Isidore Newman School Invitational
2022 — New Orleans, LA/US
LD Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].
I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).
My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!
All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!
First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.
Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:
1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.
2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.
Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.
The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!
Ask any other clarification questions before the round!
Background: Hello, my name is Lorelei Bailey (she/her/hers) and I am a past student judge. I competed in LD for 6 years and have judged debate tournaments ranging from middle school, novice, and varsity. I am currently an NPDA college debater at Tulane University. Debate is something I have enjoyed for the more significant part of my life, below I have some things I like to remind competitors about before rounds. Please do not hesitate to clarify any questions about my paradigm before the round begins.
Competition preferences (LD):
Please put me in the email chain- email: firstname.lastname@example.org
I competed as a traditional LD debater but I know progressive/tech well. Please off-time roadmap/signpost because I flow during every round I judge. Please keep time, I do time during the round but also prefer competitors to do the same, and use your prep time.
- Don't drop args.
- Consider organization.
- Use prep time effectively, same for the cross.
- If you're going to spread, make sure you actually can- don't attempt to if you can't do it "correctly"
- Unpopular opinion: tech and truth are equal and it is better to have a bad response to an argument than no response.
- AFF has the burden of proof.
- I'm more familiar with trad but am fine with progressive
Speaks: No clear formula, but here are my main consistencies
- I am fine with spreading as long as it is done well if you're able to speak clearly
- I like cross-examination and it does affect speaks during rounds I judge.
- A general rule of thumb: don't be rude
- Organization = higher speaks
- Time unused = lower speaks
- Fluency, clarity, etc = higher speaks
- I was told that CX is where the round is won which I think is generally true. CX takes organization skills, strategy, and direction. The intent of your questions is more obvious than you think...asking clarification questions (i.e "what is your V/VC") tells me that you are unprepared and did not listen to your opponent, you should be able to ask better questions than that.
- EXPLAIN your argument. If it is not relevant, I will not flow which could negatively affect you.
- Unpopular opinion, but tricks can be very useful, but only if the debater does it right.
- Substantive tricks: hijacks, determinism, and moral skepticism are the types I'm most familiar with.
- Theory tricks: not preferred at all, they're usually messy and just bad.
- Responding to Tricks: 1) Underplay, 2) line-by-line response, 3) generate turns
- Perfect DAs need to consist of 1) Uniqueness, 2) Impact, 3) Link, 4) Internal link
- How I like to respond to DAs/how to respond to a DA:
- Answer the link/ turn the link- When you make a “no link” argument, you are contending that the first step in the disadvantage will not result from supporting your plan.
- Answer the internal link/turn the internal link. When answering the internal link, you are essentially arguing that “A” will not produce “B.”
- Answer the impact/turning the impact. An impact answer says that the impact is false. An impact turn says that not only is the final impact not bad, but it is also good.
- Strats: 1) Use your affirmative to non-unique the disadvantage. 2) Use your affirmative to solve the impact. Think of a way that voting for the affirmative can prevent the impact. 3) Maintain an apriori claim
- Make sure your CP applies and is realistic to the topic. I think only topical CPs should be allowed in a round, but that is just my opinion.
- Responses: P.O.S.T
- P- Permutations (PERMS): These are the most common, I do not have a preference
- Severance permutations—Severance permutations attempt to do part of the plan and all or part of the counterplan and thus "sever" out of part of the plan. When done as a counterplan, it is often called a plan-inclusive counterplan or PIC.
- Intrinsicness permutations—Intrinsicness permutations attempt to do all of the plans, all or part of the counterplan, and something in neither the plan nor the counterplan. Their rationale is that the counterplan is not intrinsically competitive with the plan because the added actions make it possible to achieve the benefits of both the plan and the counterplan.
Competition preferences for Congressional Debate (CD):
If you need time signals, I will provide them but clarify how you would like them done. Eye contact is vital so I know when you are ready to begin speaking, this helps tremendously with timing.
- Don't make up your sources
- Don't rely on reading straight from your laptop, impromptu responses make Congress the event that it is, if you know the subject matter that is up for discussion then this shouldn't be an issue.
- POs: move the debate along, that's the essence of your role. Remain impartial to your school
Competition preferences (IE)
If you ask for time signals, I am more than willing to provide time signals. Project your voice and speak clearly. I evaluate characterization, speaking pace, and theme
For all competitors:
Have fun and enjoy competing !!! <3
I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.
I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case.
I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.
No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.
LARP - Don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Your links are bad, your impacts won't happen, and you're wasting my time. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't aspec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.
Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.
Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.
Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.
Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.
Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.
Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.
Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round.
Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts. Performance is important here.
Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.
Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.
Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true.
Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.
Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.
I will dock half a speaker point if you use Moen 16 or Goodin 95 in your framework. They are wildly overused, and most cuts don't say what people claim they do.
Since I've gotten some questions about this..
I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.
25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.
26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.
27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.
28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.
30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.
Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.
While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.
If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.
Public Forum Paradigm
I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.
I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".
Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.
No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.
No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.
The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.
- For any round-related correspondence, please utilize the following email address: email@example.com.
- I am an assistant debate coach at Albuquerque Academy in ABQ, New Mexico (mostly coaching CX and LD).
- I am a PhD candidate in philosophy at the University of New Mexico, and I specialize in German Idealism, hermeneutic phenomenology, and Lacanian psychoanalysis.
- I debated CX, LD, and PF (though mostly PF) in Dallas, TX and the surrounding areas throughout high school (2011-2014), and I debated on the NPDA/NPTE circuit with Rice University more recently (2015-2019). My partner and I finished second at nationals (NPTE) our senior years. I consider myself to be comfortable with traditional and progressive styles of debate.
- My pronouns are he/him/his.
- Please attempt to be as courteous to one another as possible.
- In terms of argumentation, I do not necessarily have a preference for which kinds of arguments you present (e.g., policy affirmatives, DAs, CPs, Ks, Theory, etc.), but I would like them to be thoroughly explained, well-warranted, and impacted out (including weighing/impact calculus) throughout the debate.
- I gravitate towards evaluating framework very highly in the round (e.g., sequencing claims pertaining to competing methodologies). It is very likely that, if you are winning the framework debate, you are ahead in the debate (according to my assessment).
- I approach theory and topicality by analyzing the interpretation/violation layer first and the standards/voters layer second. If the opposing team wins a "we meet," they have effectively no linked the argument in my judgment (and thus need not even address the standards/voters).
- In assessing the standards/voters layer of the theory/topicality debate, I am looking for (a) extensive comparison between the respective standards of the interpretation and the counter-interpretation with respect to the voters (i.e., internal link analysis) and (b) priority claims in regard to voters (How do the voters interact with one another? Does one ground the possibility of another?).
- On CPs and Ks themselves, I would prefer clearly marked solvency for both positions (I think CP/K solvency is pretty important - especially the question of "how do you solve the aff?" if this is an aspect of your position).
- I would like K links to be specific to the affirmative as opposed to more generic K links ("you use the state/capitalism/etc.") - if that's not the case, I am receptive to "no link" arguments from the affirmative.
- I think framework debates on Ks can be really educational, and I value framework pretty highly when considering which impacts matter in the round. Root cause claims can function as tiebreakers between competing frameworks.
- I like DAs with precise/lucid uniqueness stories and specific links to the affirmative.
- I enjoy arguments from the affirmative about how the DA links to the CP. I think some valuable offense can be garnered from these.
- I believe perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy, but I'm willing to evaluate the contrary.
- Also, if the perm text doesn't make sense (e.g., "do both" when alt text says "reject aff"), I will consider this argument in relation to the viability of the permutation.
My pronouns are he/him.
Saint Louis UDL policy debater in high school (2015-2018). Former president of NPDA parli debate at Tulane (graduating Dec '21). I began judging LD and PF in 2018. I now work full time doing intake in the housing unit at legal aid and part-time at the Louisiana Children's Museum and Audubon Nature Institute.
