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!

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 and have judged multiple debate styles & speech events. My son is a 3rd year 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: aihongwen@hotmail.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.

I am a lay judge - make sense and I vote for you :).

Be kind and have a great debate.

Try not to spread because I won't be able to flow. If you don't see me flowing, you're probably going too fast.

Introduction:

Hey y'all,

I am now in my seventh year of coaching Public Forum. Although I am more experienced than a lay judge, I still like a good narrative explanation of the round with less focus on technicality and more focus on clash.

Pronouns: He / Him / His

Speaking:

Clarity and Speed are my two biggest concerns. Speak clearly and, for all that is good in this world, do not spread (I will try to make exceptions for LD and Policy judging, but if I stop taking notes and just start staring at you, you should probably slow down).

Evidence:

In the event of an argument concerning the validity of a piece of evidence, I will require the evidence and any contrary evidence if available. Any evidence which does not have an accessible citation will be thrown out. Any evidence which bears marks of intentional tampering or distortion will be grounds for an immediate loss for the offending party.

Argument:

Basic style - Claim, Warrant, Impact. Make sure to evaluate impacts on both sides of the debate. A comparative debate with clash between arguments makes it easy for me to determine who won the round. For Policy and LD, I will not judge Kritiks* (Ks), so please do not run them in front of me. My personal belief (and you may disagree with this) is that Ks defeat the educational purpose of debate by eliding the resolution. For example, if I am expecting to learn about the merits and drawbacks of deep sea exploration, I will be disappointed if the focus is on whether capitalism is evil. I apologize for being a debate norms Luddite, but consider this fair warning.

*NOTE: I will make exceptions for teams that only have Kritiks as cases, but they must be incredibly compelling.

Etiquette:

Please don't be rude (i.e. snarkiness, frequent interruption, and condescension). Repeated rudeness, despite quality of speeches, will result in lower speaker points. Do not attempt to race-bait, gender-bait, or villainize your opponents. It is not your opponents' faults that they may have to argue justifiable but morally-bankrupt positions (for example, political realism and state security over humanitarianism). Unless your opponent is arguing something intrinsically heinous like eco-fascism or colonialism, you will hemorrhage speaker points for engaging in this behavior.

Addendum:

If you have any questions not clarified in the paradigm, please ask before the round. I will be more than happy to answer any questions, comments, or concerns.

Speaking:

Clarity and Speed are my two biggest concerns. Speak clearly and definitely do not spread.

Argument:

Basic style - Claim, Warrant, Impact. Make sure to evaluate impacts on both sides of the debate. A comparative debate with clash between arguments makes it easy for me to determine who won the round.

Etiquette:

Respect your opponent.

Welcome! My name is Sean Ewalt He/Him. I had competed across 4 years during my time at BHS and BWHS, now a varsity debater at North West Arkansas Community College.

Speaks-

I ALWAYS ALLOW LOW-POINT WINS

Poor speaks will never be the sole benefactor on a side loss, as long as a thorough argument is created with an adequate claim, warrant & impact, and points are clearly refuted.

In an age where good speaks is so highly valued over being technical and being able to communicate a concise message. It's important to allow a team to be competitive, even if they aren't amazing speakers within a circuit.

Case-

FrameWork- Please provide a framework and I will provide the flowing through of a framework if carded and met by an uncarded framework.

Contentions: Please always communicate the author's date and year, this will be severely beneficial since I will have access to all information to better form my post-round decision.

Link: Important to provide a well-defended and carded link since, along the lines of the credibility of a card, your opponent will attack the link to enable the dropping of a contention/impact.

Impacts: I cannot stress how important it is to have down to earth impact, unless given the ability to defend it to the ends of the earth please make it simple for yourself. It's easy to get "swathed" in the technicalities of clashing impacts, Recency=Scale=Likeliness, this will be a round-by-round decision based on the impact considering how important it is to flow a certain impact through.

Summary: Please extend all arguments or will be dropped with little leeway. Ie. For a refutation is not important to be re-addressed though please if major implication it would be important to bring it up just in case anyone forgets (Surprisingly lacking perfection I know my bad)

Questioning: I will never flow through questioning, it is detrimental that if an important advancement is made that it is major within a round, please bring it up in your speeches and flow it through.

