I am a new parent judge. I would like to hear logical, reasoned arguments. Please be clear in your speech and respectful to your opponent. 

My daughter started Lincoln Douglas debate last year and I am a parent judge. I prefer when you speak at a pace in which is understandable and complex arguments are welcome as long as they make sense and are backed with reasonable evidence. I do not appreciate "spreading" as it makes it hard to understand your arguments when speaking at an incredibly fast pace. Philosophies are very interesting, please just define them beforehand and clearly state how it ties in with your case to make it easier for me to understand. Thank you!

Hello, I'm Manisha Chauhan-Patel, a parent judge looking forward to hearing about the upcoming Speech & Debate Tournament.

When judging, I'm looking for clear messages and persuasive information that justifies your side of the argument. I would especially like you to be polite when addressing each other and be timely in your responses.

Fast talking (spreading) is not going to cut it, I would like you to speak openly and succinctly about the subject matter.

I will base your points on the following:

> professionalism

> research

> attitude

> arguments for/against

> empathetic

I'm keen to hear your side of the argument and will do my best to judge transparently as possible. Good luck!

I have judged LD for two seasons. I look for debate participants that show they have given great thought to both sides of the argument and then clearly articulate their contentions and subpoints in their openings. Furthermore, I appreciate their thoughtful responses to their opponents with courtesy and facts to back up their rebuttals. I do not score positively when spreading occurs. My wish is for all parties to have fun, enjoy the debate (win or lose) and come away with skills they have practiced and can use further on in their schooling and careers.

I have judges multiple events, however I spend most sessions in Debate, Congress, L-D and PF.

The opportunity for me to judge at Nationals several times has been exciting and very rewarding!

I want to be able to understand you, please speak clearly. My expectations for this

event are:

Disrespect is never ok, be fair to each other and treat people as you would like to be treated.

Be kind, to others as well as yourself.

Logical, clear arguments are appreciated!

"Don't raise your voice. Improve your argument." Desmond Tutu

Parent Judge. My daughter has been debating LD for two years now so therefore I have judged quite a bit, but I do not have any experience with debating myself. Please talk at a conversational pace, If I cannot understand hear/understand you I will not be able to decide whether or not you win. Please run a traditional case.

Newer parent judge working on my second tournament. I'll do my best to provide helpful feedback. As a new judge I appreciate going slow/no spreading and clear, well-thought-out arguments.

I am primarily a speech coach, so effective public speaking and rhetoric skills appeal to me. I prefer debates that stay centered on the topic to kritiks. Please no spreading. I don't mind fast-paced arguments, but I'd like to be able to flow what is happening effectively, and for that to happen, I don't want to be missing huge chunks of your argument because of speed. Thanks!

TLDR

Trad LD judge, ok with speed but be careful when spreading. Congress is about clash (reference your representatives) and presentation. Be nice.

Background/General

Email: pa.jonglertham@gmail.com

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.

LD

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.

Congress

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.

I debated PF for 3 and a half years (graduated 2020). I will flow the round and evaluate progressive arguments, but might get lost since it's been a while.

Speed - Don't talk too quickly. Especially if you are using speed as a weapon against your opponents - I consider that underhanded and will probably drop you. Please signpost when going from warrants to impacts, between cases, etc. so I have a better chance of flowing the way you want me to.

Jargon and Tech - Jargon is fine, but try to convince me as a person rather than a debate-evaluation computer. With that said, the round is way easier and more interesting to judge when both teams compare impacts/weigh.

My email is zfrancis@ad.unc.edu - Feel free to email me before or after the round, or if you have any questions about your feedback.

This is my third year judging LD as a parent judge. Please add me to the email chain: omicsoft@gmail.com

Preference: Traditional or Policy-oriented arguments > Mainstream Critical=Mainstream Philosophy > Theory > Esoteric concepts that can't be explained fully within the time limits.

I prefer traditional rounds with straightforward weighing and voter issues. I value clear logical connections between your arguments and your impacts. Furthermore, I will not extend anything for you. Please sign post, give an off-time roadmap, and try to stay organized.

Under any/all conditions on a lay circuit:

• No spreading
• No theory
• No tricks
• No spikes
• No Ad Hominem
• No Bigotry/Disrespect

For progressive debaters -

• Limit speed to <250 wpm for ALL your speeches - you don't need to email me your rebuttal speeches.
• DAs/CPs are perfect
• Keep your DAs topical

Good Luck!

I'm Ashley (she/her) and I debated for four years at Cary High School, all in LD, and captained my junior/senior years. I'm a senior at UNC Chapel Hill (It's always a GDTBATH!!). I debated mostly traditional and would define myself as a flay and flow-centric judge. Tech > truth. I've been judging in NC a few times a year for about four years now. If you wanna know more about me or have any general questions about college, UNC, debate, etc. 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: akat2468@gmail.com

My general judge philosophy:

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. Don't do it :)

EDIT for Caviler Invitational 2024: Make sure you're familiar with the NSDA evidence rules because we have to follow those.