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org (also email me here if you have any questions or accessibility needs)
If you feel unsafe at any point in a round or during a tournament, let me know (either in person or via email) and I will do everything I can to get you out of the situation and get the issue handled w tab/equity office/tournament directors etc. Your safety comes first, always
I clap at the end of rounds
Please put cards in docs instead of the body of the email. I don't care if it's just one card - I want a doc.
Spring 2023 Update:
- I no longer think it is particularly useful to list all of my thoughts and preferences on specific arguments and debate styles in my paradigm. It shouldn't matter to you or affect the way you choose to debate. You should debate in a way that feels fun, educational, and authentic to you. I will judge the debate in front of me.
- I am not as involved in debate as I once was. Judging is now a special treat that requires taking off work. This could be good for you or it could be bad for you. Either way, it means I'm genuinely thrilled to be here.
- Be mindful when it comes to speed and jargon. I don't know the all the acronyms or buzzwords and I don't know community consensus or trends when it comes to things like counterplans or topicality.
Some general thoughts:
- TLDR: Read what you like and have fun with it! Whether you're reading a rage aff without a plan text or nine off in the 1NC, if you're into it, I'm into it.
- The best part of debate is the people. Be kind.
- I see my role as a judge as an educator first and foremost
- The best way to win my ballot is to filter arguments through impact framing. Why is your model/disadvantage/advocacy/etc more important? What does it mean to mitigate/solve these impacts in the context of the debate? Why is the ballot important or not important?
- Every speech is a performance. How you choose to perform is up to you, but be prepared to defend every aspect of your performance, including your advocacy, evidence, arguments, positions, and representations
- Tell me why stuff matters! Tell me what I should care about and why!
- If you are a jerk to novices or inexperienced debaters, I will tank your speaks. This is an educational activity. Don't be a jerk
- I don't know what "tricks" or "spikes" are. I judged a round that I'm told had both of these things, and it made me cry (and I sat). Beyond that, I've judged lots of traditional, kritikal, and plan rounds and feel comfortable there.
GOOD LUCK, HAVE FUN, LEARN THINGS
Anthony Berryhill (MBA, M.Phil., M.A., CSM, CSPO) | Judge Paradigm- updated 9/2/2023
email (for speech docs): email@example.com
- Professional background: Former Vice President of Learning (executive) at PIMCO, a leading fixed income firm. Stanford (BA) and Yale (PhD Candidate) alumnus--both in political science with a focus on contemporary political theory
- Current job: Running college admissions company (MBA/MD/PhD/undergrad) at www.elitecollegehacker.com.
- Recent Debate Career Highlights: Coach of 3 national champions (College PF, HS LD @ 2019 NCFL, HS PF - International TOC) | 6x LD Wording Committee member | NSDA Final Round Judge (Policy 2022, LD 2019-2022) | Former Managing Director at VBI | LD (TOC-NSDA-NCFL)/Extemp (NCFL)/Congress (NSDA Senate+NCFL) Qualified student @ Isidore Newman (1996-2000)
How I vote (in brief): I vote for the debater who -- through the appropriate decision rule (values, burdens, argument layer) -- convinces me that I should vote for their side of the resolution (and/or performance) above the other debater.
Good debate is good debate - I have judged late TOC and NSDA elims of all styles and historically have very successfully coached traditional, policy, performance (at the LD TOC), and K debaters.
I strongly prefer debates about the topic, but can be convinced otherwise if you pull it off well.
Speed is ok if you are clear, avoid monotone, and if you include me on the speech docs.
How to win my ballot and get high points (preferences):
- I strongly prefer debaters who do the work to cross apply, connect arguments together, extend evidence, signpost, and keep the flow clean. These students get wins and 29.5s+ with shocking consistency.
- I look for the easiest, most clear way to vote, so I can minimize/avoid intervention (within reason). I am not a judge who will reconstruct a round and read cards for 30 min after a debate. That's the debaters' job. The more work you do to write the ballot, the more weight I will give to your interpretations and positions.
- In-round analysis and smart strategy counts: Weighing, closing doors (telling me where you can lose and doing the hard work in detail to stop me from doing so), crystallization, and extensions will help you sway the ballot to your side.
- Clarity matters: I am biased toward debaters who do the work to explain very complicated ideas in a simple, clear, and accessible way. As a former PhD in critical theory @ Yale, I appreciate good argumentation, depth, and skill at explanation.
What I strongly dislike/what you will want to avoid:
- High Mental/Cognitive load/confusion -> judge intervention: It is in your interest to collapse arguments down in order to reduce how much I have to evaluate or consider. Otherwise, I get to be dangerously creative and decide how I want to vote, which I'd rather not do.
2. Misbehavior in rounds and debate politics. I judge by the "any given sunday" principle. I do not hack--and have never--hacked for anyone, any position, or at any time. Therefore any debater can win in front of me if they adapt. Make sure to avoid behavior that is out of bounds (swearing, use of inappropriate words, and other actions that parents/principals would disapprove).
3. A note about theory and identity arguments. If you need theory or identity based arguments, go for it. HOWEVER, frivolous theory or blippy arguments are not strategic in front of me.
Also, as one of the first students in circuit LD to run heavily race/gender based arguments (in the late 90s) I'm especially sensitive to students treating these arguments with the seriousness they demand.
Therefore, if you run identity arguments, please do not treat these as strategic pawns to be deployed without regard to ethics (i.e., I've seen some folks use racially insensitive language as a strategy, lie about misgendering/pronouns to trap opponents, claim that only people of a certain race can make certain positions, etc.) As an intersectionalist by training, I'm opposed to essentialism, stereotyping, and authenticity policing. Let's do none of that please.
I debated Lincoln Douglas for four years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, where I placed 9th at NSDAs and attended TOC.
The most important thing to winning my ballot is weighing. I try to evaluate the round as objectively as possible, so in your 2AR/NR you need to explain the layers of the debate and why I should prefer your arguments. If you don't adequately extend or impact an argument, I will have a tough time voting for it. Besides that, I evaluate all arguments on the flow. Below are some considerations:
I read all types of arguments in high school (philosophy, plans, disads, meta standards, etc), so feel free to read what you feel most comfortable with. That said, I especially enjoy nuanced and non-traditional positions (post-modernism, obscure-yet-topical authors, etc) , and will reward them with higher speaks. I award speaker points primarily based on organization and strategy. Please don't ask me to disclose speaks.
I am more than comfortable with speed, so long as you are clear (and I will shout "clear" or "slow" if you aren't). Please slow down for tags, plan texts, interps, etc.
Theory / Topicality
I see theory as a response to legitimate abuse, and have a very low tolerance for abusive arguments (multiple a prioris, PICs, abusive definitions, etc). I default to reasonability on clear-cut abuse, but can be persuaded to evaluate competing interpretations, assuming the abuse is not clear. That said, I do not enjoy watching theory debates, and would much prefer you point out the abuse to me as the judge, and get back to substance.
Kritiks, like theory or topicality, are a way of questioning the pre-fiat implications of your opponents' position. As a result, Kritiks must link to a practice your opponent performed, and there must exist a relatively predictable/reasonable way your opponent could have anticipated or predicted that this practice was bad. For example, I will not vote on an argument saying "the aff doesn't address black feminism", because it is unreasonable to expect the aff to read black feminism every round. For that reason, I am most willing to vote on stock, topical kritiks (like neoliberalism, colonialism, biopower, etc).
Talk Fast. Weigh. Don't be Abusive.
Appearance judge with a focus on delivery and reasoning. New to judging but spent time on circuit for the last two years. Spreading is not a comfort nor K's.
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.
2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!
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 stop flowing 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.
Isidore Newman '15; LSU '19 (BS Biochem, BA Sociology), LSUHSC '24 - CARE BSN
(please copy me when sharing docs)
I debated JV and V starting in eighth grade at Newman, and continued throughout my senior year. I competed on the local, regional, and national circuits from my first year to my last in LD, extemp, and impromptu.
At LSU I graduated with a BS in Biochemistry and a BA in Sociology. I graduated from the Roger Ogden Hadfield Honors College with College Honors, and from the Distinguished Communicator and Distinguished Researcher programs. While I did not compete in college, I did judge.