Any further questions please contact me @- EwaltSean@gmail.com

Thank you! I hope you the best in your competition in academia.

Best Regards, Sean W. Ewalt

Lisa Haddock

TLDR: Please send a copy of your speech to: lisahaddock68@gmail.com

Speed is fine-just be sure to speak clearly.

Tech over truth

Rounds will be evaluated and final decisions made based on flow so don’t drop your arguments.

I’m good with any argument but discrimination of any type will not be tolerated and could result in an automatic loss.

THINGS EXPECTED IN A ROUND:

Please time yourselves as this is for your benefit more than the judge

Off-clock roadmaps are recommended for your benefit; however, please let your opponent and judge know so there is no confusion

When you take prep time, please make sure you are ready to begin once prep time is over

Make sure that cross-ex is used appropriately

PUBLIC FORUM:

Arguments will be evaluated based on how strong they are presented along with the weight of their impacts-this is very important.

Make sure to number and emphasize your arguments

Remember to extend your arguments

Keep rebuttals in a clear line-by-line format

Second rebuttal should focus on responses in rebuttal

During summary, remember to extend defenses and offenses or whatever you feel is most important in the round.

Do not try to take over in crossfire and try to ensure that grand cross is not one-person dominated

Final focus should provide clear weighing ground for judges to determine why either team should win the debate.

I am an erstwhile LD/PF debater, and I have been called back to be a judge in this crazy world. Online debating and judging is new for most of us, but I am eager to assist in making this situation more normal-crazy than crazy-crazy. And if we are at a live, real, honest-to-God in-person tournament, then I promise you that the crazy ain't just in the internet: Here, There Be Dragons. I wish you the best of luck and skill as you debate this year!

Email for evidence chains and whatnot: will.hobson911@gmail.com

Ultra Important Ground Rules

In 85% of things, I am a laid-back and low maintenance judge, but I do have a few nonnegotiable rules that must be followed in order to have a fair and fun matchup. These should be common sense, but god knows common sense is less common than it should be.

-Courtesy is the most important thing I consider in rounds. If you do not treat your opponent with respect, chances are that I will not respect you on the ballot. If anyone harms the integrity of the round by being discriminatory, rude, or unprofessional, I will immediately stop the round. You do not have to like your opponent, but you should at least pretend to do so for about an hour. If you have a legitimate problem with the other team, please bring up your concerns before the final focus or final segment.

-Given the circumstances of having to rely on technology for some tournaments, tech problems are not rare. If you have had troubles with connections or hardware, please let me know beforehand so we don't have to trouble shoot problems during the round.

PF/LD Preferences

-Please, for the love of all that is holy, do not spread (i.e. speed-read). I will not be able to understand you, and that's gonna be rough, buddy. If for some reason you must, I will require you to drop your case in the file share for mine and your opponent's benefit so we can at least try to follow your barrage.

-Concision and clarity are key. If I can not follow your arguments or identify your contentions, links, or impacts in my flow, I will probably assume that you are being willfully obtuse which is not a good look. Reminder: Neither PF nor LD debate is about proving that you are the smartest person in the room or showing me that you have the best words; it is about proving that you have the most cogent and sensible argument. This is about communication, not obfuscation.

-Do not, do not, do not introduce new contentions in rebuttals, summaries, or final focuses. That is called playing dirty. Likewise, please refrain from introducing new constructive evidence in the last half of the debate round; defending evidence is still admissible and is encouraged.

-Nuclear Stuff (PF): I know every debater and their mother likes LOVES to throw in nuclear war as the ultimate harm or impact for either their case or rebuttal, so much so that it has become a meme of sorts. I find this to be an exceptionally tiring thing to listen to as a judge. Nuclear war is such a complex, and more importantly a serious and severe topic that using it frivolously in a debate comes across as childish at best, and cynical at worst. Trivially connecting the incomprehensible Horrors of nuclear war with a topic like urban development or cryptocurrency just comes across as intentional malpractice. If your topic justifiably includes nuclear war as an impact, I will need an iron clad link chain and evidence connecting the two, more than just asking me to assume that it will happen. Be professional. (I apologize for my rant and the irritation shown in it).

-I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative technicals.

