apart from things like condo and judge kicks i am not nuanced in theory arguments. slow down and overexplain things if you plan on doing this in front of my
- you should probably do this besties
- i hate aspec. if you hide this in a t shell i hate you.
-be nice. being sassy can be fun but there is a limit
- respect your opponents. respect their pronouns. don't cut each other off. just be respectful
- put a trigger warning on your stuff!!!!!
- i am heavily influenced by Philip Dipiazza, Gavin Loyd, Sean Kennedy, Rafael Sanchez, and David Gutierrez. if you have any questions, their paradigms could probably answer it.
- taylor swift references gives you +0.2 speaker points
Engineering grad and IT practitioner; have been judging debate since 2018. I did PF all through high school in Virginia.
1. I'm fine with speed; just speak clearly.
2a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, then stop speaking.
2b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are egregiously over time. If I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for the last 30-60 seconds.
3. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whatever works.
I vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care exclusively about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about.
0. Cut your cards in advance and be on the ball with finding and sharing them. If you can't find your card promptly we'll assume it doesn't exist and move on.
1. Please indict bad cards. Misleading claims, baseless speculation, "studies" that don't exist, that sort of junk: if you convince me it's bad, I'll strike it gleefully from my flow.
2. Be nice to each other in cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.
3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.
Traditionally, I will vote for you if you convince me that your side has the most positive impact on the value-criterion for the value that I buy into in-round.
I am open to the possibility that you can run a K or (much less likely) T and I will like it and vote for it. Both my exposure and my receptiveness to them have been limited in practice. Generally, if you are accusing your opponent of abuse and asking me to sign my ballot on it, the abuse needs to be egregious, not just irritating.
I am a parent judge with two years judging LD. While I prefer that you don't talk too fast or spread, that's your decision, but keep in mind if I cannot track what you're saying, that won't be to your advantage. In fairness, I need to be able to understand what you're saying in order to judge its merits.
I take a lot of notes and will be heads down - but I will be very engaged. Please make it clear what's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's. Please don’t run progressive debate.
By your final focus or last speech, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponent's. And in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded.
You can sit or stand, either are fine.
If time approaches, I usually let you finish your thought up to about :10 seconds. If you start a new thought after time has elapsed, I'll end that segment. I will not take points off for that.
If you ask for X minutes for prep time, I'll let you know when that time has elapsed. However, it's your time, so if you want to keep going that's perfectly fine.
Unless we're in higher levels of competition with multiple judges, I won't reveal my decision or give feedback after the round, but I do make every effort to leave notes in tabroom for the round and each individual.
I very much enjoy the competition of debate and look forward to judging your round. Good luck and have fun!
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!
(Update for UK Online: I think extensions of the ROB text are good. This is a technical paradigm issue for me, if it is delineated in a doc differently then just like copy paste it from the NC please I beg)
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've coached the FFL State Champion (2x), TOC qualled debater (they've done more but Im lazy). I also coach a highly competitive Public Forum team (they definitely are sm better then some of the stuff I hear in LD and sometimes I wish I judged more there).
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)
Performance:2/3 (just add trigger warning if necessary! Im good with anything)
Alright here are some people I paradigmatically agree with: Deena Mcnamara, Charles Karcher, Delon Fuller, Joey Tarnowski, and Crawford Leavoy.
Here is a list of things I used to get asked and now people just don't read my paradigm anymore (please at least read 1 and 6):
1. I've debate plenty of times on the national circuit, I've seen it during its highs and lows. PLEASE MAKE DEBATE ACCESSIBLE!
2. I will try my best to evaluate the round in which you wish it to be evaluated, however, I need a clear articulation on how to do so.
3. I will adapt to you. If you are a speed demon then go ahead. As long as you are clear I am totally cool with it.
4. There is a difference between being witty and being arrogant. ZERO tolerance for disrespect in debate.
5. Please use proper pronouns when referring to your opponent-they are not an object, they are a person so don't say "it says". Please don't say "The judge believes x,y,and z."- you have no clue what Im thinking. 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) :)
6. 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 if this is an issue of someone didn't properly disclo round reports. 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 K judge.
Traditional- I am perfectly alright with traditional debate. I loved it as a freshman and sophomore. A good friend of mine, Fiona Barry, was a phenomenal trad debater. 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.
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.
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.
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
Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I teach at GDS in the summer.
Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!
Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)
Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.
Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.
Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!
WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.
Lynne Coyne, Myers Park HS, NC. 20+ years experience across formats
At the NCFL 2023 I will be judging policy debate for the first time in a decade. Here is the warning: I know the generic world of policy, but not the acronyms, kritiks, etc., of this topic. You need to slow down to make sure I am with you. As in all forms of debate, choice of arguments in later speeches and why they mean you win not only the argument, but the round, is important.
I have coached debate, and been a classroom teacher, for a long time. I feel that when done well, with agreed upon “rules of engagement”, there is not a better activity to provide a training ground for young people.
Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is parallel to that of an instructor. I will evaluate your performance. I see my role as to set a fair, but stringent, set of expectations for the students I am judging. At times, this means advancing expectations that I feel are best for the students and, at times, the broader community as well. I see myself as a critic of argument , or in old school policy lingo, a hypothesis tester. The resolution is what I vote for or against, rather than just your case or counterplan, unless given a compelling reason otherwise.
Below please find a few thoughts as to how I evaluate debates.
1. Speed is not a problem. In most of the debates I judge, clarity IS the problem not the speed of spoken word itself. I reserve the right to yell “clear” once or twice…after that, the burden is on the debater. I will show displeasure… you will not be pleased with your points. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable but I recognize that low point wins are often a needed option, particularly in team events. The debater adapts to the audience to transmit the message-not the opposite. I believe I take a decent flow of the debate.
2. I generally dislike theory debates littered with jargon (exception is a good policy T debate that has communication implications and standards—if you’ve known me long enough this will still make you shake your head perhaps). Just spewing without reasons why an interpretation is superior for the round and the activity is meaningless. Disads run off the magical power of fiat are rarely legitimate since fiat is just an intellectual construct. I believe all resolutions are funadamentally questions of WHO should do WHAT--arguments about the best actor are thus legitimate. I am not a person who enjoys random bad theory debates andugly tech debates.
3. Evidence is important. In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues (particularly empirical ones), in addition to a comparison of competing warrants in the evidence, is important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, I am likely to prefer your argument if the comparison is done well. All students should have full cites for materials.
4. I am not a “blank state”. I also feel my role as a judge is to serve a dual function of rendering a decision, in addition to serving a role as educator as well. I try not to intervene on personal preferences that are ideological, but I believe words do matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic etc will not be tolerated. If I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round, I will intervene.
The ballot acts as a teaching tool NOT a punishment.
5. Answer questions in cross-examination. Cross-ex is binding. I do listen carefully to cross – ex. Enter the content of CX into speeches to translate admissions into arguments. Do not all speak at once in PF and do allow your partner to engage equally in grand cross fire.
6. Debating with a laptop is a choice, if you are reading from a computer I have three expectations that are nonnegotiable:
A) You must jump the documents read to the opposition in a timely manner (before your speech or at worse IMMEDIATELY after your speech) to allow them to prepare or set up an email chain.
B) If your opponent does not have a laptop you need to have a viewing computer OR surrender your computer to them to allow them to prepare. The oppositions need to prep outweighs your need to prep/preflow in that moment in time.
C) My expectation is that the documents that are shared are done in a format that is the same as read by the debater that initially read the material. In other words, I will not tolerate some of the shenanigan’s that seem to exist, including but not limited to, using a non standard word processing program, all caps, no formatting etc..
7. Weighing and embedded clash are a necessary component of debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. A dropped argument will rarely alone equal a ballot in isolation.
8. An argument makes a claim, has reasoning, and presents a way to weigh the implications (impacts). I feel it takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments. If an argument is just a claim, it will carry very little impact.
Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.
Please ask me specific questions if you have one before the debate.
I have been debating for about six years now (7th - 12th Grade). I did PF for about a year, and now I do LD and love it! My paradigm is pretty simple, and I can't wait to judge your rounds!
1. I don't do progressive debate. Plans, Counter-plans, PIC's, spikes, tricks, kritiks, and spreading will all hurt you and lose the round. These can make for interesting debate at an advanced level, but I did not learn it this way. I judge what I understand, and I understand traditional debate.
2. My primary judging criteria is dropped arguments. If you respond to everything and manage your time well, you will do great!
3. Have good evidence, clear links to your arguments, and make sure to bring it all back to the framework in the end.
4. Persuasion and effective rhetoric is important to me for speaks. Disrespect will lose you speaks.
5. Use cross to your advantage. Ask questions that have a purpose behind them. I love segments from cross coming back later in the debate.
Good luck to everyone! I can't wait to see you in round.