Things to consider:
- Expect me to flow the round. I haven't judged on the national circuit or debated on the national circuit in a while, so I can understand you while spreading, but I do still appreciate the performance element to debate. I can appreciate speed, so use your best judgement on how fast you should go (Hint: start slow, and then maybe pick it up; there is a way to eloquently demonstrate strong speaking ability and speed, which can be rewarded). I would appreciate it if you slow down for tags or anything else blippy you're really trying to stress, though.
- Tell me which part of the debate comes first and why you're winning it. I am not very particular about the types of arguments you run, but tell me why they are important and why you're winning them. Maybe this is old-fashioned of me, but I also like voters at the end. I should know by the time you get to them where you're winning, but clarify.
- Just because an argument is dropped doesn't mean I'll give you 100% weight on it if the warrants aren't there. Also, please don't extend dropped points in your last speech. If they are that valuable, this should have been brought up earlier.
- Lastly, be kind. If you are rude or don't stay professional, I reserve the right to dock you a few speaker points, as a result.
Feel free to email me, ask me questions before the round, etc. I am more than happy to answer them. For the most part I’m pretty go with the flow (pun intended), so just enjoy the round and remember debate is meant to be something we do for fun.
hi I'm a first-time parent judge.
- please speak slowly and clearly. I can't vote for you if I don't understand you.
2. try not to use debate jargon. if you do, clearly explain what you mean.
3. remember to weigh arguments and tell me why I should vote for you
4. please be respectful
Email chain please: email@example.com
PLEASE DO NOT PARAPHRASE YOUR CASE OR MISCUT EVIDENCE
1. CLARITY IS KEY!! That applies to speech, organization, signposting, etc.
2. Please warrant your claims and evidence once brought up, not later in the round or next speech (see point 1)
3. Speed is fine, I only judge what I can flow however, so I cannot say I am going to get everything down if you are spreading. With that said, if you want to spread make sure your opponent is okay with it. You shouldn't spread/speed in PF, it's in the rules and norms of the event. It is called PUBLIC forum for a reason.
4. I studied philosophy during my time in university. Please do not throw out theory or K's without having done the necessary background research to really know what you are talking about. The round will be messy because of it, which takes us back to point 1 on clarity.
1. Slow down, this isn't policy. You not only need to argue effectively, you need to persuade.
2. Principled arguments > specific examples and evidence. Not to say you shouldn't have specific evidence, but often the more philosophical grounds of reasoning get left out in favor of, basically, carded evidence
3. New arguments in the back half of the debate are unadvisable and don't allow the other side enough time to have a developed response.
4. Keep your eye on the screen for POI's, if you see one but are choosing to ignore it, indicate verbally or with a hand motion.
My ballot will be determined by my flow. Technical concessions are taken as truth.
Some random things that may be helpful:
---you can insert re-highlightings, re-cuttings of things not present in the original card should be read.
---please locally record speeches/turn on your camera for online debates.
---line by line is helpful for the purposes of my flow but I will attempt to write down as much of your rant as possible.
---I am generally a fan of creative and interesting strategies.
---"I have a lower bar for a warrant than most. I am unlikely to reject an argument solely on the basis of ‘being a cheap shot’ or lacking ‘data.’ Unwarranted arguments are easily answered by new contextualization, cross applications, or equally unwarranted arguments. If your opponent’s argument is missing academic support or sufficient explanation, then you should say that. I’m strict about new arguments and will protect earlier speeches judiciously. However, you have to actually identify and flag a new argument. The only exception to this is the 2AR, since it is impossible for the neg to do so." - Rafael Pierry
Former high school and college policy debater. More partial to critical arguments and theory but definitely enjoy thoughtful, strategic policy oriented arguments.
Affs: Make sure you're different from the status quo.
Negs: Make sure your disad links actually link. Make sure your counterplans and K alternatives are competitve.
I won't do any mental gymnastics for you. Be polite, learn, and have fun.
Former High School and College Policy Debater.
My general policy for judging is to be open to hearing ANY argument you wish to run and also open to VOTING on that argument if you can win it. But please note: I refuse to do any work for you. I will evaluate only what is said in the debate. I do not count points made in cross examination UNLESS they are mentioned/utilized in a speech.
Affs: I am open to hearing whatever kind of Aff you choose to run, be it a Plan , a K , or Performance. My only stipulation is that the Aff must deviate from the Squo in some substantial manner.
Counterplans: Love a good CP, but it better be competitive. Also there needs to be some Net Benefit to the counterplan.
Disads: I am all about the links. Please have good links. Arguments like 1% risk of a link are not persuasive to me and exposes the weakness of your links.
Kritiks: I was partial to the K when I debated so I am always happy to see a K ran properly. That being said, please do not assume I know your authors, please have some knowledge of your own authors. Please do not run a K that you have never read, researched, or argued. Please do a lot of work on the link debate and explain to me why i should prefer the alternative.
Theory: Love some good theory. I think most teams have theory as an afterthought. Please Dont. Properly debated theory will get you far in front of me.
- Stealing Prep
- Rudeness: debate is supposed to be both educational and fun. Be kind to each other.
I am a new judge. I probably lean toward appearance judging and focus on logic, clear presentation of points, and well cited evidence. Spreading is not preferred.
Background: Auburn '24/Mechanical Engineering/President of AEPi Theta/President of Hillel/NROTC. I debated at Isidore Newman School in policy debate and LD debate for four years, both on the local and national circuits. I never became what one would deem "good" or "competitive" at the activity until I made the switch to LD late junior year. Broke at a couple bid tourneys, a round robin, and NSDA Nationals my senior year. Interpret that as you wish. My paradigm will be overwhelmingly LD related, but most, if not all, of my paradigm can be applied to policy.
Email Chain: bengalfrog14 at gmail dot com
1. Progressive or Traditional? I’m good with either. Did well in both.
2. Truth testing or competing worlds? This is an interesting question. Personally, I feel as though national circuit LD largely consists "competing worlds" arguments. However, I feel as though truth testing arguments can still win many rounds on the national circuit. I ran both "truth testing" and "competing worlds" arguments during my time in LD, and am fine with judging both.
3. Tech or Truth? “TRUTH AND TECH MATTER EQUALLY. IMO judges who say TECH>TRUTH are dumb and failing their duties as educators. Arguments which are deliberately false, inconsistent with the literature, etc. will face a bias against them.” – Anthony Berryhill.
4. Speed? I don’t care. Go fast or go conversational. However, I fundamentally believe that debaters far too often go faster than they think they can go. Your speaker points will suffer if you do this throughout the round repetitively. I will only yell clear twice, after that I will not flow.
Specific Arguments (For the affirmative and negative):
1. Disadvantages: Love them. As I transitioned into LD from policy, I was already used to running disadvantages, even though at the time I still wasn’t particularly good at running them. The biggest thing about the DA is that they need to be a) well warranted, b) have strong links and c) have an impact that competes with the affirmative’s impacts. If you have all of these three things, guess what? You have a good disadvantage. If you lack one of these things, you’re walking the line. If you lack any more, you should probably kick the disadvantage. My personal pet peeve are links that go along the lines of “X might lead to this.” Your cards need to be “confident.” Also, have good sources. AND SHOW AUTHOR QUALS!! For the affirmative, respond to the individual warrants of the disadvantage. Disprove the validity of the link chain and/or impact and weigh against the impact, or impacts, of the disadvantage.