-If you do plan on running a K argument, please let me know before the round starts. If you are, I will probably require you to drop your case in the file share or evidence chain for the benefit of myself and the other team. Likewise, theory arguments are cool (really!), but they must be constructed in a clear and cogent manner. I should not have to work to understand what you are saying.

-Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment. That ain't debate, friend-o.

-Don't assume that I am a genius. Signpost your contentions and your cards, if possible.

Greetings everyone! My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director of forensics at The Bronx High School of Science in New York City. I am excited to judge your round! Considering you want to spend the majority of time prepping from when pairings are released and not reading my treatise on debate, I hope you find this paradigm "cheat sheet" helpful in your preparation.

2023 TOC Congress Update

Congratulations on qualifying to the 2023 TOC! It's a big accomplishment to be here in this room and all of you are to be commended on your dedication and success. My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director at Bronx Science. I have judged congress a lot in the past, including two TOC final rounds, but I have found myself judging more PF and Policy in recent years. To help you prepare, here's what I would like to see in the round:

Early Speeches -- If you are the sponsor or early speaker, make sure that I know the key points that should be considered for the round. If you can set the parameters of the discourse of the debate, you will probably have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Middle Speeches -- Refute, advance the debate, and avoid rehash, obviously. However, this doesn't mean you can't bring up a point another debater has already said, just extend it and warrant your point with new evidence or with a new perspective. I often find these speeches truly interesting and you can have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Late speeches -- I think a good crystallization speech can be the best opportunity to give an amazing speech during the round. To me, a good crystal speech is one of the hardest speeches to give. This means that a student who can crystal effectively can often rank 1st or 2nd on my ballot. This is not always the case, of course, but it really is an impressive speech.

Better to speak early or late for your ballot? It really doesn't matter for me. Wherever you are selected to speak by the PO, do it well, and you will have a great chance of ranking on my ballot. One thing -- I think a student who can show diversity in their speaking ability is impressive. If you speak early on one bill, show me you can speak later on the next bill and the skill that requires.

What if I only get one speech? Will I have any chance to rank on your ballot? Sometimes during the course of a congress round, some students are not able to get a second speech or speak on every bill. I try my very best to evaluate the quality of a speech versus quantity. To me, there is nothing inherently better about speaking more or less in a round. However, when you get the chance to speak, question, or engage in the round, make the most of it. I have often ranked students with one speech over students who spoke twice, so don't get down. Sometimes knowing when not to speak is as strategic as knowing when to speak.

Questioning matters to me. Period. I am a big fan of engaging in the round by questioning. Respond to questions strongly after you speak and ask questions that elicit concessions from your fellow competitors. A student who gives great speeches but does not engage fully in questioning throughout the round stands little chance of ranking high on my ballot.

The best legislator should rank first. Congress is an event where the best legislator should rank first. This means that you have to do more than just speak well, or refute well, or crystal well, or question well. You have to engage in the "whole debate." To me, what this means is that you need to speak and question well, but also demonstrate your knowledge of the rules of order and parliamentary procedure. This is vital for the PO, but competitors who can also demonstrate this are positioning themselves to rank highly on my ballot.

Have fun! Remember, this activity is a transformative and life changing activity, but it's also fun! Enjoy the moment because you are at THE TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS! It's awesome to be here and don't forget to show the joy of the moment. Good luck to everyone!

2023 - Policy Debate Update

I have judged many debates across all events except for policy debate. You should consider me a newer policy judge and debate accordingly. Here are some general thoughts to consider as you prepare for the round:

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Non-Topical Arguments: I am unlikely to understand Ks or non-topical arguments. I DO NOT have an issue with these arguments on principle, but I will not be able to evaluate the round to the level you would expect or prefer.

Topicality: I am not experienced with topicality policy debates. If you decide to run these arguments, I cannot promise that I will make a decision you will be satisfied with, but I will do my best.

Line-by-line: Please move methodically through the flow and tell me the order before begin your speech.

Judge Instruction: In each rebuttal speech, please tell me how to evaluate your arguments and why I should be voting for you. My goal is to intervene as little as possible.

Speed: Please slow down substantially on tags and analytics. You can probably spread the body of the card but you must slow down on the tags and analytics in order for me to understand your arguments. Do not clip cards. I will know if you do.