My name is Christine DeStefano, and I am a lay judge. Although I do not have much experience with LD debate, I am a researcher by profession. Therefore, I will be able to flow. Additionally, through my work in qualitative research, I have been formally trained in recognizing my own implicit bias.
I request that you do not spread. Also, I prefer fact over technical, so please be able to support your contentions with references. I also want you to know that I take LD Debate very seriously. I have a child that does debate, and I know first-hand how hard each and every one of you work. I try to work just as hard educating myself to become a better judge. Looking forward to a great debate!
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!
I'm Bennett Dombcik (he/him), I'm currently a senior @ the University of Michigan.
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
TLDR: if you explain arguments, do impact calc and card comparison, and don't make technical drops, you should be fine. The rest of the paradigm will attempt to explain what I think “good debating” looks like for a bunch of different positions. However, they are not rules to abide by for a round in front of me, and many of the more preference-based notes can be easily overcome by in-round arguments.
Policy Positions: This is the majority of what I did in both high school LD and college policy. I am most comfortable evaluating these debates.
Topicality---negatives should read definitions that are predictable. Affirmatives should do the same. The rest of the debate should compare the limits, ground, predictability, etc. of the two interpretations and explain why one impact is more (or less) important than the other and win a larger link to that impact. Caselists make me happy, the affirmative should probably not win for being topical, and the mandate of the plan is probably the best way to determine topicality (although can create solvency problems for the aff).
DAs---Links should be as specific to the plan as possible; generic links are not persuasive and easily beatable by affirmatives who know what their AFF does. However, smart 2NR contextualization of generics can overcome my affirmative bias in these debates (I just don’t really think negatives do that very often). The DA should ideally both have external offense that outweighs the case and turn the case. Turns case arguments are underutilized and massively increase your chances of winning the round.
Zero risk---clearly a thing. If the affirmative has a good uniqueness/link press I will be unpersuaded by “vote neg for .0001% chance of extinction” (same goes for aff try or die args against a good negative case push). Note the emphasis on good---it is hard to get to zero risk even though it is possible.
CPs---Fun. Should have solvency advocates (although those can be 1ac internal link cards). CPs should solve the case (for the most part), 2NRs should make detailed arguments as to why this is the case. Competition stuff: I have very few pre-conceived notions of what counts as a “legitimate” standard for competition. That being said, I will likely have more fun in the round if the competition arguments are more than just immediacy and certainty.
CP theory---the 1AR should make args about the illegitimacy of various CPs (mostly an LD note). The 1AR is very hard and the 2NR is too easy if it doesn’t have to answer theory. On the flip side, I am very willing to hold the line on new 2AR arguments on theory, so 1AR arguments should probably be longer than a sentence.
---DTA---probably (unless condo)
---Reasonability---define what counts as reasonable and debate why that standard is good.
Case---1ACs tend to be bad. The 1NC tends to be bad at demonstrating why the 1AC is bad. Rounds tend to be better (and more favorable for the negative) when the case page is a larger aspect of the negative strategy.
---Impact turns---cool, no issues with any of them.
Ks: I did some of this in HS, pretty comfortable with what happens in 99% of these debates.
On the negative---do whatever, links should implicate solvency of the plan in some way. Willing to vote on debate should be about epistemological assumptions of the plan. The affirmative should invest some time in we get the case + case outweighs, and the negative should offer a predictable counter-interpretation for how the round should be evaluated. Winning ontology is very important for both teams.
On the affirmative---ontology stuff from above. Probably should be close to the topic, willing to listen to reasons why that’s not true but I think the negative’s framework arguments get a lot stronger when the affirmative doesn’t have a predictable counter-interp. Procedural fairness is probably good, so is clash. However, impact turns are definitely winnable in front of me, so do whatever.
Answering K affs---stuff from above. Negative teams tend to be pretty shoddy explaining the impact to fairness/clash/whatever else you want to go for. Defense to the aff case is important for winning framework arguments and answering impact turns. If you want to go for Ks against them K aff, explaining competition is probably the most important parts of the debate in front of me. (K vs K is probably one of the areas I’m least comfortable with given a lack of understanding on the interactions between competing theories).
My name is Timothy Gunawan and I'm a student at Duke University As an American living abroad in Indonesia, I am inexperienced in full LD-format debate and will therefore not be too knowledgeable about the specifics of the debate format. I am, however, experienced in numerous other forms of debate with extensive experience in Model United Nations, British Parliamentary Debate, and American Moot Court. As a result, my preferences are as follows:
- I will focus on the content and quality of the debate, focusing less on how well you follow the procedures of the debate and more on whether or not you actually address the question at hand.
- I tend to take fairly extensive notes and will demarcate where certain arguments end and others begin. Be ready to signpost and ensure that your arguments have a clear, cogent structure.
- While I am not particularly harsh when addressing speaking fluency, I ask that all participants ensure that they slow their pace of speaking - speed-debating / "spreading" is not something I will look kindly upon.
- I hope to see measured, nuanced, and substantive debate between both sides but I also expect sides to be serious and respectful to one another at the very minimum. Give the topic and competition the respect it deserves.
- Good luck and have fun! Looking forward to seeing what everyone has to offer (and learning more about the LD circuit at large!)
tl;dr I’m a LARP debater who knows basic circuit stuff. I’m ok with spreading, as long as there’s a doc.
Hi! I'm Laura Han, a freshman at Duke. A quick rundown of my debate career (though I’ve been out of it for half a year): I did LD for four years, mostly lay but some circuit as well, and dabbled in World Schools in my senior year. I’m familiar with progressive arguments but am definitely not the best at evaluating them. In terms of judging, I’m tabula rasa, but will not buy arguments that clearly go against scientifically supported fact like “dogs can fly” or “climate change is not real.” I also do not tolerate racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. language; if you have to think “is this offensive?” then maybe don’t say it.
Here are a brief outline of my preferences:
tech ————x——— truth: this is kind of an oversimplification because an argument is inherently more persuasive if it has multiple different warrants, but overall, whoever has the most valid ink on the flow wins that argument. If the debate becomes too convoluted, I'll mark it a wash, so it’s in your best interest to be clear and organized about your arguments (signpost! I have not flowed in a while!)
LARP (Plans/CPs/PICs etc.) —x—————— K/Theory: im fine with basic critiques like cap k, fem k, ir ks, etc. If its anything high theory like Baudrillard, then you’re going to have to do more legwork explaining it to me. I won't vote off something I don’t understand.
Framework debate: read value criterion as framework (don’t read the value, I don’t care whether justice is better than morality)
I have been coaching Policy Debate full time since 2014. Arms sales is my 7th year of coaching.
I view my primary objective in evaluating the round to be coming to a decision that requires the least “judge intervention.”
If debaters do not give me instructions on how to evaluate the debate, and/or leave portions of the debate unresolved, they should not expect to get my ballot. My decision will end up being arbitrary, and (while I will likely still try to make my arbitrary decision less arbitrary than not) I will not feel bad.
In the final rebuttals, debaters should be giving me a “big picture” assessment of what’s going on in the debate to give them the best chance to get my ballot. Extending 25 arguments in the rebuttals doesn’t do much for me if you’re not explaining how they interact with the other team’s arguments and/or why they mean you win the round. In my ideal debate round, both 2NR and 2AR have given me at least a 45 second overview explaining why they’ve won the debate where they dictate the first paragraph of my ballot for me.
Important things to note:
-I don’t ever think Topicality is an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)
-If you don’t signpost AND slow down for tags, assume that I am missing at least 50% of your tags. This means saying a number or a letter or “AND” or “NEXT” prior to the tag of your card, and preferably telling me which of your opponents arguments I should flow it next to. Speech docs are not substitutes for clarity and signposting.
-I'm probably a 7 on speed, but please see above ^^^^
-High-theory will be an uphill battle.
-I would prefer not to call for cards, I believe it’s the debaters job to clearly communicate their arguments; if you tell me they’re misrepresenting their cards – I will probably call for them. But if I call for it and they’re not misrepresenting their evidence you’ll lose a lot of credibility with me and my cognitive biases will likely run amuck. Don’t let this deter you from calling out bad evidence.
-You can win the line-by-line debate in the 2AR but still lose the debate if you fail to explain what any of it means and especially how it interacts with the 2NR's args.
-Don’t assume I have any familiarity with your Acronyms, Aff, or K literature
-Swearing is probably word inefficient
-You’re in a bad spot if you’re reading new cards in the final rebuttals, very low propensity for me to evaluate them
-CPs that result in the aff are typically going to be a very hard sell, so are most other artificially competitive CPs. Perms are cool, so are time tradeoffs for the aff when this happens. If you really think you've got a sick techy CP make sure to go out of your way to win questions of competition/superior solvency / a specific link to the aff plan alone for your NB
-I think debate is a competition.