2. Counterplans: I also love them. Again, I was pretty used to the concept of the counterplan as I made my way into the world of LD. I also believe that counterplans are not used enough in traditional debate, which frustrates me. If run correctly i.e. not saying the actual phrase “counterplan” and adapting to the judge, a counterplan can be run in front of half of all traditional judges. But let’s go into specifics. The counterplan has to have some sort of net benefit in order to compete with the affirmative. This can take the form of a disadvantage, case turn, etc. But if such net benefit fails to be well warranted, have strong links, or a notable impact, the counterplan begins to fall apart, as it does nothing better than the affirmative. What should you take from this? Simple. If you are going to run a counterplan, have a GOOD NET BENEFIT. For the counterplan proper, there needs to be a plan text or some sort of advocacy I can vote off of. I’m fine with planks, but don’t make them excessive. And the counterplan follows the same three rules as disadvantages for me (with the net benefit’s impact serving as the “impact” for the CP). For the aff, I have one word. PERM. Ok, maybe that’s not all I have to say. But, perming was something I as a debater struggled with. I lost an out round just because I didn’t make a perm. Unfortunately, I see others make the same mistakes. Perming is essential. Since it’s usually run as a test of competition against the affirmative, my personal view of the perm is to disprove the net benefit from being legitimate. In other words, if the net benefit has no offense, then the permutation works as a test of competition. If you use the permutation as an actual advocacy, beware that you are beginning to sever out of the affirmative’s advocacy in the 1AC. I will not consider this in my voting UNLESS the negative calls the affirmative out on this.
3. The K: Oh boy. Generally speaking, I have never been a big fan of the K. Although many Ks address issues that occur in our society regardless of what resolution is presented, I find too often that the same Ks are used for YEARS without any updates to what is currently happening. Given this, you should contextualize whatever K you plan to run in front of me with the topic in addition to making sure the literature is still acceptable, both from an academic and social standpoint. Moving on, I never really ran Ks in my time as a debater. That was probably because I was so used to policy arguments as I morphed into LD, but for me, a good policy argument with turns, take-outs, and net benefits just seemed cooler than a K. In the end, run whatever K you think you can win off of. Just make sure the K has strong links and has a good alternative. I will not vote for Ks that have no alternative. For K affs, I will not vote for ANY unless they have some sort of advocacy, text, or simply a restatement of the resolution. Call me old school. I don’t care. For the affirmative, make permutations. Additionally, I big flaw I find with affirmative counter-arguments to Ks is that they attempt to disprove the actual arguments of the K. This can be troubling in front of a lot of Ks. A much better method generally speaking is to disprove the method of the K. Basically, don’t tell me racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, etc. don’t exist. Tell me why the K's approach to such issues is flawed.
4. Theory and Topicality: I find that my stance on topicality and theory arguments tend to be quite similar. Although some enjoy these debates, I personally am not a big fan. I never really ran these arguments unless there was actual abuse (in which case I won those rounds), but I, for whatever reason, see too many debaters who run these arguments just to run the arguments. Don’t do that in front of me unless you want your speaker points to suffer and risk losing the round off a well warranted RVI from the other side. If there is actual abuse, whether it be in the form of no disclosure, a plan text that truly is not topical, or no plan text at all, I am more comfortable voting off these arguments. But be careful. I can usually tell when one’s faking with these arguments. In other words, don’t run four disadvantages and in your topicality shell then tell me that you are limited in your arguments. For the aff, calling out these fake arguments is key, in addition to running the typical standards arguments, counter-interpretations, etc. that you would usually find in these rounds.
5. Case Debate: One of the biggest problems that I see is that case debate is becoming non-existent. I see this in traditional debate and progressive debate. And when there is case debate, it’s usually just cross-applications of off-case positions. That is a poor strategy. If you want my ballot, you need to address most, if not all, of the warrants on the case and turn every one individually. Struggling to do that? Then run a disadvantage in the form of a turn on the case. You need to take out the case with multiple arguments that turn the affirmative’s warrants. Cross applications don’t do that. For affirmatives, don’t drop these case turns. If no turns are made on the case, call the negative out on it and use it to your advantage. Not making case turns is a drop in my book. And it’s almost a drop in my book with cross applications. Negatives, beware of this. Affirmatives, be attentive of this.
6. Tricks: I will either not flow, sleep, or walk out of the room if you run tricks. Don’t test me.
7. Framework: I like saving the best for last. Why is framework the best kind of argument in my opinion? Because it shapes the way one views the round. If you lose the framework debate and don’t do any weighing between values, value criterions, or whatever metric the round is being measured with, your chances of winning the round are slim. With that being said, the best framework debates are ones in which a) you explain why your framework (or more specifically value and value criterion) is better and why b) even if you lose the framework debate, you still win under your opponent’s framework i.e. weighing. This should be textbook debate, but I still see debaters who never weigh in the framework debate. It makes me very sad.
Conclusion: There’s a quote I’d like to share. Football coach Dutch Meyer once said, “Fight ‘em until hell freezes over. Then fight ‘em on the ice!”. If you debate with passion, energy, and the drive to win, I will reward that, whether it be in the form of speaker points, a win, or both. Debate is not just a game. It’s a competition. So compete.
EMAIL CHAIN: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with.
Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop. I've been saying for a couple years now that I cannot physical handle the top debaters speed any longer. I will not backflow or flow from doc. This is an oral activity so adjust. I am very expressive in round and you should have no issue discerning if I am with you or not. For me it is definitely that my pen times needs more time, so look periodically and you should be fine.
The older I get the more triggered I find I am when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it outspread your opponent then I am not your ideal judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time.
If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible.
I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).
This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.
I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.
A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).
If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.
Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms do a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.
In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.
I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.
I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.
I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.
If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.
If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.
If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.
I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.
I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.
Finally Word for All
I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.
EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.
Please just call me Hertzig.
Please include me on the email chain: email@example.com
QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)
CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.
Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)
Trad debate - 1
T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)
High theory Ks - 4
Theory - 4 (see below)
Tricks - strike
*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).
If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.
I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.
I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).
I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.
For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).
Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.
To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.
LINCOLN - DOUGLAS
I judge components of LD in a hierarchy of burdens each debater has to fill:
1) FRAMEWORK - Value first, criterion second. I need to know the "what" of importance as related to the resolution before you tell me "how" that importance will be met in your criterion, and ultimately your case. If either side drops framework, it makes the round very difficult for them to win.
2) AFF CASE, BURDEN OF PROOF - The affirmative is the side advocating change. They therefore establish the arena that everyone plays in. They need to show how their perspective on the case represents the value the best and how that value substantiates a deviation from status quo. I need to see legitimate, topical blocks that fortify framework. Dropped aff arguments are devastating.
3) NEG CASE, BURDEN OF REJOINDER - The negative case has the responsibility to refute proof when aff has met their burden. Silence is consent. The negative cannot simply ignore or blatantly dismiss affirmative arguments, logical substantiated claims and warrants are a must for me to determine an aff point or subpoint has been refuted.
The side that best upholds framework, and also has the strongest aggregate amount of legitimate arguments standing at the end of the round gets my ballot...
I will evaluate Public Forum as if I am a jury of 12 and you all are the lawyers. Pro is the Prosecution and Con is the Defense. What is on trial is the status quo in relation to the topic at hand. Pro/Aff in any debate round advocates for a change. Pro accuses the Con side of creating a risk with complacency in our current condition. Pro must present that change implied in the resolution has lower risk and higher benefits, and do so in effective qualitative ways, as opposed to a quantitative approach in policy debate.
Now, unlike a courtroom, Pro does not necessarily have to prove their side "beyond a reasonable doubt" but instead, "on balance" - which basically means I have to find 51% or more favor to their side. I will look for the Con team to punch holes in this effort and basically convince me that either A) change is not necessary or B) the change the Pro side advocates is bad.
My ballot goes to the side that presents the least risk, and a better future outcome than what their opponents call for.
What I will be looking for from competitors in Congressional Debate is speech structure, relevant, reliable evidence and content uniqueness. Repeating talking points from prior speeches without enhancing discussion of the question is worse than saying nothing. Build onto prior points, refute prior claims, or create new angles of discussion. Be a part of the process, and do not aim to slow it down with parliamentary tricks. Use the procedure to benefit the procedure.
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.
No spreading, unless you want to lose me. Ultimately the argument that I find most logical and makes the best points will win.
Hello! I'm Logan, I'm a sophomore political science major at the University of Arkansas. Thanks for taking a chance to look at my paradigm. I'll try to be brief. Any questions? Reach out at LJM014@uark.edu.