PF Paradigm - Please see the following for my Public Forum paradigm.

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Cheat sheet:

General overview FOR PUBLIC FORUM

Experience: I've judged PF TOC finals-X------------------------------------------------- I've never judged

Tech over truth: Tech -------x------------------------------------------- Truth

Comfort with PF speed: Fast, like policy fast ---------x--------------------------------------- lay judge speed

Theory in PF: Receptive to theory ------x------------------------------ not receptive to theory

Some general PF thoughts from Crawford Leavoy, director of Durham Academy in North Carolina. I agree with the following very strongly:

- 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 be very 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.

Now, back to my thoughts. Here is the impact calculus that I try to use in the round:

Weigh: Comparative weighing x----------------------------------------------- Don't weigh

Probability: Highly probable weighing x----------------------------------------------- Not probable

Scope: Affecting a lot of people -----------x------------------------------------ No scope

Magnitude: Severity of impact -------------------------x----------------------- Not a severe impact

(One word about magnitude: I have a very low threshold for responses to high magnitude, low probability impacts. Probability weighing really matters for my ballot)

Quick F.A.Q:

Defense in first summary? Depends if second rebuttal frontlines, if so, then yes, I would expect defense in first summary.

Offense? Any offense you want me to vote on should be in either case or rebuttal, then both summary and final focus.

Flow on paper or computer? I flow on paper, every time, to a fault. Take that for what you will. I can handle speed, but clarity is always more important than moving fast.

What matters most to get your ballot? Easy: comparative weighing. Plain and simple.

I think you do this by first collapsing in your later speeches. Boil it down to 2-3 main points. This allows for better comparative weighing. Tell me why your argument matters more than your opponents. The team that does this best will 99/100 times get my ballot. The earlier this starts to happen in your speeches, the better.

Overviews: Do it! I really like them. I think they provide a framework for why I should prefer your world over your opponent's world. Doing this with carded evidence is even better.

Signpost: It's very easy to get lost when competitors go wild through the flow. You must be very clear and systematic when you are moving through the flow. I firmly believe that if I miss something that you deem important, it's your fault, not mine. To help with this, tell me where you are on the flow. Say things like...

"Look to their second warrant on their first contention, we turn..."

Clearly state things like links, turns, extensions, basically everything! Tell me where you are on the flow.

Also, do not just extend tags, extend the ideas along with the tags. For example:

"Extend Michaels from the NYTimes that stated that a 1% increase in off shore drilling leads to a..."

Evidence: I like rigorous academic sources: academic journals and preeminent news sources (NYT, WashPo, etc.). You can paraphrase, but you should always tell me the source and year.

Theory in PF: I'm growing very receptive to it, but it really should be used to check back against abuse in round.

Pronouns: I prefer he/him/his and I kindly ask that you respect your opponents preferred gender pronoun.

Speed: Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. 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 think this is an important check on ableism in rounds. This portion on speed is credited to Chetan Hertzig, head coach of Harrison High School (NY). I share very similar thoughts regarding speed and spreading.

Refutation, commentary, logic and argument extension are my primary voters. I am a tabula rasa judge for most forms of debate.

LD - I enjoy having a traditional framework set up in LD but if you can link your debate theory and turn a case that is acceptable. I know there is a push in Arkansas of “Prog v. Trad” and I honestly don't mind either way. I think if the arguments are accessible and we understand the ground of the debate and can create clash then there is no issue.

PF - This form of debate should be accessible to the average citizen. Speed should be moderate at most and there should not be an expectation for a plan/policy or alternate. I weigh more heavily on impacts than framework but having a weaved in framework throughout the case is a huge plus. I flow and weigh cross.

Biggest pet peeve:

{First speaker starts} Read a card in 1AC with a questionable card

{Neg during cross} can you summarize the card...?

{First speaker} I can't but I can read the card again.

Congress: I am relatively new to judging congress but have a decent grasp of Robert's rules. I enjoy it immensely and find that I try to judge/weigh based on the NSDA Debate Guide. For example, the book lists that representatives should not infringe on the chamber's time - stop before the grace period. I weigh questions in your overall score ESPECIALLY if you are tired for speech scores. By the fourth/fifth speech on a bill there should be active clash in your speech and you should not just be rehashing old points. I love a good clarity/summary speech. If you are double entered and leave the chamber I do not let that affect your score for questions.