-the best “framework” arguments are probably “Topicality” arguments and almost probably don’t rely on cards from debate coaches and definitely don’t rely on me reading them after the round
-Impact everything out... Offense and Defense... I want to hear you telling me why your argument is more pressing and important than the other team's. I hate having to intervene... "Magnitude," "Probability," and "Timeframe" are not obscenities, please use them.
Arguments you shouldn’t waste your time on with me:
-Topicality = RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)
I am going to have the easiest time evaluating rounds where:
-warrant and evidence comparison is made
-weighing mechanisms and impact calculus guiding how I evaluate micro & macro level args are utilized
-the aff advocates a topical plan
-the DA turns and Outweighs the Case, or the CP solves most of the case and there's a clear net benefit that the perm doesn't solve for
-the negative has a well-researched neg strategy
-I am not expected to sort through high-theory
-the 2NR/2AR doesn't go for everything and makes strategic argument selection
Presumptions I bring into the round that probably cannot be changed:
-I’m voting Neg on presumption until the aff reads the 1AC
-Topicality is never an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)
-There is no 3NR
-Oppression of humans = bad (note: I do not know how this compares to the end of the planet/human race, debaters are going to have to provide weighing mechanisms for me.)
-Earth existing = good (note: I do not know how this compares to other impacts like oppression of humans, debaters are going to have to provide some weighing mechanisms for me.)
-I will have a very difficult time bringing myself to vote for any sort of Consult CP if the aff even mumbles some type of “PERM”
-Once the 2AC perms, presumption goes to the neg to prove the perm unworkable or undesirable if the CP/Alt is not textually/functionally competitive
Unimportant things to note:
-Plz read your plan before you read solvency – I will be annoyed and lost if you don’t
-I really enjoy author indicts if/when they’re specific – it shows a team has worked hard and done their research
-I really enjoy case specific strategies – I enjoy it when a team can demonstrate that they've worked hard to prepare a case specific strategy
-I enjoy GOOD topicality debates
-I’ve been involved in policy debate in some capacity for 11 years now – Education is my 5th topic coaching.
-I put my heart and soul into policy debate for four years on high school. I worked tirelessly to put out specific strategies for specific affirmatives and I like to see debaters who I can tell have done the same and are having fun. So, show me you know your case better than anyone else if you're affirmative, or on the neg, show me specific links and answers to the affirmative... I tend to reward this in speaker points. ...That being said, generics are fun, fine, and essential for the negative team. Feel free to run them, you will not be penalized in any way.
I'm good for just about anything that is well debated: T, Theory, DAs, CPs, Ks... I can even be persuaded to vote solely on inherency if it is well debated - if the plan has literally already happened, for the love of god please punish the aff.
That being said, I enjoy seeing a strategy in argument selection, and appreciate when arguments don't blatantly contradict each other (i.e. the DA linking to the CP, or Cap Bad and an Econ Impact on politics). Especially in the 2NR.
I am pretty tab when it comes to LD. My goal is to reach a decision that requires the least amount of judge intervention.
Signpost and slow down on tags. Slow down even more for theory args. Spreading through tags and theory interps is absolutely not the move if you want me to be flowing your speech. I will not be flowing from the doc.
Slow down. No, you don’t have to be slow and you should certainly feel free to read the body of your cards at whatever max speed you are comprehensible at. If you’ve used signposting, slowed down on tags and pre-written analytics, you’re golden. It's inexcusable and unforgivable to not have signposting in the 1ac.
I come into the round presuming:
-the aff should be defending the resolution
-the aff is defending the entirety of the resolution
-my ballot answers the resolutional question
-debate is a game
These presumptions can likely be changed.
Stylistically agnostic, but probably not your best judge for:
-dense phil that you’re spreading through
-undisclosed affs that don’t defend the entirety of the resolution
-process CPs that result in the aff
-more than 2 condo
-friv theory - I ❤️ substance
-Probably not interested in hearing condo if it’s just 2 condo positions
-theory interps that require me to ignore other speeches
I think that I have a low propensity to vote for most arguments regarding things that happen outside of the round or prior to the 1ac. I am not interested in adjudicating arguments that rely on screenshots of chats, wikis, or discord servers.
Questions, or interested in my thoughts on particular subjects not covered in my LD paradigm? Check out my POLICY PARADIGM above!
I am pretty new to judging and have primarily judged LD and PF. I enjoy a spirited debate but clear speaking and enunciaton are paramount. I believe that it is the responsibility of the debaters to watch their clocks and won't manage them unless it's overtime by a good margin.
vicky jin (she/her)
cary academy '21, duke '25
debated LD and congress each for a year & did extemp for two
for email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
- be respectful i have no tolerance of racism sexism homophobia etc.
- i will flow so make sure that your arguments and rebuttals are organized, coherent, and logical enough to follow
- highlight and weigh the most important arguments you've won of the round to make it easier for me to have reasons to vote u up
- i think both truth and tech are important (make good quality arguments but don't drop anything either, a one line reply can suffice)
- probable and realistic impacts make more sense to me than magnitude (unless you can really explain, warrant and impact it for me)
- i don't care much for most progressive style arguments so if you must use it please do so logically with explanations. it is on you to explain things to me and if i don't understand i will not vote for it
- + speaks if u have fun w/ it and make it an enjoyable round to watch
Trad LD judge, ok with speed but be careful when spreading. Congress is about clash (reference your representatives) and presentation. Be nice.
Currently a college sophomore, graduated from Hastings High. I have mainly done LD and Congress throughout high school, Nats in World Schools. Debate should be accessible to everyone - making personal attacks to win a high school debate round is not going to end well for you.
I’m most familiar with trad LD, and I’ll try to only vote on what's been presented in the round, though my background in Ks/theory/deviations from trad cases isn't very strong. A competitor that runs those kinds of cases is going to have to be able to lay it out well - explain it to me like I’m five. I will evaluate the round based on v/c debate first, then weigh voters and contention level arguments underneath. Arguments MUST have evidence and analysis links. If it's not provided or painfully weak I will not vote on it.
Speed - I can flow at a brisk pace, but not a fan of spreading. I will miss something for sure.
I appreciate speeches that have a lot of effort put into them, but are delivered effortlessly. Speeches should always bring something new to the table, or question what has already been said. Reference your fellow representative. I love clash, but also don't just say something for the sake of making an argument. Make sure your arguments are logically sound.
While I primarily judge Congressional Debate, I have experience judging both PF and LD.
If you want my vote, here are some of my do's and don'ts.
1. Clearly state facts and data and build up your argument properly. I shouldn't have to struggle to understand your points.
3. Be succinct
4. Display professionalism
5. Respect your opponents’ arguments without losing temper or going off on a tangent
6. Maintain proper body language
1. Deviate from the subject
2. Substitute opinions for facts
3. I'm not too fond of spreading
4. Talking over the other person. Show respect for each other.
5. Over Gesticulating
6. Repeating the same arguments multiple times. Tell me something new or add to what you've already said.
More than anything, I want debaters to enjoy their experience being part of the overall debate ecosystem. Don't forget to have fun.
i did trad ld + wsd.
dont expect me to have any topic knowledge
read taglines and authors SUPER SLOW
summarize what’s going on in the round whenever possible
flex prep is cool
i lean uncondo, good luck trying to convince me otherwise
read animal rights/anthropocentrism bad arguments and i will be very happy (+speaks)
Former debater from Ohio. Prefer traditional but okay with any/most anything. be nice
I have debated for 4 years and in that time I have only completed in public forum. I am very experienced with pf and I will be flowing. In terms of judging make sure that you are weighing. Overall in debate I hope to see clash and good clean debate.
hi uk :) i'm a little sick so i'm not at 100% brain capacity so maybe don't do anything too wild/too fast
TL;DR FOR PREFS i have recently come to the conclusion that i actually care very little what you read and hold a minimal amount of dogma re: what arguments should be read and how they should be read. i am good for whatever barring anything offensive, obviously. i have judged & voted for basically everything - if you have good strategy and good judge instruction, i will be happy to be in the back of your round whether you're reading the most stock larp stuff ever or tricky phil or friv theory or a non-t aff, etc. read the circuit section if you're interested in more specific thoughts on specific types of arguments. basically, do whatever you want, seriously
conservative estimates of minutes of my life this season so far that have been wasted from email chains because for some reason you all will not use fileshare/speechdrop: 16
*Sorry I know this is super long, but I figured it’s better to be comprehensive than not. Control F if you’re looking for something specific. ALSO ctrl f for accessibility requests, they’re at the bottom
I’m Eva (they/them). I did traditional LD (Canfield ‘18) in HS and have coached since graduating. I currently coach LD at Hawken. I have worked for a handful of camps, primarily VBI. ALSO i'm admin of the HSLD FB group which you should join because it's a really good thing even tho fb sux
Email: email@example.com put me on the chain pls & thx - i probably rely on the doc more than most judges on the circuit but i promise i'm listening enough to catch extemped stuff, stuff you skip, etc. i think docs are a good practice even if you aren't spreading but i won't force a lay debater to send them
Email me or message me on Facebook if you have questions before the round or after. I’ll pretty much always answer.
Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 500+ local rounds
tech > truth, but debaters make that hard sometimes. Make sure your paths to the ballot are extremely clear, don’t be offensive or blatantly make stuff up, and I will make a tech decision
One of my biggest priorities as a judge is round safety. I have made interventionist decisions based on conduct in round and I’ll do it again if I have to, so don’t be offensive or a jerk. My threshold for this is mostly a gut feeling, so just be nice and avoid it entirely :) If you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.
Rounds should be accessible to your opponent. This means that you should, of course, use inclusionary language, correct pronouns, content warnings if necessary, etc. but also means that you should not spread complex Ks or tricks or anything otherwise unnecessarily high level against novices, lay debaters, etc. If you do this I will be supremely annoyed and you will be very unhappy with your speaks. What is the point of winning a debate round if your opponent never has a chance to compete? (more on this in the trad v. circuit section)
im bad at flowing so prob go like 75% max speed unless you're extremely clear :)
Policy/LARP: all good for this - obviously comfortable with the basics, less confident on your cheaty counterplans but they're still all good. Innovative positions are cool but I’m fine with extremely stock arguments if that’s what you have to read to have good evidence. I want to see good, quality evidence that actually says what you say it does, well warranted scenarios, etc, etc. I’m fine with extinction impacts/extinction first stuff but winning extinction first doesn’t mean your links can suck or you don’t have to do any weighing/risk analysis to win the extinction scenario. condo is probably good and condo debates are boring to judge but im willing to vote on condo bad
Kritiks: Fine for the K, judged a lot of k rounds, voted for the K many a time. I find a lot of Ks to be underdeveloped and would really prefer if the position was actually explained and contextualized. your alt should be well explained and pls do not make it something in the 2n it wasn't in the 1n. if you’re reading something super obscure or complex pls slow down and actually explain what you’re on about. ive voted for non t affs plenty of times but ive also voted for tfw plenty of times. I'll also vote off performance but it needs to be clear how exactly i'm meant to evaluate the performance. I also think a lot of k debaters need to get better at extending/explaining the substantive content in the k as opposed to just blippy extensions. Don’t really like high theory but you can go for it as long as you explain it, I’ve voted for it before. i am beginning to think a lot of k affs try to win off of only rhetoric but no, actually, spending 2+ minutes extending the aff in the 1a is actually not a very good strategy in most scenarios :/
Theory/T: how did i become a theory judge??? anyway i like theory these days. still treat the shell like an ELI5 post and slow it down esp if you don’t send stuff (pls at least send interps though - even just in the text of an email is fine.) I don't think i'm particularly dogmatic on theory, so read whatever u want. defaults probably c/i, dta, no rvis, but i can be easily swayed in other directions for any of those. condo good but ill vote on condo bad. i very tired of listening to disclo debates :( friv is fine, will vote on it if u win it, it'll probably make me kinda happy tbh (tho prob avoid reading stuff about clothing and such unless you're like friends with ur opponent and know they're cool with it or something like that)
Phil: Surprisingly, these are some of my least favorite rounds to judge. I find them really blippy, super fast, and never actually very in depth or instructional :( that being said, i’ve judged and voted off of phil before so you can still read it. I’m a philosophy major so I can usually pick up what you’re putting down. My philosophy knowledge is primarily in modern analytic moral/political theory but I've read some continental stuff. I’d rather see a well fleshed out theory from your fw as opposed to a million tricks and please slow it down
Tricks: i sure do love voting for them (not really being sarcastic here - i've voted for tricky stuff many times and i'm actually pretty sure every time i've sat recently has been for tricks...) i like them because they're usually kinda funny and everyone seems to think "this is dumb" is a sufficient response (which it usually isn't) which means it's really ez to vote in these rounds
- IVIs: felt the need to add this in because apparently they're contentious. i'm cool for independent voters and quite frankly i wish you all would actually go for them more - the number of rounds where i've seen one read, the next speech drop it, and the final speech not go for it is severely depressing. however, being independent of a particular framing does not mean these should be independent of warrants - i need to know why it should be a voter
In terms of traditional judges, I’m super tech. I like the big picture debate, but it is often meaningless to me if you have not done a good job with the technical aspects of the round. Make sure that you are interacting on that level.
Traditional debaters should weigh more pls weigh.
I like the framework debate! I’m very familiar with most of the philosophy/frameworks in trad, so I’ll be able to pick up whatever you put down. But I am also really tired of seeing bad framework debates in traditional. For example:
The value debate does not matter. I can't think of a single round in my time in debate where this has not been true.
If what you really want is the util debate, then just run util. Traditional debaters do this thing where they’re like “my framework is rights” but it’s clearly just util.
Make sure you are explicitly weighing under your framing/whatever framing is being used in the round.
“They don't achieve their fw” is not a response to the fw. “My fw is a prerequisite” is almost never explained and I usually cannot figure out a single reason why it matters or is true.
Traditional debaters too often get away with making arguments that are racist, sexist, etc. Do not make offensive arguments or use offensive language. You’ll be unhappy with your speaks and maybe with the outcome of the round.
I hold the same beliefs about traditional debate as Lawrence Zhou, if you want to give his paradigm a read
Trad v. Circuit
I think circuit debaters should make more of an effort to make rounds more accessible to trad debaters. Yes, I understand they chose to come to this tournament. I understand they can just read the speech docs. I understand all of your excuses for still spreading multiple offs against trad kids. But that doesn’t really mean I’m sympathetic to those excuses. I won’t drop circuit debaters for this unless it is egregiously bad (like if you make a lay novice cry or something) but I will be really annoyed and maybe tank your speaks. If you have an especially good/nice adaptation practice for a trad debater, I might bump your speaks a bit.
On the other hand, (experienced-ish) trad kids who still read anti-spreading against LARP debaters going at like 50-60% speed should probably just spend their time actually engaging with the args. Don’t think I’ll vote for you just for traditional solidarity or something, I usually find myself voting circuit in these rounds because traditional debaters blatantly refuse to engage.
random debate beliefs
I won’t extend stuff for you — I hate extensions in the 2ar you didn’t do in the 1ar (how thorough your extensions need to be for me to be happy about them depends on the press; if the 1n was easy to deal with then your 1ar should extend pretty thoroughly for instance,) brand new stuff in the 2n/2a are things I will rarely evaluate without good reason, etc, etc.
Unwarranted arguments aren’t arguments and I think it is your obligation to not miscut your evidence or powertag it. if something sounds sus to me when u read it and i look at the doc and it is indeed really sus i probably will not evaluate it. I care deeply about evidence quality, so please just read good evidence and don’t misrepresent stuff
- similarly to the previous point, I really care about evidence ethics - powertagging/mistagging, miscutting, terrible quals, etc. are things that really irk me. probably won't drop you for it unless your opponent says i should, but it's possible in a close round i just won't evaluate your bad evidence even if you get to cleanly extend it. if you notice your opponent has bad evidence, point it out and i'll be happy. relatedly, rehighlighting is good
- send analytics in doc pls you all make me so sad
Don’t call me “judge,” that’s weird. Pls just call me by my first name. If you use my name in round I’ll bump you up .1 speaks, because it makes sure I'm paying attention. It’s pronounced with a long E (think wall-e), not “Ava”
I don’t disclose speaks sorry. I’ve come to realize I’m a really low scorer but I’m trying to work on it. i WILL evaluate theory that tells me how i should score the round bc i think speaks are pretty nonsense and would love for you to just decide for me :D
I like when rounds are relaxed/informal/funny. If you really make me laugh I will bump your speaks
I don’t care if you stand, I don’t care what you wear, I don’t care if you swear, etc.
- I consider myself to be a mid to bad flower and i flow on paper. if you're clear i should be cool, but if i look confused/i'm not writing anything, probably slow it down for a few seconds at least
please do not send me docs with dark highlighting - yellow is optimal, after that it’s green>blue and anything else is unreadable. Please bold text you are reading especially if the highlight color isn’t yellow. I’m sorry if this is annoying for you but if I end up needing to reference docs it’s gonna be extremely difficult to do so if you don’t listen to this, I have a lot of vision issues
pls give me a heads up if you're gonna read explicit discussions of self harm, suicide, and violence against queer/trans ppl. you can still read them in front of me but i would like a warning as early as possible - messenger is the fastest way to reach me during tournaments
- DO NOT try to SHAKE MY HAND. on this subject, i am a huge germaphobe - i will be wearing a mask probably until the end of time, don't worry i'm not sick, i just don't want to get sick. if there are covid precautions or anything like that you want us to take in the round, please vocalize this and we will make that happen (open windows, masking, etc.)
Former PF Debater
Prefer more traditional, big picture PF debate.