I did PF all 4 years of high school, with little exceptions. Congress a few times.
For starters, you'll instantly be dropped for Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Classism, etc. be nice.
Please time yourself. Grace period of 30 seconds, as usual, and you'll lose speaker points for going beyond that. I expect a well timed first speech. (PF: 3:55-4:05, LD 1AC: 3:55-4:05)
I can do some lifting to figure out what your argument is on my end if things are unclear, but please try to communicate your argument to me as clearly as possible. Good organization and doing well on the flow will outweigh your speaking if you do it really well. If you do good at both, that maximizes your chances, but if you clearly outshine your opponent on one or the other I'll take that into consideration.
If both teams do well in one thing I will tiebreak with the other. So, if teams are equally good on case, I will decide the round on speaking. The opposite is also true. If a round is decided on case, I'll consult my flow, so please be as clear as possible with contentions and subpoints, as well as framework.
Spreading is not my preferred way of delivering or receiving a case. If you spread and I can't understand you, I will dock your speaker points and your case may not get onto my flow the way you hoped. I can follow if you signpost and slow down on points of emphasis. Failure to do this properly will cost you speaker points AND "points" on the flow if I can't faithfully represent your case on the flow because you're speaking too fast.
You'll do well on case if you're organized. On the flow, I'll allow you to pick something up that's dropped, but it'll count against you that it was dropped in the first place, so try not to drop things. I'm going treat drops the way the debaters treat the round. A more trad round, I'll let you pick up dropped things as long as the clash is strong, for prog rounds, I'm not gonna allow it.
You'll do well on speaking if you're clear, concise, and don't yell. Please do not yell or raise your voice. Passion is fine if you care about the topic, but I'll find it hard to believe that the U.S. Ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is getting you out of the bed in the morning. That being said, be passionate within reason. Don't yell, I'll tolerate some profanity, but not if it's a direct affront to your opponents. I like to flow, it helps me judge the debate, so please signpost. One last word about spreading, do so at your own risk, if I can't understand you I can't flow properly, and that will hurt my ability to weigh your points against your opponent if they speak more clearly than you.
Framework/Criterion: is massively important to me. I love to see good, strong debate about the framework. I'm proficient in a lot of Framing like Kant, Hobbes, Util, etc. but if your framework is out of the ordinary, please explain. I expect to see evidence supporting your use of the framework, or it doesn't count. Debating framework requires Claim, Warrant, and Impact just like everything else.
Impact: Impact is something that a lot of people don't understand. I want to see terminal impacts, economic impacts, moral impacts, etc. Please include impact calculus if there is debate over impacts. I will prefer the impact with the strongest Impact calculus.
Impact Calculus:I love clear and obvious impact calculus. Tell me "the severity is x people harmed", or "the timeframe is 2 years", and use expert analysis to substantiate it. It's going to stay on the flow better if you're letting an expert argue it for you.
I'm fine with Theory, K, Topic Interp, plan, counterplan, turn, etc. but just make sure that you have a sound argument of these things. I can follow your theory, k, interp, etc. but I'd like that to be run as an aside to a more independent case.
Just speak as clearly and concisely as you know how and you'll do okay. You'll only score lower than 25 if you're rude, racist, homophobic, etc. Most speakers should expect to score between 27-30. I'll score in halves if necessary.
I'll be able to tell if you read my paradigm. I expect technically sound and passionate debate, but, most of all, I know debate is a fun time, and I hope to see that. Have fun!
Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate
Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot
Put me on the email chain @ email@example.com
speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)
tech over truth
I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.
I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.
weighing.... weighing.... weighing.
I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.
Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...
I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.
This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.
I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.
I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis
I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.
Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.
For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net
CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.
LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.
PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.
Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.
Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.
Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.
Hello debaters! I am a parent volunteer judge and I’m very excited to be here with you all. I have been trained on judging this specific style, but have little judging experience. My son is a 4th year Congress debater. I’m eager to learn from you all and give you feedback from my perspective!
If you plan on spreading and/or are running a progressive case, please share your case with me to this email address: firstname.lastname@example.org
True spreading will be difficult and very new for me. When possible, please slow down slightly so that I can take thorough notes and give you the best feedback & results.
Hello debaters! I am a parent volunteer judge and I’m very excited to be here with you all. I have been trained on judging this specific style, but have little judging experience. My son is a 4th year Congress debater. I’m eager to learn from you all and give you feedback from my perspective!
If you plan on spreading and/or are running a progressive case, please share your case with me to this email address: email@example.com
True spreading will be difficult and very new for me. When possible, please slow down slightly so that I can take thorough notes and give you the best feedback & results.
Strake 2023 update: I have not judged debate for about six months and even then I was barely judging so I am very, very rusty. I'd say my flowing skills are like 75% of what they used to be. Paradigm is all updated for this tournament.
My Judge Stats from Nelson Okunlola's script in like 2022: "Out of 202 rounds, you voted AFF 48.02% of the time and NEG 51.98% of the time. Out of being on 48 panels, you sat 6.25% of the time (3 total) (solid imo)"
Lindale '21 U of Houston '25
Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible
Phil - 1/2
Theory - 2/3
Policy - 1
Tricks - Please just read policy, I'll evaluate it I guess but please don't make me ;(
K - 3
Paradigm Summary: I'm a third year out who's taught at TDC a couple of times, coached every type of student under the sun from a security K fiend to an extinction good lover to a policy head to a hyper technical theory gamesman to nerdy phil debaters and have judged more rounds than I can count. I can judge all styles of debate but fair warning I haven't judged actively in about a year so I am rusty.
I am a junior at UH - I coached for DebateUS! in my freshmen year of college and taught at DebateDrills, TDC, and HUDL in the summer between freshmen and sophomore year of college. During sophomore year I slowly phased out of debate and I judged less often only coaching McNeil at a few tournaments. My only connection to debate now is helping out TDC in backend work.
I evaluate the debate through the easiest ballot route and absolutely adore judge instruction - I wouldn't call myself a "lazy judge" but the less work that I have to do the best. Do my job for me and it'll pay off (also a good tip in general - write your RFD for your judges).
- Probably comfortable with whatever author you read
- Syllogism > Spammed independent reasons to prefer
- Dense framework debates should have good weighing and overviews to make them resolvable
- General Principle means nothing, just answer the counterplans
- default epistemic confidence
- I can evaluate K debates but I'm probably a mediocre judge for it - there are better judges than me at this and there are worse
- Specificity is always better - please don't read generic state/fiat/util/etc links
- Please stop being rude as part of your performance (e.g not answering questions for queer opacity or acting strange as part of baudrillard)
- Do not read nonblack afropess in front of me. I am not afraid to give you an L0 after the 1NC.
- Flex your knowledge! Pull out those historical examples, K debaters are at their best when they can really prove they've done their homework.
- I've really grown to love policy debate and I think it's probably close to my favorite style. I've judged the best policy debaters in the last few years and really, really appreciate very in-depth topic knowledge.
- Weighing, weighing and more weighing
- Will evaluate your wacky impact turns
- Please do more case debate. I repeat, please do more case debate. No such thing as too much time on case - I mean that. The best 1NC, 99% of the time, is 0 off case.
- Perms are tests of competition not advocacies
- Don't think voters are needed (every standard can be impacted out independently and probably connects to both fairness and education)
- I think RVIs get a bad wrap - they can be very useful to deter bad theory (e.g an RVI against shoe theory)
- Will evaluate all theory but my bar for responses to non-argument related theory (e.g must wear a santa hat theory) is much, much lower than my bar for responses to argument related frivolous theory (spec status, afc, etc)
- Default on drop the debater, competing interps, yes rvis
T-Framework v K Affs
- Debate bad affs that don't offer some microcosm or "solution" are silly
- 1AR probably needs a counter interp/what debate looks like in the aff's world
- TVAs are overrated and usually don't solve the 1AR offense (unless specific to the aff, then maybe but still probably not)
- It's not enough to just say "SSD solves" you should explain why and how that's specific to the aff
- the 1AR should still do LBL and the 2NR should not be 3 minutes of an overview that can be summarized in "I think clash is cool"
- If you don't have too, please don't.