WSD

I am a newer judge to WSD however I have helped coach two teams and have sat in and judged multiple practice rounds. One thing that I am looking for is presentation, organization, and of course well explained content. Please make sure to respectfully wave questions I prefer civility. In terms of evidence, ensure that you focus on how the evidence fits in your argument / substantive and whether or not it is relevant or credible for the side.

My name is Patricia Kisamore and I am a first year parent judge this year. I have a BA in History with a minor in journalism and have spent the last 3 years teaching a middle school special education Autism class in East Baton Rouge Parish.

I value clearly articulated cases with well-defined arguments in support of the team’s stance on the topic/resolution. Teams should include well-cited evidence to support their case, and should outline the impacts of their cases so that I can understand why their arguments matter in the context of the resolution.

Updated: 10/2023

I FLOW

Email: mkknatt@gmail.com

Newman - ‘15

University of Louisiana - Lafayette ‘19

Tulane - ‘21

Debated for Newman for 4 years, 1 year policy and 3 LD . Went to nationals in World Schools in 2015 & placed at state in several events (including speech). I also competed on the collegiate level

I have almost 10 years of debate and judging experience.

Be smart, pay attention & make good in round decisions and you win.

Framework (Value/VC)-I like a good framework debate. Link everything you have back to the framework and explain to me how your arguments fit under your framework. If your framework is bad, I’m not going to automatically vote you down, i just prefer a nice fw debate to avoid intervening in the ballot. I want to keep my opinion out of the round.

Evidence: If your evidence is not responded to, extend! Extending arguments go a long way.

Speaks: Be clear, dont be rude. Dont whisper. Im pretty generous with speaker points so do you and do well.

Speed:I’m fine with speed, I can understand any speed. I may ask to see your case if I missed something but I rarely miss arguments due to speed.lBut if you're a bad spreader just know you run the risk of me missing something lol

Clash: I don t want to intervene in the ballot, I hate being biased because of a messy/unorganized debate. Maintain clash!

Voters:I love voters. If you give me at least three SOLID reasons why I should vote for you and it is backed up by good arguments and it is clear on the flow, I will love you forever.

Theory:Im cool with it. No issues here. Just make sure the violation is clear so I can flow properly.

Kritiks:I loooooove K debates. Run them if you want, I believe they make debates pretty interesting. I only despise K’s that have a very weak link. If you have a K, have a good link and a good explanation of the link.

Disads: Just like K’s; run them if you want, just explain them well, tell me why its important and try to slow down on the tags

Topicality: Iwill vote on T, in both LD and Policy debates.

Plans:Ex- policy debater here; I’m cool with plans that are logical and make sense. I will definitely listen to them. Make sure its organized

Moral of the story:
Don’t run stuff you don’t know how to run properly. Don’t read things in the round for the sake of reading it. Don’t waste my time. Be confident in what you are saying. If you are a first year debating a senior with 4 years of debate experience on the national circuit, its OKAY! Don’t lose confidence in yourself as soon as you walk in the room and see your opponent. Put up a good fight and you’ll be fine. Just don’t give up so fast. Don’t be stupid when weighing arguments in the round, pick and elaborate on things that are important. Please be smart. Debate is a THINKING activity, not a READING activity.

Sasha Kreinik Paradigm

Always include me in the email chain susanna.torrey@gmail.com

I am a pretty straightforward judge and was in forensics way back in the Stone Age when I was in high school. I am a teacher and speech and debate coach first, so I value education, good and creative cases, and expect professionalism and respectful behavior.

I am open to any arguments as long as burdens are being met and I value strong evidence ably applied. Over the past few years I have found myself needing to highlight the items I have listed below most often in rounds.

LD/CX:

Mad spreading skills need to come with mad pronunciation skills. I’m okay with speed, but am even more impressed by the debater who can do more with less. You are less likely to have an issue with my rulings if I have been able to easily flow your round. I am noticing a trend lately (fall 2022) of debaters that goes far beyond spreading to actually mumbling quietly and incoherently through most of the case, only enunciating specific phrases, tags, etc. If you are this type of debater, strike me. Yes, I can read your case, but that's not what debate is about. Your speaks will be the lowest possible. One more caveat about spreading--if you are using it in an open round merely to disadvantage a less experienced or novice opponent, it will annoy me. Have that conversation with your opponent at the start of the round.