Slow down, weigh, warrant, create a narrative.
Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC
Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
Affiliation: University School
About Me: I did four years of Lincoln-Douglas debate way back when. (I'm old) Never accomplished anything of note. Competed in parli in college (accomplished very little of note), did grad work in American history. Now I teach history and I'm the head coach at University School (OH). Helped start Classic Debate Camp a traditional camp where I was the head LD instructor for a bit, left to get a life away from debate, then came back to teach top lab in 2020 and online in 2021. Stayed home and played with my cats in 2022 instead of teaching at CDC in person.
LD Judging Philosophy (Edited for Durham 2023):
I think it's really important that you actually research, write cases about and debate the actual resolution. Please leave your tricks at home. I have no interest in hearing arguments about debate theory. I guess I'll flow them, but have a very low threshold for dropping the arguments. I'm not the judge to run a kritik on. I don't coach them, hardly understand them and have a very low threshold for being convinced to drop them. (Hint: Just say, "Judge, that is all well and good but can we please debate the resolution at hand?")
The one way I have changed is that I have become more favorable to LARPing in the debate. I used to be one of those "The rules of LD doesn't allow plans and counterplans!" But given that the resolutions given to us by the NSDA are so often rooted in concrete policy questions, it doesn't seem fair to ask debaters to resist the urge to craft plans or to preclude the NEG from the strategic advantages of a counterplan.
My threshold for buying extinction impacts is VERY VERY high. For me to believe that extinction is going to happen or is probable, you have to have a very strong link chain. Like very strong. Otherwise, I'm just going to drop that impact.
I prefer debaters who speak at a more deliberate pace, rather than trying to cram a bunch of ideas down my throat. (Plus, its often early and I almost never eat breakfast. Don't make me hate life more than I already am disposed to at 8 AM) With that said, I don’t hold it against debaters who tend towards a faster delivery and try my best to keep up on the flow and I daresay that I usually can do it pretty well. If I don’t hear an argument because you have sped through it, it won’t go on the flow. I won't feel bad about it either.
I like not having to make a decision on my own about who won the round. Both debaters should prioritize a) giving me a standard (call it a criterion/standard/argument meter, I don't care) which I can use to decide who won the round and b) applying that standard to the arguments they have made in the round.
I believe that ultimately the purpose of competitive debate is to communicate and persuade. I tend to favor debaters who more effectively communicate their ideas and do a better job of presenting a coherent rationale as to why I should uphold their positions. In the end, my vision of a good debater is one who can take their opponents’ strongest arguments, treat them fairly and still show why their position is the more valid position. I tell my debaters to strive for "clarity" and "synthesis"
Obviously the use of evidence is important in that it substantiates analysis, arguments and conclusions. But I place a very high premium on analysis and argumentation. I don’t consider whether your opponent attacks every single “card” (Honestly, I don't flow every card you mention in your case.) Use evidence as a tool AND don’t let it obscure your reasoning.
PF Notes- My background is largely in LD but I've judged enough PF to know what I'm doing.
Edit for NSDA Opener: My threshold for buying extinction impacts is VERY VERY high. For me to believe that extinction is going to happen or is probable, you have to have a very strong link chain. Like very strong. Otherwise, I'm just going to drop that impact.
Edit for TOC: Look, the calling for cards is getting excessive. At the point where you ask your opponent for "all the evidence that you read on X argument" I suspect that you're fishing for cards/not listening/now flowing your opponents arguments because you plan to just call for all the evidence later. Don't give me that impression.
I'll evaluate everything I hear in the round.
Emphasis on "hear" I HATE spreading. I HATE that debaters think that quantity is a substitute for quality and that a lot of "high level" rounds mostly consist of debaters spewing unwarranted statements + card taglines (and the cards in PF are usually miscut/misrepresented) + jargon. I don't even know what half the jargon y'all are throwing out there means. So if that's your game plan, please strike me for everyone's good.
I'll also try to intervene as little as possible in the round. I've been on way too many panels where oral RFDs consist of judges citing flaws with in round arguments that WEREN'T ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP IN THE ROUND. I despise this. My debate days are over. (And as mentioned above, I wasn't that good at it) I'll leave it up to y'all to do the debating. I'll probably express my displeasure with bad or messy argumentation in a round, but I won't factor it into my decision.
While I try not to intervene and to evaluate everything on the flow, I should note that there are certain kinds of arguments that I just don't find too convincing. So the threshold for responses to those arguments are going to be REALLY REALLY low. I think debaters should actually debate about the resolution. I don't have much patience for theory debate. If you want to debate about debate, go write an article in the ROSTRUM or get a PhD in rhetoric. So I'll flow your kritiks and your theory, but if you opponent gets up and says "Judge, this is kind of silly, can we please talk about the resolution at hand?" then I'll probably drop that argument. I have little patience for the idea that debate rounds are a mechanism for social change. I have even less patience for debaters who are trying to commodify social issues and the suffering of others for a win in a debate round when it is not particularly relevant to the round itself.
And for the love of all that is good and decent, would someone please take 30 seconds to establish a framework for the round? And actually warrant it? Even better than weighing is weighing that a debater can do in the context of their framework.
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Hawken School – Policy Debate 1A/2N
Novice NATO Topic Notes:
1. I'm about to graduate with a degree in biomedical engineering so I should be familiar with most of your biotech arguments. If you have questions about a technology, I'm happy to help answer some of them.
2. That being said, i haven't judged this topic before so please be clear/consistent with terminology especially if non-biotech
1. Don’t assume I’m familiar with every detail of the topic
2. Tabula Rasa, Policymaker
3. Truth > tech: I have a higher threshold for giving an argument full weight than your typical tech judge
4. I feel like I’m a pretty slow flower so don’t speed through your tags and authors
5. What I'm most comfortable evaluating: Impact Turns > Topic DA > Advantage CPs > T > Politics > PICs > Topic K
6. What I probably would enjoy hearing: Impact Turns > Advantage CPs > Topic DA > Topic K > T > Politics > PICs
7. Cheap shots are lame
8. K FW is a pretty convincing argument to me
T is a great debate when done correctly. In general, I prefer limited topics (despite consistently running fringe affs as a debater). When doing T debate, make sure there is clash on the standards debate.
DAs were my bread and butter. I mostly ran politics DAs in high school sadly (education and immigration weren’t the best for policy style). Politics is a generally boring scenario that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. That said, politics debates generally shine with internal link and impact debates, so do that well. If you can, read unique DA scenarios.
Case-specific CPs are probably some of the most convincing and interesting arguments to me. I’m also particularly fond of advantage CPs and feel like they need to be read more in debate. CPs need a solvency advocate to at least the same level of specificity as the aff. PICs are generally unconvincing to me usually due to lack of specificity of solvency, competitive issues of certainty/immediacy, and undercoverage of the net benefit.
Ran generic cap, security, and biopower kritiks, but the only pomo I’ve run is Vattimo/Heidegger. In general, I struggle to understand Ks within the limited scope of debate (most likely since I haven’t extensively read the lit). Framework is critical to K debate and I need to understand how framework affects my evaluation of the K proper.
Sorry, I don’t think I’ll be good for you if you’re interested in this section. If you still do end up with me, some important info about my preferences. I think the T/framework debate is absolutely critical, so your responses need to substantively engage on the flow rather than blanket dismissals. I’m also not really convinced by “FW is racist/exclusionary” arguments.
Theory is pretty unconvincing to me and falls in the realm of cheap shots 95% of the time. I won’t vote on your blippy severance, disclosure, or aspec theory generally. I like neg condo.
Low risk = No risk
Death is bad
Fairness > Education
Limits > Aff Ground
You can reference my policy paradigm to see what matters to me
1. I did policy debate, so you can basically run anything. Refer to the policy paradigm if you need more info about that
2. Tabula Rasa, Policymaker
3. Truth > Tech: I have a higher threshold for evaluating an argument compared to your typical tech judge.
4. Impact Calc is important if you don’t want accidental judge intervention
5. Apparently PF does paraphrasing instead of direct quoting, please don’t
6. I flow like a policy debater so if you don’t signpost then I’m lost
Since it seems like lots of PF debaters are facing an existential identity crisis regarding their event post-2020 TOC, I'll answer concerns about how I'll evaluate progressive arguments in PF here. The short answer is I'm 100% ok and, in fact, happy to evaluate "progressive" arguments in PF barring the concerns elaborated on further down the paradigm. I'll run a line-by-line for why many arguments against progressive debate are wrong:
1. PF is meant to be "public"/PF is not policy
This is not responsive against the merits of progressive arguments. It's equivalent to saying the DPRK is democratic not totalitarian. Additionally, the existence of policy does not mean PF should forego good norms. Also, the structures of PF and policy are so significantly different that regardless of adopting some policy norms, they will remain distinct both in topic education and substance.