Make me laugh- I've probably been judging a thousand rounds that day and could use entertaining rounds just have fun with it and don't take debate too seriously
I try to keep a 28.5 average but my friends make fun of me for being a speaks fairy
Just have a good time - we all do debate because we think it's fun so have fun with it and make sure your opponent is having a good time as well. If you're being kind to your opponent and we're all having a good time, it will be shown on the ballot.
You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that.
My favorite debates that I've judged so far:
JWen v Max Perin @ Emory Quarters 2022
Daniel Xu v Miller Roberts @ TFA Prelims 2022 (Only ever double 30)
JWen v Anshul Reddy @ King RR 2022
firstname.lastname@example.org for cases/cards
I see each round as a game: I start at 27 speaks, from there you win points for well-made arguments, good use of cards, and clear attacks and rebuttals and you lose points for dropped arguments, poorly sourced or clipped cards, and vaguely linked or unclear impacts. However, I won't flow dropped arguments to your side unless you call them out!
- The easiest way to earn speaks is to clarify the voting issues and prove how and why you outweigh. I'll weigh the round based on the criteria you give me, so be sure to give me a metaphorical rubric!
- I'm a tabula rasa, so I'll vote exactly how you tell me. Hit your framework/V/VCs early and often.
- I like to see claim-warrant-impact. I flow what you say, not what I think you mean.
- Spreading doesn't scare me and will not affect your speaks, but I prefer conversational speed and good delivery.
- Cards should be clearly cited and available for review should there be a conflict over source validity or context. Clipping will not be tolerated.
- Signpost - reference the contention # or subpoint in speeches and CX.
- CX is for questions, not rebuttals.
- LD: I prefer you not run a K or using theory shells, but if you do it won't lose you points unless you do not explain in great detail what it means, why it's the right move for the round, and why I should weigh it over your opponent.
- Policy:Not a policy coach, so run whatever you'd like, just explain it to me as you go.
Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.
T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen AND CAN BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.
Also, very very important! Affirmatives have to do something to change the squo in the world in debate etc. If by the end of the debate the affirmative cannot demonstrate what it does and what the offense of the aff is T/Framework becomes even more persuasive. Framework with a TVA that actually gets to the impacts of the aff and leverages reasons why state actions can better resolve the issues highlighted in the affirmative is very winnable in front of me.
DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly
CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit
K- I am familiar with most of the k literature
CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at
In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).
First let me explain how to get a Hot L:
So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L
THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING
Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean
Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples
I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc
I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating
Tristan Rios (they/them)
BTW looking for teams to coach, feel free to reach out via email
Email - Trisrios6955@gmail.com - plz put me on the email chain
for organizational reasons please make the subject of the email chain "Tournament - Round # - Aff team v Neg team" or something similar
who on hell is Tristan?
I am currently debating at UT Dallas (2022-Present), I have been debating for 6 years prior - 2 years at Lopez Middle school (2016-2018) , and 4 years at Ronald Reagan High school (2018-2022)
last year i was an assistant coach at Coppell as well as a coach for a few individual cx and ld teams
I have done it all, from occult horror storytelling to trans theory to baudrillard, to the all foreboding framework makes the gamework, the kids i coach also go for a very wide variety of arguments from exclusive k teams to policy fascists. Both me and the kids I coach have gotten bids and been to the toc. I state this not as a flex but more so to state that even though I may seem very k leaning (and I admit it is the literature i read the most in my freetime) but I have successfully coached and am aware of a wide variety of argumentative styles which means you will do best if you do you, dont try to adapt. if I think an argument is bad that doesn't mean i dont evaluate it, it just means i have a higher expectation for the other team to answer it well.
- trigger warnings
- anysort of interpersonal "-isms" that is done from debater to debater
- generic links are fine as long as they are contextualized to the aff
- I want to be on the email chain, but I am not going to “read-along” during constructives. I may reference particular cards during cross-ex if they are being discussed, and I will probably read cards that are important or being contested in the final rebuttals. But it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow (or lack thereof).
- I default to viewing every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact IF not told otherwise. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.
- I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.
if u send blocks during the debate +0.3 speaks
if u open source + 0.1 speaks
Note for LD:
i know alot of tech judges have a strange amount of distaste for evaluating traditional debate, but dont worry about that with me, i will happily judge the round regardless of your stylistic preferences
This is the first debate I have ever judged. I am here as a chaperone. Please, do not speak fast, do not go off topic, do not run "tech" arguments - I will not be able to evaluate the round properly if you do, given my lack of experience. Be aware that I am a first time judge, and use this opportunity to work on delivering clear, concise, simple arguments, otherwise you run the risk of me not understanding what you are trying to say.
Hello! I am Jharick Shields. I am a speech and debate coach at St. Andrew's Episcopal School. Debate allows us the ability to critique the world and to substantively engage with those criticisms. It is a forum in which we communicate those ideas. How you communicate in front of me will directly correlate to the ballot I write. I default techy truth>tech/truth. You need to show me that you are reading the sources you are citing. You need to prove that you understand the context behind the arguments you run. You should engage with the arguments of your opponent. Is T engagement with an aff that is nontopical? I would say yes. However, the debater that will earn higher speaks from me will also critically think and engage the affirmative.
Speed is an part of the game of debate. Judge adaptation is also part of the game. During the time of virtual tournaments, I am going to need for you to slow it down a bit. If you want to gradually get faster as the round goes, that is fine. I will say clear as often as I need. After coaching and judging debates, I have no problem saying that I missed something on my flow. If the argument is super important, mention that in the signpost and weigh it. Don't assume that an extension through ink is enough for me to pull the trigger. A lot of times in great debates, amazing weighing tends to win out on cold concessions. Great debaters explain why the argument was conceded. I think that the best debaters figure that out, and close the door on them. I prefer few, well developed argument to many. However, its your world. Just don't assume I got everything you said.
I am an old fashioned policy kid, who was fortunate enough to do LD as well. Policy arguments are my heart. I like great plan texts, plan flaws are a thing, CPs with net benefits, strong case debates, Ks(bonus for Ks with policy alts). If thats what you do, I am a really good judge in those rounds. You still have obligations to communicate...
If you are a traditional debater, I still have plenty of love to share. Some of the best rounds I have seen on the national circuit are kids reading a traditional aff. I watch as their opponent gets ready to run 5 off and case. The 1ar gets up, extends their conceded criterion/case evidence, no links the DAs/Ks, perms the CP and sits down. And maybe the debater doesn't use those terms, but if you make the argument clearly and labeled, I will bridge the educational gap in debate jargon. I am also a very good judge for you.
If you caught me during high school, maybe I could have gotten into tricks/skep stuff. Basically, I can evaluate it, and if both debaters are going down that road together, I won't be as upset going there. I think HEAVY weighing is the only way that I won't gut check for anything else in that debate. Maybe not the best for you, but maybe you just need a somewhat tech judge in a small pool then I am good.
Honestly, I just am really excited to see debates. Run what you want, be respectful, have fun! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me prior to the round.
Tech Issues: Be sure to make a local recording of your speeches. If you disconnect, this will be the only way that I will evaluate the content of that speech. I find this to be the most equitable way to deal with this issue.
Theory: I am a firm believer in the power of theory to check abuse in debate. We need it. When done correctly it is truly one of my favorite arguments to evaluate in rounds. More often than not, they end in one side being called some ad hominem, then a cat fight about what happened in pre-round prep ensues. Sigh. So what I am going to do is set up how I evaluate theory, period. You have a shot at convincing me to evaluate it differently, but you will have to be very persuasive.