2) Zero-tolerance policy for misconduct within a round. Don't make your opponent uncomfortable or unsafe. Kindness and politeness go a long way and are part of the speech and debate experience. Treat each other and everyone else throughout the day (team parents, teammates, coaches, volunteers, judges, etc) with the respect and kindness that they deserve. Don't forget that you represent your school as well as yourself.

3) Let me know beforehand if you're running trad or circuit so your opponent and myself can brace ourselves accordingly. If you're a circuit debater and Armando Bacot dunk on your inexperienced trad opponent I am going to be so very unhappy and it will be reflected in your speaks. Trad/circuit style clashes are a painful experience for everyone so try and make it as painless as possible. I have a high-ish threshold for extinction impacts so make sure your link chain is strong.

4) You can spread if you want. If you spread, you must disclose and you must speak clearly. I don't back flow off the speech doc during yalls prep time because that's unfair to the other debater. So, if you're unintelligible in round don't expect high speaks from me. I'm not an audio processor. However, I will look at the speech doc to fill in points that I managed to get on my flow during round and check evidence.

5) I have an expressive face, don't get scared!

6) If the framework debate is a wash or if there is no framework presented, I default to util and weigh the round accordingly.

7) If you are a high level circuit debater and want to run a super tricky prog round you might want to strike me because I don't have the capacity or experience to give your case the evaluation it deserves.

8) I don't flow cross. That is each debater's time to use as they please, whether it's for clarification questions, evidence questions, or beginning to develop an argument, so it doesn't factor into my RFD.

9) Keep your own time.

10) Have fun and be silly if you want!! Life isn't so serious and neither is debate.

Ways to earn speaks:

1) Style. Enunciate your words and be rhetorically advanced.

2) Clarity.

3) Cleverness !

4) Word economy.

My name is Melissa Matson, and I am a lay judge.

NO SPREADING! If you feel the need to speak so quickly that no one else in the round can understand, you need to shorten your case and/or speech. Not only is it unfair to your opponent, but I will likely miss many of your arguments. This means I cannot flow them or consider them in my decision. Fast conversational speed is generally acceptable.

I am most familiar with traditional debate and prefer attempts to engage directly with the resolution. If you decide to go another route, please explain it EXTREMELY WELL so I don't get lost.

Signposting and roadmaps are appreciated. Appropriate language and sportsmanship are expected.

LD specific: I enjoy hearing diverse frameworks. If you use a less common value (i.e. something other than morality, justice, etc.) or VC and support it well, I am inclined to vote in your favor and award higher speaker points.

Overview

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: jacob.gestypalmer@gmail.com. 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.

Feel free to read the arguments that interest you. I find many of the ways that people classify themselves as debaters, such as being policy or k or traditional or circuit, largely artificial distinctions. I similarly 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. As a logical extension of that, spamming arguments for the sake of spamming arguments is bad. 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 think its nice 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, DKP, Ed Lee, Becca Steiner, Gabe Morbeck, Mikaela Malsin, Marshall Thompson, CQ, Nick Smith, and Devane Murphy. Special thanks to Crawford Leavoy for introducing me to this activity and teaching me most everything I know about debate.

Specifics

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. 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, e.g. when answering a perm, but all the evidence you should need to win the 2nr on most positions should just be in the 1nc. If you sandbag reading your 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 goods 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. 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. Alternatives should be tangible, and you should have examples.

More often than not, it seems like I am judging K 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 – 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 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 second year as a judge. I have judged Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate events, both at the novice and varsity levels. I have also judged multiple speech events, including Extemp, Impromptu, HI, DI, etc. at the novice and varsity levels.

For Debate competitors:

My preference is for the debaters to speak slowly and clearly. It's better to have lesser but more impactful statements, rather than to cram in too much information all at once that doesn't flow properly. Debaters should also take advantage of the prep time available to them, instead of rushing into things.

Start with an off-time roadmap, in order to clearly describe what you will be speaking about and to keep yourself organized. Also summarize your key points in the beginning... and at the end. "Tell me what you're going to tell me, then tell me, and then tell me what you just told me."

Don't spread, as it tends to put you at a disadvantage with me as a judge and with your opponent who can use your spreading to attack you. Enjoy yourself, and be respectful to your opponent and your judge.

For Speech competitors:

Based on your event, take advantage of your opportunities to show emotion, changing of voice tones, gestures, and overall personification. Use roadmaps when appropriate, and speak clearly and slowly. Don't forget to clearly and accurately state the question / topic / title in your intro and in your conclusion, and summarize your answer / key points in your intro and conclusion.

I have been judging and coaching primarily LD, PF, and Policy debate for the past 28 years.

My preference is a moderate style of debate. Although, I can, and will keep up at any speed. I flow while judging and therefore appreciate the use by competitors of signposting.

Clearly state your Value Premise and Value Criterion. Let me know how they are related. And, be sure that your observations/contentions relate to your VP and your VC.

Be aware that definitions are important. An opponent may win a round by emphasis on the definitions of one or two key words in the resolution.