2. Progressive debate kills substance
This lacks a lot of nuance considering progressive arguments such as CPs and plan texts access a unique solvency lit base that is otherwise inaccessible in traditional PF. Disads also access unique impact scenarios that probably should be considered, and Ks also interrogate and reveal unique areas for topic education. Traditional debate also doesn't disappear because progressive debate becomes more popular, local circuits will always remain lay compared to the nat circuit.
3. Progressive debate hurts small schools
Probably false too. Access to unique methods of argumentation such as theory, topicality, and Ks allow for teams that have limited access to prep and time to remain competitive against teams with massive programs. Theory and topicality also reproduce norms that protect teams with limited resources from being overwhelmed.
Why is progressive debate good:
1. It fosters good and ethical norms:
Evidence norms are abysmal in PF since paraphrasing and bad citations are rampant. Lack of disclosure hurts pre-round prep for small programs without massive repositories of backfiles. PF is also an event which is disproportionately white and male and it reproduces those biases both in round outcomes and overall success at the event. These are all issues that are difficult to combat from just going to Tab since norms towards these issues haven't changed. Theory and Ks provide the in-round pressure to adjust debate norms for better evidence ethics as well as improving the debate climate for smaller schools and marginalized debaters.
2. It provides depth and breadth of education:
Traditional case debates don't get wiped out in progressive argumentation. Arguably, topic education is deepened when you allow plan advocacy for cases which provides access to solvency lit that's otherwise inaccessible which is depth to the topic. But even if breadth is preferable in PF, the existence of CPs, DAs, and Ks provide breadth of education and strategic diversity. Considering my experience judging PF has mostly had the same pieces of evidence re-read between rounds with the exact same contention structures, I think improve the depth and breadth of education would be quite good for the PF ecosystem.
You may think I'm biased due to my history as a policy debater, and you'd be right. But there's a difference between having bias and having ill intentions. I've been on the receiving side of hard and disappointing losses because of mishandled theory and Ks, and I'd be lying if I didn't acknowledge my distaste towards those arguments. However, I do think it's still important to recognize that these arguments have an important place in checking back biases and bad norms. While I no longer competitively debate, I do still judge from time to time. As a judge, these are some of the arguments that I believe would make rounds more interesting personally as well as for many debaters. If you'd like to convince me otherwise then go ahead.
I’ll be honest, idk how a T debate actually functions in PF considering there (usually) aren’t plans in PF. In policy, T is a question of the advocacy not the impacts so it’s illogical to argue someone’s impact scenario is untopical. If you can articulate how a team’s advocacy is untopical and can do a good comparative standards debate, you’ll be in a good position with me.
I’m really glad that PF is starting to use more DAs rather than just case offense/defense for argumentative diversity. DAs were my favorite argument in policy debate, so if you run them well I’ll be happy.
I have two big concerns with Ks in PF. The first is that I’m just, in general, not a great person to run Ks with. My experience is limited to cap, biopower, and security generally, and they were not staple arguments. I don’t read a lot of lit either, so my comprehension of the K may not be great. Secondly, I frankly don’t think PF can get in enough depth to run Ks effectively. Policy has a total of 26 minutes of neg speech time and, even then, it’s difficult to substantiate Ks well. I generally feel like PF could only run smaller satellite Ks effectively, but I may be proven wrong.
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 straight-forward 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 your rebuttal speeches - you don't need to email me your rebuttal speeches. I judge by listening not reading for rebuttals
- DAs/CPs are perfect but please include only one CP in your NEG case
- Keep your DAs topical
I'm Ashley (she/her) and I debated for four years, all in LD, and captained my junior/senior years. Now I'm a junior at UNC Chapel Hill. I'm pretty traditional and would define myself as a flay judge. If you wanna know more of my creds or have any general questions I'd be happy to answer before or after round. This is a learning experience for everyone and I look forward to learning from yall!
Add me to the email chain : email@example.com
Things I care about:
1) I will buy all evidence read unless it's contested in round. If it becomes an issue, I'll call for it at the end of round. If you are deliberately violating evidence ethics, I'll drop you from the round with the lowest speaks tab allows.
2) PLAY NICE. We are here to be civil, learn, and have fun. No harassment, belligerence, or rudeness will be tolerated.
3) Don't spread/do weird circuit stuff on a debater that has absolutely no idea what that is. It would be best if y'all can agree beforehand on circuit vs trad style. I can judge both circuit and trad. If you're a circuit debater and go crazy on some poor trad debater that has no idea what you're talking about I will tank your speaks.
4) You can spread if you want but you must disclose and you must speak clearly. I don't back flow off the speech doc because that's unfair to the other debater so if you're unintelligible in round and I can't understand a single thing you say I can't help you.
5) I have an expressive face. Don't take it too seriously.
6) If the framework debate is a wash or there is no framework I default to util.
7) If you are a high level circuit debater and want to run a super tricky prog round you might want to strike me.
Things I don't care about:
1) Everything else. Do whatever you want, I don't care as long as you're being nice and having fun (and hopefully learning something).
Ways to earn speaks:
1) Style. Enunciate your words and be rhetorically advanced.
2) Clarity. Self explanatory.
3) Cleverness !
I am a parent judge and have been participating in local and national high school LD debates since 2018. I prefer sound evidence, compelling arguments and solid voter issues. I enjoy LD debates and hope we all have fun!
I am a traditional lay judge with limited experience.
Organization: Keep the round as organized as possible. ALWAYS give an off-time roadmap before all speeches and signpost during each rebuttal/constructive.
I am unfamiliar with the following so please do not do these during round:
Kritiks, Tricks, Theory, Spikes, Non Topical Affs
Spreading--Please no spreading. Make sure you are clear, organized and that your opponent is able to understand you. At any point, if your opponent asks you to slow down...please do so.
If you plan to speak somewhat fast, please add me to the email chain below: firstname.lastname@example.org
LARP: I am relatively familiar with policy debate but make sure your plans are explained extremely thoroughly and clear. If I don't understand your case/policy position, then I will drop you in the round.
Counter plans and Disadvantages: If you plan to run these during round, make sure you explain them extremely clearly and be very thorough. I will also evaluate the counter plan if you explain it as an "alternative" during round if your opponent isn't as familiar with CP's.
Signposting---Please ALWAYS Signpost. This is the most straightforward and clearest way for me to keep track of what your arguments and when you are saying what during your speeches. If you do not Signpost, your points may become muddy and what you're saying may get lost to your opponent and I.
Voters: Please provide me with overviews and clear, reasonable and fair voters during your last speeches. If you do not do so, I will not know how you should win the round. Don't finish the round with untouched, messy and abandoned arguments. Make sure to extend all arguments and make that very clear to me as the judge. If your opponent says you didn't extend something and if I also don't catch it, then I will assume you did not say it and I will drop the argument.
Thank you and Good Luck!
Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)
Email for email chains:
If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.
-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.
I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.
In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.
That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.
Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.
l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.
I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.
One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.
I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.
I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.
Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.
Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.
I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.
Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.
Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.
You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.
Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.
Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.
Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.
Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.
Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.
Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.
This is the first tournament I have judged. Please do not spread or talk very fast, as I will have a hard time following your case if you do.
Competed in high school LD for 4 years. Currently compete in British Parliamentary for Duke University. I primarily competed in traditional tournaments so I am the best at evaluating those types of argumentation. I am fine with most speeds so long as each word is properly enunciated. A byproduct of the online format is the maximum speed which is still intelligible is slightly slower than in person.
My judging belief is that it isn't my duty as a judge to evaluate whether or not you're making good arguments, it's my duty to evaluate how each debater is responding to the arguments their opponents are making. If you make a silly argument, my threshold to not evaluate it is very low, but if your opponent inadequately addresses it, then I give you full credit for that argument.
I will cast my ballot based on who I believe is "winning the flow." To me, that's not necessarily who's winning the most arguments on the flow, but who has done work analyzing and weighing the arguments they are winning under a reasonable framing. Insofar as that's true, having clear and fleshed out extensions and crystallization is really important to winning my ballot.
I only believe framing is as important as you make it to be. If both debaters want to agree early on to a very similar framing, great, that makes my job easier as a judge. If both debaters want to spend the entire round debating opposing frameworks, also great, those make some of the best rounds if you understand what you're talking about. No judge is perfect at completely removing their own value system from the evaluation of arguments but I attempt to evaluate arguments purely under the frameworks you provide in round. If one framework emerges as the clear winner, I will use that framework to analyze all arguments within the round. If framework debate is awash I will attempt to analyze the round using principles emanating from both frameworks but that inherently introduces my own subjective analysis into the round so spend time ensuring framework debate isn't awash.
Please ask me any further questions before the round starts. If the tournament allows it, I will give an oral RFD after the round, but here is my email if you have any further questions after that: email@example.com
Hi, I am Jacob Palmer (he/they). I do policy at Emory. I debated for and now coach at Durham. If you will be on the Emory debate team in the fall you should put me as a conflict.