I default competing interpretations. I don't think that is too hard to do. If you have offense about how violating the interp means your opponent is racist, sexist, abelist. I am going to hold that interpretation to the ultimate degree. These type of accusations matter. We live in a society where these isms affect peoples lives. I do not deny the impact that they have in this debate space, as one of my favorite coaches likes to say, "I have the receipts". However PSAs addressed as Theory shells(and to the same degree Ks) do not warrant my ballot. As a result, ink based concessions do not replace work here. Show me how violating the interpretation leads to the voters you claim. I need this in theory debates! If we are going to discuss good norms for debate, I think that we shouldn't be disingenuous and claim that our norm is what black, queer, womxn, trans, people with disabilities, etc. NEED to make debate a safe place for them. There are quite a few structures that exist in debate that makes life hard for a lot of people, your shell will not solve it. If I don't feel as though following the interp resolves the voters, I am not voting on the shell, period. As the debater who introduces theory, you have the obligation to convince me that your interp is the norm we should follow. I am just not going to check in for conceded theory without a good ballot story anymore.
Very excited to judge world schools. I've judged it a few times over the past couple of years (because I'm usually in LD and Policy land). I did it in high school as well.
The biggest thing I want to see in rounds is impacting and weighing. Don't just recap the argument for me, tell me what happens and why it is important. Otherwise, you should be just fine!
I've been mostly judging/working with WSD this year so my ability to flow spreading is honestly terrible. I can handle above conversation speed but past that you run the risk of me missing things. All my preferences on arguments are the same but the way you deliver has to change.
I'd love to be on the email chain. My email is email@example.com
I'm the current assistant coach at Coppell High School where I also have the lovely opportunity to teach Speech & Debate to great students. I did LD, Policy, and Worlds in High School (Newark Science '15) and a bit of Policy while I was in college (Stanford '19). I'm by no means "old" but I've been around long enough to appreciate different types of debate arguments at this point. As long as you're having fun, I can feel it and will probably have fun listening to you, too!
Pref shortcut for those of you who like those:
Theory (if it's your PRIMARY strat - otherwise I can be preffed higher): 3
Credentials that people seem to care about: senior (BA + MA candidate) at Stanford, Director of LD at the Victory Briefs Institute, did LD, policy, and worlds schools debate in high school, won/got to late elims in all of those events, double qualled to TOC in LD and Policy. Did well my freshman year in college in CX but didn't pursue it much after that. Now I coach and judge a bunch.
LD + Policy
Literally read whatever you want. If I don't like what you've read, I'll dock your speaks but I won't really intervene in the debate. Don't be sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, or a classist jerk in the round. Don't make arguments that can translate to marginalized folks not mattering (this will cloud my judgement and make me upset). Otherwise have fun and enjoy the activity for the 45 or 90 mins we're spending together! More info on specific things below:
I get this. The role of the ballots/framing is really helpful for me and usually where I look first.
I understand this. If reading against a K team I'd encourage you to make argument about how fairness/education relates to the theory of power/epistemology of the K. Would make all of our lives better and more interesting.
I also understand this. But don't abuse the privilege. I am not a friv theory fan so don't read it if you can (or else I might miss things as you blip through things).
I understand this too. Slow down when the cards are shorter so I catch the tags.
I don't default to anything necessarily however I do know my experiences and understandings of debate were shaped by me coming from a low income school that specialized in traditional and critical debate. I've been around as a student and a coach (I think) long enough to know my defaults are subject to change and its the debaters' job to make it clear why theory comes first or case can be weighed against the K or RVIs are good or the K can be leveraged against theory. I learn so much from you all every time I judge. Teach me. Lead me to the ballot. This is a collaborative space so even if I have the power of the ballot, I still need you to tell me things. Otherwise, you might get a decision that was outside of your control and that's never fun.
On that note, let it be known that if you're white and/or a non-black POC reading afropessimism or black nihilism, you won't get higher than a 28.5 from me. The more it sounds like you did this specifically for me and don't know the literature, the lower your speaks will go. If you win the argument, I will give you the round though so either a) go for it if this is something you actually care about and know you know it well or b) let it go and surprise me in other ways. If you have a problem with this, I'd love to hear your reasons why but it probably won't change my mind. I can also refer other authors you can read to the best of my ability if I'm up to it that day.
Last thing, please make sure I can understand you! I understand spreading but some of y'all think judges are robots. I don't look at speech docs during the round (and try not to after the round unless I really need to) so keep that in mind when you spread. Pay attention to see if I'm flowing. I'll make sure to say clear if I can't understand you. I'll appreciate it a lot if you keep this in mind and boost your speaks!
Yes, I want to be on the email chain. firstname.lastname@example.org
UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.
Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!
Bentonville West High School Speech & Debate Coach
I have been a coach and competitor in the forensics/speech/debate world for 20+ years. I specialize in speaking. Speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. Please don't just read to me. I want to see your speaking & delivery skills as much as I want to see your arguments. Make clear arguments and focus on line-by-line analysis. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team with the best line-by-line argumentation.
Back your claims and counterclaims with solid cards. I'm an analytical thinker when it comes to debate rounds. I want to hear your claims back with more than your opinion.
I am a tab judge and willing to listen to any argument. However, don't kill a dead horse or bet your case on minuscule points. Support your claims with professional backing. Make your points clear and understandable. Make sure you link to the resolution.
I enjoy a clearly organized debate with strong signposting, road-maps, and line-by-line analysis. Organization is key to keeping the flow tidy as well as maintaining clash throughout the round.
PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. Adapt your case structure/speaking style, to adhere to this request. I'm a speaker. I expect solid speaking skills. I can deal with fast speaking as long as you are clear. However, I'm a traditional judge. Don't spread in styles outside of CX. If you do speak quickly, make sure you're clear. If I miss your argument because you're not clear, it could cost you the round.
Be sure to read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution/framework. If I don't understand the argument itself or don't understand how it links, there is no way I can evaluate it.
You're not going to win rounds with me in cross. Just because you bring a point up in cross does not mean I will flow it. If you want it considered, bring it up in your rebuttal. Keep it professional. A true debater can give their points without sounding demeaning or disrespectful. It will cost you the round with me. Learn to disagree respectfully.
I am by no means a lay judge, but I judge PF & WSD rounds as if I am. Don't use debate jargon in these rounds. Speak to me as if I had never heard the word debate before. That's the design of these styles.
If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.
Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in any way. Be respectful to your opponent and judge. Use professional language at all times.
This is your debate so have fun with it! Best of luck to you!!
- I don't like crappy cheap-shot arguments.
- I like substantive debates about the core controversies of the topic. My preferences have evolved over time to become very similar to Gordon Krauss's. I would look at their paradigm for specific thoughts that I might also hold. However, I am more reluctant to judge critical negatives and less reluctant to judge critical affirmatives (affs that talk about the topic) than they are.
- Let me know if you need any accommodations/anything before or during the round so you're more comfortable. Don't be late, don't contact me after the tournament ends.
- Not a fan of blanket good/bad claims and I will appreciate specificity. Make arguments you understand.
- The decision is yours but speaker points are mine. You can read incredibly bad arguments in hopes your opponent will miss something. I will evaluate that round objectively and if you win, you win. But you'll get <27.5 speaks!
- I don't flow off the doc.
I debated LD for four years at Dulles High School (co 2017). Won UIL TX State my sophomore year, qualified to TOC junior and senior year, won Isidore Newman Invitational junior and senior year, and competed in out rounds of many large TOC qualifiers (Blake, UT, Greenhill, St. Marks, UH, etc), invited to a few round robins (Kandi King, Newark, Holy Cross). Won many local Houston tournaments, placed as speaker in most tournaments I broke at.
Through my career I read many different types of arguments (critical, util, philosophy, theory/T. I personally enjoy critical and philosophical literature, and abhor tricks style debates. I'm an entrepreneur by profession, but I read many an anti-capitalist critique in high school. That being said, read what you prefer but you will not get my favor with tricks or frivolous arguments. Additionally, don't say anything offensive to someone (and don't be rude/swear).
I've been out of the activity for several years now, so please slow down when reading tags. I will say "clear" or "slow" as needed. Include me on the email chain, I will check warrants in evidence if called into question: email@example.com
I believe debate is an educational forum. I was coached by Chris Vincent and influenced by Clement Agho-Otoghile. Debate is about persuasion and public speaking - it is your responsibility to articulate and clash arguments. I won't extend arguments, make arguments, clash arguments, etc for you. It is also a game of logic and fair competition. I will not vote on something that I cannot articulate myself at the end of the round.