I am currently the debate coach at Middle College High School at Durham Technical Community College, a position that I have held since 2005. I started my debate coaching in 1997 at Hillside High School in Durham, NC. And, I was the first paid faculty debate coach at East Chapel Hill High School in the year 2000 under the leadership of principal Dave Thaden.

Education:

UNC-W (MALS) Master of Arts in Liberal Studies.

UNC-CH (NC Teach Graduate Program) Major, Education.

UNC-CH (BA) Subject Major, American History.

International Baccalaureate Certificate in North and South American History -

Nashville, TN

Victoria, Canada

Certified in Personal Financial Literacy from www.wise-ny.org/

My name is Julie Carroll Roseland, and I am the parent of a recent Cary High grad (three years of LD debate team experience) and a sophomore and current LD debate team member at Cary High. I am a first-year judge, so I am learning as you are. I appreciate it when individuals signpost, so that I can more easily keep up.

I like to handwrite my flow, so sometimes I need a couple of minutes after you've finished talking to catch up.

As a parent, I am already impressed with the amount of work and effort you've put in!

My involvement in debate began 4 years ago when my daughter started in the club. I have a very numbers based and analytical background. Using numbers that you can back up will be the thing that most sways my thinking. I don't mind a fast talker but you need to be clear. If I cannot understand what you are saying you can't convince me of your arguments.

Debate is an educational, competitive activity. It should be fun, fair, and productive. Practices which disincentivize intellectual discourse will not be tolerated. Above anything else, I’m looking for a good round that demonstrates a healthy clash of ideas. I want to leave the round with something to think about.

I debated traditional LD for six years, breaking to out-rounds at NSDA Nationals my sophomore year, but never once competed on the National Circuit. I have extensive background in Congress, competing twice in NSDA finals, as well as some experience with Extemp, Oratory, PF, BQ, and extemp debate. I’m open to most styles of argumentation, but definitely have some preferences. My paradigm serves as a general outline of my style, not a codified law.

Email: mtweden@unc.edu

GENERAL DEBATE PREFERENCES

1. I'll keep a loose flow. I write down what I think is important and what you tell me to.
2. Delivery matters. I can keep up with a fast talker but if you're going to actually spread please give me a heads up and make sure we all have case docs.
3. Signpost. Do it. The round is so much better if the clash is made clear to me.
4. Give voters. I like a good line-by-line as much as the next guy, but need to get some big picture framing from you.
5. Truth exists, reality exists. Absurd, radical, or violent critical theory won’t be entertained. In a general sense, I will view rounds in the context of liberal individualism, so it will take some work to convince me of communitarian, collectivist, or hyper-utilitarian frameworks.

LD JUDGING

1. I care a lot about burdens in LD. Aff holds an affirmative duty.
2. I want to see framework clash. I don't care who wins the value/criterion debate, I care who wins on the value/criterion which won the value/criterion debate.
3. Analysis really matters. 1) Cards don't win you an argument, you need to explain the evidence and its impact; 2) drops matter but it's tough for me to weigh if they're uncalled; 3) I'm fine with obscure link chains or extreme impacts but they need to make sense and seem coherent; 4) repetition is not refutation.
4. I'm okay with progressive debate tactics (I was a traditional LD debater primarily), but have a few thoughts I want to share in the interest of transparency.
5. I buy theory arguments because fairness does matter, but I don't want it to be a generic statement on the debate community, tailor theory arguments to the round.
6. There's no responsibility to introduce an Aff plan, but there's no rule against it; neg can engage on the level of the plan or critique this approach, either is fine.
7. Avoid K affs. I tend to think they don't meet the burden for the round. Ks need to be very clear about what they're advocating and have fully fleshed out structure. If aff gives a traditional case and neg runs a K, I will probably just weigh them as conceptual ideas and see who wins the debate on that level.

CONGRESS JUDGING

1. Play the role, you're a member of Congress.
2. Analysis matters more than anything else. I want to see your understanding of the nuance of a given issue.
3. I don't really like "we'll just pass another bill" arguments.
4. I really enjoy discussions on the effects of implementing legislation within existing political institutions.
5. Be consistent within the round - don't jump from being an isolationist to a war hawk in the span of 45 minutes. If I've seen you compete in a previous round, I will not care if you have totally changed positions or recycle speech devices/arguments.
6. The debate matters, please tailor your speech to be appropriate for its place in the round. Develop arguments and explain how they shape the debate. And if a point has been dragging on and on and on, don't feel the need to give another speech on the issue.
7. Avoid debate jargon as much as possible.
8. PO: set and enforce decorum, handle the chamber well, you set the tone. I think the best kind of PO is the one I don't even notice is in the room, running the chamber with invisible precision. I don't like over-the-top behavior as a PO.
9. Congress is particularly susceptible to equity concerns. It’s easy to feel excluded in a chamber, and even easier to unintentionally be a part of that exclusion. Please be inviting and welcoming and behave in good faith.

All of my spicy debate takes are explained more in-depth here: https://go.unc.edu/debate