Feel free to ask questions about my paradigm before the round. It's better to hop into the competition room early as opposed to email me since I might miss your question.
Add me to the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org. Sending docs is good. It lets both me and your opponent verify the quality of the evidence you are reading. Sending docs is not an excuse to be unclear. I won't backflow off the doc, and I will yell clear or slow if needed. Docs should be sent promptly at the round start time. If we reach the round start time and you are just starting to set up the email chain, I will be very sad. Even if I am judging on the local circuit, I would like a card doc since I like to look over evidence and just sending cards out from the beginning is easier than me trying to call for cards while the decision time ticks away. On a somewhat related note, although I do think disclosure is good, I'd rather not watch debates about this. This is especially true if your opponent does disclose in some fashion, even if it's not what you consider the best norm.
Debate how you want to debate. I find many of the ways that people classify themselves are debaters, such as a traditional or circuit, largely artificial distinctions. I don’t particularly care whether your arguments are properly formatted in line with whatever norms exist in various local, regional, or national circuits, such as if you read a standard or a value and a criterion. I do care that you make warranted arguments and tell me why they matter in the broader context of the debate. Smart arguments will win rounds.
I will evaluate any argument that has a warrant, clear implication, and isn't actively exclusionary. I am tech in that I will keep a rigorous flow and evaluate the debate solely off that flow, but I think the distinction between tech and truth in debate is largely silly. That means there are some limits to my tech-ness as a judge. I will always evaluate every speech in the debate. I will not evaluate arguments made after speech times end. I think arguments must be logically valid and their warranting should be sound. I think lazy warranting is antithetical to technical argumentation. Reading truer arguments will make your job and my job substantially easier. I won't vote on something not explained in round.
Lastly, be a good person. Debate often brings out the worst of our competitive habits, but that is not an excuse for being rude or disrespectful. Respect pronouns. Respect accessibility requests. Provide due content warnings.
TDLR: Don’t cheat. Be a good person. Make real arguments. Do those things, and I will adapt to you.
Since other people do this and I want to respect the people that helped me in my own debate journey, thank you to the all the people that have coached me or shaped who I am as a debater: Jackson DeConcini, Bennett Dombcik, Allison Harper, Brian Klarman, Ed Lee, Becca Steiner, Mikaela Malsin, Marshall Thompson, Christian Quiroz, Nick Smith, Devane Murphy, Brianna Aaron, and Andrew Garber. Special thanks to Crawford Leavoy for introducing me to this activity and teaching me most everything I know about debate.
Policy – Plans, CPs, and DAs are great! Advantages and DAs shouldn’t be more complicated than they need to be. Plan and counterplan texts should also be specific and have a solvency advocate. You don’t get to say “no link - that's not how we do the plan” unless the evidence says that’s how to do the plan. Spec is fine against vague positions but the sillier the shell the harder it will be to win an actual internal link to fairness or education. I'm generally fine with condo counterplans, but the more condo you read the more receptive I'll be to theory. To win the 2ar on condo the 1ar shell needs to be more than a sentence. Judge kick is fine, but I won't do it unless you tell me to. I lean negative on most competition issues, and I think I am better for process counterplans than most other LD judges. The 2nr is not a 2nc. If your 2nr strategy relies on reading lots of new impact modules or other new arguments, I am not the judge for you. To an extent, carded 2nr blocks are fine but all the evidence you should need to win the 2nr on most positions should just be in the 1nc. If you sandbag reading CP competition cards until the 2nr, for example, I will be sad.
T – I love a good T debate. Don't be blippy. Weigh between interps and show what Affs, Advantages, DAs, etc. are actually lost or gained. The worst T debates are an abstract competition over ethereal good like fairness. The best T debates forward a clear vision of what debates on the topic should look like and explains why the debates based on one interpretation of the topic are materially more fair or educational than others. On T I default to drop the debater, counter interps over reasonability, and no RVIs, but would strongly prefer that you debate these issues out, so I don't have to rely on my defaults. I think affirmatives should generally be predictably limited. I think functional limits can solve a lot of neg offense if correctly explained.
K – K debates are great, just know the literature and be ready to explain it. If I don't understand your argument, I won't be able to vote for it. These debates are also probably where I care the most about quality over quantity. Specificity matters - Not all Ks are the same and not all plans are the same. If your 1nc shell doesn’t vary based on the 1ac, or your 1ar blocks don’t change based on the kritik I will be sad. I generally think I should vote for whoever did the better debating, but y'all are free to hash out what that means. While I recognize debate is a game, I also recognize that it can be something more. Alternatives should be tangible, and you should have examples.
More often than not, it seems like I am judging clash debates nowadays. Whether you are the K debater or the Policy/Phil debater in these rounds, judge instruction is essential. The 2nr and 2ar should start with a clear explanation of what arguments need to be won to warrant an aff or neg ballot and why. The rest of the 2nr or 2ar should then just do whatever line-by-line is necessary to win said arguments. I find that in clash debates more than other debates, debaters often get lost in extending their own arguments without giving much round-specific contextualization of said extensions or reasons why the arguments extended are reasons they should win the debate. Whether you are going for an impact turn to the K or extending the K itself, you need to tell me what to do with the arguments you think you are winning and why those specific arguments are sufficient for my ballot.
Non-T/Planless Affs – All the stuff from the K section applies here. I am happy to judge these debates and have no issues with non-t affs. Solvency is important. From the 1ac there should be a very clear picture of how the affirmative resolves whatever harms you have identified. For negatives, T USFG is solid. I’ve read it. I’ve voted on it. Turn strategies (heg good, growth good, humanism good, etc.) are also good. For T, I find topical versions of the aff to be less important than most other judges. Maybe that’s just because I find TVAs to be largely underdeveloped or not actually based in any real set of literature. Regardless, I don’t think the negative needs the TVA to win, but it also won’t hurt to make one and extend it. Cap and other kritiks can also be pretty good if you understand what you’re doing. I no qualms evaluating a K v K or methods debate.
Phil – I love philosophical debates. I think phil debates benefit greatly from more thorough argumentation and significantly less tricks. Explain your syllogism, how to filter offense, and tell me what you're advocating for. If I don't know how impact calc functions under your framework, then I will have a very hard time evaluating the round. If your framework has a bunch of analytics, slow down and number them.
Theory – Theory should be used to check legitimate abuse within the debate. As with blatantly untrue DAs or Advantages, silly theory arguments will be winnable, but my threshold of what constitutes a sufficient response will be significantly lower. Slow down on the analytics and be sure to weigh. I think paragraph theory is fine, but you still need to read warrants. I think fairness and education are both important, and I haven’t really seen good debates on which matters more. Debates where you weigh internal links to fairness and/or education are generally much better. I think most cp theory or theoretical objections to other specific types of arguments are DTA and really don’t warrant an RVI, but you can always convince me otherwise.
Tricks – If this is really your thing, I will listen to your arguments and evaluate them in a way that I feel is fair, granted that may not be the way you feel is most fair. I have found many of the things LDers have historically called tricks to be neither logically valid nor sound. I have no issue with voting on arguments like skep or determinism or paradoxes, but they must have a sufficient level of warranting when they are first introduced. Every argument you make needs to be a complete argument with a warrant that I can flow. All arguments should also be tied to specific framing that tells me how to evaluate them within the larger context of the debate. Also, be upfront about your arguments. Being shady in cx just makes me mad and sacrifices valuable time that you could spend explaining your arguments.
Independent Voters - I’m not a big fan of independent voters. I think arguments should only generate offense through specific framing mechanisms. Somewhat tied into this I feel incredibly uncomfortable voting on people's character or using my ballot to make moral judgements about debaters. I also don’t want to hear arguments about events outside of the round I am judging. If something your opponent did truly makes you feel unsafe or unable to debate, then you should either contact me, your coach, tab, or the tournament equity office. We can always end the round and figure something out.
This is my fourth 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'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging.Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.
I’m a parent judge with 2 years of judging experience with LD (traditional debate). I have a few preferences that need to be followed in order to persuade me:
· Speak clearly so that I can comprehend everything you are saying.
· Please keep your pace to a conversational speed so I can flow. If I miss something on the flow, I can’t vote based on it.
· Be civil and respectful within the round. There will be no racism, sexism, misogyny, belittling of your opponent, or personal criticism of your opponent. If you display any of these characteristics I will stop listening to you and drop you with low speaks.
· Framework is very important. You should have a clear value and value criterion that is well-warranted and explained clearly. You should apply it to all of your arguments made in the round and uphold it at the end. I should be able to tell what contention you’re speaking about and all of your separate points.
· The debate will be weighed on whose arguments and framework were the most clear, consistent, and carried throughout the round.
· Evidence should be extended, if your opponent doesn’t negate your evidence, make that clear to me and carry it throughout.