LD:

Enough with the disclo theory. Run it and I will probably drop you.

All:

One of my pet peeves is a debater who is obviously seeing his/her evidence for the first time or, worse, sounds like it. Be sure to master the material you are using. If there is a piece of evidence or a theory you are presenting that you don’t understand, we won’t either, and it will show.

I abhor racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and any other language of hate or any language that enables it. They have no place in the debate space and will cost you the round.

In the end, I want you to have fun, learn something, and bring forth truly creative and interesting cases. If all else in your round is perfectly equal, I am going to give the round to the debater who told a better story.

Feel free to email me if you have any more questions.

Hello Everyone.

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.

As a parent judge, I prefer that you slow down the talking pace in your speech to ensure that I clearly and fully understand your arguments to provide proper feedback. I would also like to receive and review your cases during the debate round(email address is rongli916@yahoo.com).If you can time yourself, that will be the best.
My goal is to make myself a fair judge, more importantly, to support your passion and efforts as a debater!

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

Email chain: gregmalis@newmanschool.org

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, I expect that Affs read a plan and be topical. K Affs or Performance Affs have a bit of an uphill climb for me to justify why the resolution ought not be debated. If a team chooses this approach, at minimum, they need to advocate some action that solves some problem, and their remedy/method must provide some reasonable negative ground.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other (as written by the framers), then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. I just don't hear many of them in LD. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. For example, the Sept/Oct 2016 topic has a plural agent, "countries" (which is rare for LD topics). Thus, identifying a single country to do the plan may be more of a topicality argument than a "theory" argument. In resolutions when the agent is more nebulous (e.g., "a just society"), then we're back to a question as what provides for a better debate.

Current Debate Coach at Bentonville High School. Forensics competitor in high school 2008-2012. Debate (mostly IPDA) competitor in college 2014-2016.

Debating should be fun! We should always seek to be respectful and friendly.

Especially for LD, I heavily weigh rounds on value/framework- do not drop this. If your opponent has a different framework than you do, I expect to see clash on this.

Impact calculus is critical. I expect to hear this throughout the round- not just last speeches

Spreading is fine! I expect to have your case shared with me so I can follow.

Overall ability to persuade/obviously being the stronger debater will 80% of the time win you the round. If I am more convinced, I simply have to vote for you. There are endless tools to be able to do this- effective & dominate speaking ability, emotion, stronger clash, Ks, etc. It is difficult to be convinced by a team that is obviously not as strong in persuasion, but of course that can happen and I will write my explanation on ballots. Definition debates are my least favorite thing ever! Clash with the content of your cases!

I judge primarily as tech over truth. If you say something that is outright NOT true, I cannot overlook that, but I leave my bias/knowledge at the door as much as is appropriate & will judge simply on what happens in-round.

Don't be afraid to make me laugh!! Bachelorette/Survivor references are always appreciated.

This year--2021--is my first year being involved in Debate, so I have no previous experience serving as a judge. However, I do have some experience that I should be able to draw upon. From 1999-2010 I taught argumentative writing as an instructor in the Department of English at Louisiana State University. I have a BA in English from the University of New Orleans and a graduate degree in English (MFA Creative Writing) from George Mason University.

When assessing the strengths of arguments, I look for relevant supporting claims, credible evidence from a variety of sources, and sound logical reasoning. I think it also important that the writers/speakers demonstrate an informed understanding of the issue--that they have arrived at a position after carefully researching the subject from a variety of perspectives and evaluating the information and merits of opposing viewpoints.

Hi, I am Ella Salazar. My pronouns are she/her. I competed for four years at Teurlings Catholic High School in Lafayette, LA. I now attend Tulane University (Roll Wave!), and I really only judge for the Newman tournament yearly.

In general, do what you do best, make smart arguments, be clear, and be unproblematic. I don't really care about being on the email chain. However, if you want me to be (I don't mind) email me at ellaesalazar04@gmail.com.