I have no preconditions when coming into the round. Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.
At the end of the day, let's have a good contest. You've all worked very hard to be here, and you should be proud of yourselves as such. Good luck to all!!
Yes, email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm a former debater, but I'm returning to judge after many years away from competition. As a judge, I want you to understand how I'll weigh your arguments, what will be the consequences of dropping arguments versus extending arguments, etc.
You win points with me through arguing specificity. Since your job is to persuade, I expect a good clash. I'm judging your ability to argue rhetorical fallacies or consequences of the aff or neg. Again, when you raise your arguments, be consistent and extend the argument through your speech.
Speed is fine, but clarity is king.
James Bowie 19
I debated on the Texas circuit for 4 years and qualified for the TOC my senior year.
I'm teaching (or have taught at) NSD Flagship/Texas, TDC, Flex Debate.
TLDR- I like most arguments. I read mostly critical positions but would prefer you to just read whatever you are best at- persuasion is important to me because i don't want to be bored.
no excuse for being late to online debate - log in and keep you mic off while u prep- speaks will suffer if this doesn’t happen
They start at 28.5. I will evaluate speaks based on strategy but also ethos and knowledge of your position. I'll also index to the quality of the pool and if you keep me interested the entire debate I will reward +++. I'm not going to disclose them-- chill you infomaniacs.
K affs and T FW-
I like them but I'd prefer them to be grounded in some way to the topic. I don't care if you are sketchy initially but please make the 1ar overview or something clear. Judging vs T FW-- I have no biases here, but would prefer substantive engagement with a c/i or something in addition to impact turns. Also, impact turns need to be fleshed out and specific. If your reading T fw im more persuaded by fairness arguments and a TVA.
These are fine, I never really read these. But I can prob judge them fine, just don't assume I understand the intricacies of the topic. Also please weigh. I believe in 0% risk. I don't like dumb perms. Please collapse.
Read what you like. I am familiar with a lot of the lit but will just go along with whatever your spin/interpretation is. the 1NC needs to answer in some capacity prempts in the 1AC. Good debates here are what will get the highest speaks.
I have found myself judging a lot of these debates so I added this section. I like big-picture overviews that are clear. These dont need to be very long but i want to clearly be able to identify the tension point of the debate. I also want synthesis in the 2nr- this means i want you to not just extend particular parts of your critique but explain them in context with 1ar args-- implicit clash will only go so far.
default - DD, CI, no rvi. Weigh in the 2NR/ar. I was never in love with theory debate and am probably not the best judge for multiple shell debates. I will evaluate k first args but default to theory first.
Phil and tricks--
will judge these styles of debate but will not promise to judge them well. NOTE-- for me to vote on dumb arguments i require you to have a high amount of ethos ie if i am not feeling like your argument is persuasive in this context i will not be inclined to vote for it. I also wont feel bad randomly deciding im not voting for your argument if it is akin to must [insert random thing] theory.
-If you are debating a novice or person you are way better than just read what you would normally read but a little slower and be nice to them-- these debates were always awkward for me.
- fine with speed, sit where you want, flex prep is fine.
- I will give you a 28.9+ if you sit down early and win-- tell me if your sitting down early bc i wont be timing- i dont want to hear you ramble.
- 2NR/2AR overviews are v persuasive to me - don't expect me to piece together a ballot story - collapse and tell me in 10secs at the beginning of your speech what my RFD should be
Influential Judges: Kris Wright, Sam Azbel, Momo Khattak, and Saeshin Joe
My name is Darius White and I debated at C.E. Byrd High School for 4 year and debate for the University of Oklahoma currently.
Speaker Points: I generally give fairly high speaks, and I understand that their is going to be some rudeness in the debate, but try not to over-do because that will be a speak-point decrease. Also stealing prep, and speaking CONSTANTLY during your partners speech will drop your speeches quite a bit, but I usually try to be generous with the speaks.
Cross-X: I defer c-x being binding (unless told otherwise but they need to be nuanced, not tag line extensions of theory shells) and tend to flow c-x
After-round evaluation of evidence: I will try as best as possible to not call for evidence unless you are highly reliant on one piece of evidence in your last speeches, and/or evidence is into question (i.e. if you call for me to look at a piece of evidence after round), but other than that I tend to try to judge the debate on the actually speeches given by the debaters.
Theory: I have a high threshold for theory arguments and hate when teams spray through your theory blocks; I usually default to reasonability and reject-the-arguments-not-the-team
unless you win the abuse story i.e. I don't think one conditional advocacy destroys aff ground so just try to be reasonable and very persuasive when going for theory.
Disads/CP's: Impact calculation is always a good idea, and even though I am more on the K side of debate, I am down to listen to a really technical CP/DA as a net-benefit debate, so don't be shy to run these arguments in front of me. But, I feel that the CP does need a net-benefit for me to vote for it, so if the 2NR is just CP with no net-benefits, I will have a hard time finding reasons why I should vote for the CP. Turns case arguments on the DA are always tight.
Impact Turns: I really enjoy these types of debates, and they are very persuasive in my opinion, so if you got any in your files, I am down to listen.
Kritiks: I hate when teams read a random K that they have no idea what it means or says, and that is always a pet peeve. Don't run a K in front that you are not comfortable going for, but if you are very well at going for a specific criticism then do your thing because I am more familiar with this side of the debate. I feel that the alternative portion of the K is very under utilized and would like to be a debate I would want to see, but if your thing is going to turns case, then do your thing.
Framework: This is the argument I least agree with but if will listen and flow if required.
Flashing: I don't count flashing as prep unless you are taking hella a lot of time in which I will inform you that I am about to start your prep time; PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, do not steal prep.
Random shit: I like jokes, and making me laugh usually gets you some where speak point wise. Using historical references is always a good idea and paints a better picture on the impact calc. Remember to jump your cards over before the speech, and if you read any new cards that aren't on the flash, flash them before c-x or before the next speech is about to start, this is not prep time.
If you have any other questions feel free to email me: email@example.com
ld @ cypress woods high school '20, parli @ harvard '24.5. dabbled in worlds (usa dev '19)!
please time yourself
ask me anything before round!
i qualled to the toc my senior year and taught at nsd flagship & tdc. if you have questions / for sdocs: firstname.lastname@example.org
1 - phil/theory. i probably give more weight to k v phil interactions, phil v theory interactions, and k interactions in a truth testing paradigm than the average tx judge. i also enjoy interesting paradigm issue interactions on theory
2 - tricks/larp. i’m not familiar with the topic though, nor do i know what the principle of explosion is - you still need to explain things!
3 - k unless they're reps ks, which i read a lot of. i prefer lbl to floating overviews that im not sure what to do with.
- have the doc ready to send ahead of time
- i enjoy a good cx
- i'll call slow and clear as many times as i need to but speaks will drop. im fine w ur opponent calling slow/clear too as long as it's not malicious.
- scripting the entire speech and/or big words without explanation is an ick - i have no idea what, for example, hapticality is.
- postrounding / being aggressive (esp against trad/novices/minorities) makes me sad
- you have to provide evi to your opponent/judge. that does not mean you have to disclose (you can have that debate) but should show them, if requested. evi contestation (clipping, miscutting, etc.) is evaluated however the debaters decide: theory shell, stopping the round, etc.
- reading problematic args (eg racism good) is obvs an L. however, the validity of death good, trigger warnings, etc. are debatable (at least in front of me)
- online rounds - record your speeches in case internet gets funky
- i think the ability to spin evi should be rewarded; having good evi helps but "call for the card" puts me in a weird position. do that weighing for me.
- send any relevant screenshot for violations
i don't want to use defaults but here they are for accountability:
- comparative worlds
- permissibility negates, the side with less of a change from the status quo under comparative worlds gets presumption
- epistemic confidence
- dta on theory, dtd on t, competing interps, no rvis
- no judge kick