· Spell it out why I should vote for you, especially in your last speech.
· Having confidence is a huge key to winning. If you sound confident, you’re more than likely to convince me.
Add me to the chain: email@example.com
I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging. I have previously judged one tournament. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.
I am a parent judge who has been judging LD in eastern North Carolina for the past two years. I appreciate the challenges and pressure that competitive debating brings, and as such insist that a cordial and respectful environment be maintained at all times. This will ensure space for the highest level of thought and expression.
The most important points that I respond to in a successful debate are:
1) Clear logic and articulated support. Preferably argued under an overarching structure where evidence can be understood through tangential relationships, and not a series of unrelated statements.
2) Composed and effective communication, including body language as well as verbal skills.
3) Intellectual agility- the ability to quickly craft and articulate thoughtful positions in a short time frame.
If these points are present I am confident that you will be a very strong debater, and gain as much as possible from these exceptional educational opportunities.
There are however a few things that hinder my ability to evaluate information and arguments as fairly as possible. Primarily speed is a detriment to my ability to synthesize the arguments being offered. Please no spreading. Also, as a lay judge I prefer traditional debate styles. Stay on topic and debate the merits of the given topic. It will allow for my fullest engagement and fairest evaluation.
I'm a PhD (Philosophy) student and want to hear a coherent and compelling case. Help me make up my mind on the issue that you’re debating. Give me sound and cogent arguments, and you’re halfway there to receive my vote. Refute your opponent’s arguments and objections, and you’re mostly there. Defend your framework, make your case clear and easy to follow, and you’ll have my vote. However, if you give me flimsy premises and invalid arguments, build your case on unjustified assumptions, simply assume the correct framework, and commit informal fallacies in your debate, I’m afraid it’ll be game over for you.
DON'T SPREAD! Instead, I’d rather hear fewer arguments developed at a deeper level; the sheer volume of arguments is no substitute for substance.
In summary, to get my vote, make sure your arguments be bussin fr fr.
PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy - let's avoid kritiks, disads, plans, counterplans and theory arguments.
LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).
CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kirtiks or critical affs.
Director of Speech & Debate Isidore Newman School
Coach USA Debate
Please slow down! It is much harder for me to hear online. Go at about 75% rather than 100% of your normal pace!!!
Relevant for Both Policy & LD:
This is my 20th year in debate. I debated in high school, and then went on to debate at the University of Louisville. In addition, I was the Director of Debate at both Fern Creek & Brown School in KY, a former graduate assistant for the University of Louisville, and the Director of Speech & Debate at LSU. I am also a doctoral candidate in Communication & Rhetorical studies.
I view my role as an educator and believe that it is my job to evaluate the debate in the best way I can and in the most educational way possible. Over the past several years have found myself moving more and more to the middle. So, my paradigm is pretty simple. I like smart arguments and believe that debates should tell a clear and succinct story of the ballot. Simply put: be concise, efficient, and intentional.
Here are a few things you should know coming into the round:
1. I will flow the debate. But PLEASE slow down on the tag lines and the authors. I don’t write as fast as I used to. I will yell clear ONE TIME. After that, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. So, don't be mad at the end of the debate if I missed some arguments because you were unclear. I make lots of facial expressions, so you can use that as a guide for if I understand you
2. I value effective storytelling. I want debates to tell me a clear story about how arguments interact with one another, and as such see debates holistically. Accordingly, dropped arguments are not enough for me to vote against a team. You should both impact your arguments out and tell me why it matters.
3. Do what you do best. While I do not believe that affirmatives have to be topical, I also find myself more invested in finding new and innovative ways to engage with the topic. Do with that what you will. I am both well versed and have coached students in a wide range of literature.
4. Know what you’re talking about. The quickest way to lose a debate in front of me is to read something because it sounds and looks “shiny.” I enjoy debates where students are well read/versed on the things they are reading, care about them, and can actually explain them. Jargon is not appealing to me. If it doesn’t make sense or if I don’t understand it at the end of the debate I will have a hard time evaluating it.
5. I will listen to Theory, FW, and T debates, but I do not believe that it is necessarily a substantive response to certain arguments. Prove actual in-round abuse, actual ground loss, actual education lost (that must necessarily trade off with other forms of education). Actual abuse is not because you don't understand the literature, know how to deal with the argument, or that you didn't have time to read it.
6. Be respectful of one another and to me. I am a teacher and educator first. I don’t particularly care for foul language, or behavior that would be inappropriate in the classroom.
7. Finally, make smart arguments and have fun. I promise I will do my best to evaluate the debate you give me.
If you have any other questions, just ask.
I'm Emily (she/her). I debated LD for three years at Cary Academy and am currently a first-year at Duke.
Some general things:
1. Be kind, be respectful, don't be rude, don't be condescending - The best debaters are those who are not only good at debate, but also are good people in and out of round.
2. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, or exclusive. If you are any of these things, I will drop you, give you 20 speaks, and report you to Tab.
3. Try to have fun! Debate rounds are best when you aren't overly serious and try to enjoy the experience.
More debate specific stuff:
1. In the end, I'll vote for the debater who best advocates for their position. Being a good advocate is a combination of speaking/presenting persuasively, making strong arguments, and interacting with your opponent's advocacy. Weigh and impact your arguments. The more you weigh, compare the aff and neg worlds, impact your arguments to the framework, and paint a clear picture of what your world will look like, the easier it will be for me to give you the dub.
2. If you make an extension, make sure to impact it. Tell me why it's important that your opponent dropped that card or argument.
3. Coherent explanations are more important than being able to read a ton of cards and then extend them. If you read cards, especially in rebuttal, make sure it's clear how they connect to what you're talking about. As well, truth >> tech. Extending an argument doesn't make it correct if it doesn't make sense and/or you don't explain why it matters.
4. Voter issues are nice. If you provide voter issues, spend a little bit of time summarizing and impacting each voter issue. Voter issues aren't really meaningful if all you do is list a couple points without saying much else.
5. I don't really care for K's, theory, disads, and PICs. Plans and counterplans are ok to some extent, but it's your job to justify why your plan/counterplan fairly affirms/negates, why/how it will work, and why I should prefer it over your opponent's position or plainly affirming/negating. Feel free to run other progressive arguments, but I'm not going to work extra hard to try to understand something that you don't explain well. Also, I will have low tolerance for your progressive arguments if you are running them against an opponent who clearly isn't familiar with progressive debate and therefore isn't able to effectively interact with your arguments.
6. I find debaters are increasingly arguing nuclear war and climate change since they impact to extinction. If you're going to run extinction impacts, you must explain clearly how everything eventually links to extinction and how it is related to the topic. I won't automatically pick you up just because you extend extinction. I default to probability and realistic impacts unless you provide me reasons to prefer magnitude.
7. I won't evaluate new arguments or evidence brought up in the 2NR/2AR out of fairness to both debaters. Aff doesn't have much time in the 2AR to respond to new arguments/evidence that neg brings up in their 2NR, and there simply isn't a 3NR for negs to respond to new arguments/evidence that aff brings up in their 2AR.
Things that will get you high speaks:
1. I believe debate is a conversational activity meant to foster thoughtful discussions, so your pace and inflection should reflect that (i.e. don't spread or read highly esoteric stuff without explaining it thoroughly).
2. Organization is good. If you have multiple responses to an argument, numbering them is nice so that people flowing you can follow along and not miss anything.
3. Signposting and road mapping are good.
4. Be engaging - Make eye contact, vary your inflection, etc.
5. Conciseness and efficiency are good. I always find it really impressive when debaters manage to cover everything while providing thorough explanations without having to speed through their speech.
6. Strategic cross-ex is good. It's also really impressive when debaters use their cross-ex effectively and manage to get their opponents to provide answers that they can later incorporate into their rebuttals.
7. Be cognizant of your time - If your time runs out, and you need to finish your sentence, do that. Try not to run excessively over time; it's usually quite obvious if you are doing that.
8. Be present and respectful - Yes, as a neg, you'll be done giving speeches after your 2NR. Yes, during your opponent's prep time, you may not have anything to do. However, you should still be present and respectful to your opponent.
9. Make a well-incorporated bee pun - Spread some joy in the round :)
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.
Good luck and have fun!
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
Hi, I'm Kathy and I competed in LD for one year, but the bulk of my experience is in Moot Court and Mock Trial. I would consider myself a traditional/lay judge. With that in mind, here are my preferences:
1) Be respectful in CX
2) Please have a clearly organized roadmap and signpost
3) A little speed is okay as long as I can clearly understand you
4) I'm not familiar with this topic or core arguments, so please explain everything well (progressive frameworks will need to be explained very well)
5) I appreciate good presentation style (good eye contact and volume, not glued to your notes)
6) Please be systematic and organized when refuting
7) Higher speaker points awarded for being respectful, methodical, and organized
Be nice and have fun!