My main events were forensic events, although I did dabble in interp events. Listed below are my preferences in rounds etc, just general housekeeping.

Debate: (rly just LD and PF b/c I don't judge Policy)

• I don't really care what case you run, I'm pretty familiar with all of them. There are some I know more than others, such as policy, traditional, stock k's, T, theory, phil, and more complex K's. I really don't know much about tricks, but I can follow along enough.
• I don't mind spreading, I can usually keep up pretty well. However, if it comes to a point where I truly cannot understand you, I will stop writing down anything that you are saying in my personal flow.
• An argument is a claim, a warrant and an impact. If your "argument" doesn't have one of those three elements, I will not be voting on it!
• Please be respectful to your opponent! I do not tolerate any hateful or derogatory speech.
• Other than that, I don't really have any outstanding preferences that you should know about :)

Speech Events:

• Please make sure that you are respectful of the people in the room. I do not tolerate hateful speech and if there is hateful speech it will be reported!
• My voting on speech events varies from event to event, but I would say that I generally am an experienced judge in Speech events.
• I love listening to all of the pieces, so please have fun! I love seeing your voice through the pieces. Let your individuality shine through your pieces!

Overall, I want you to have fun! I enjoyed all my years in speech, and it is a pleasure to be able to judge you!

I have experience as a debate coach and judge for World Schools Debate, and am beginning to judge Public Forum and Policy Debate for the first time. 

I view my role as a judge to be a blank slate, while your job as debater is to craft a case that convinces me that your stance is the most valid.  While I can leverage my outside knowledge to help understand your case, I cannot give you credit for claims that you do not explicitly assert and develop.  Additionally, I look for you to fully and critically engage with your opponent's arguments in your rebuttal and refutation.

I look for well-structured arguments with clear signposting and fully-developed claims, warrants, and evidence.  Please do not present claims that you do not have the time or resources to support.  This indicates poor preparation for the debate and will negatively impact the success of your case.  Additionally, you should be prepared to identify and fully engage with the central clashes between your case and the opposing team's case.

I value clear, well-articulated speaking, so I do not expect for you to speak as quickly as possible.

Hello,

First off, thanks for taking the time to stop by and read my paradigm. This will help you immensely in your debate!

I was a policy debater in high school. I understand the "game." I was a state champaign and have competed on the national level. If you have any questions please feel free to reach out to me tyyyyyyler.ts@gmail.com

I would define myself as a stock issue judge with tabula rasa tendencies.

Topicality, to win on a Topicality argument you must satisfy these standards

Violation – What word(s) in the resolution have been violated? – How should these words properly be defined?

Impact – Why is this a voting issue?

Please keep this argument debatable, do not offer an obscure definition of an article adjective to prove your point. I hate to vote solely on topicality but I will.

Inherency, I need Structural vs Attitudinal.

Solvency, I will vote on 3 things here. Impracticability, insufficiency, and counter-productivity. Lay these out for me.

K is OK but please keep your link clean.

Finally, I love a competitive argument for Advantages/Disadvantages. Keep this line by line and you will be in the clear.

Please spread to your heart's content! I will stop typing when you need to slow down. Keep your tags, and dates clear. Please do not pass out, that is a lot of time and paperwork.

To answer you, before you ask me in the round. I do not want a copy of your case. I truly believe it is your job to sell it to me completely. It is not my job to read and follow along. It is on you and your partner to make sure I understand your case. I really hate how this is the new debate culture.

I will award a win to a team with lower speaker points if their point was proven. Dependent on tournament rules.

I will offer critique on your speech style and gestures if asked. I will not offer a verbal opinion on your case, until after the results are posted. This may differ depending on tournament rules.

Hey, I'm Cade (he/him). I debated and did extemp for Teurlings Catholic on the Louisiana and national circuits for four years. Now I compete for LSU (Geaux Tigers!) and occasionally coach/judge for Isidore Newman.

Generally, do what you do best, make smart arguments, be clear, and be unproblematic. Also, I do want to be on the email chain. My email is cadetsavoy@gmail.com.

For Louisiana tournaments/traditional rounds:

I enjoy lay/traditional debate as much as I enjoy circuit debate. Sometimes, though, I find it frustrating. To avoid frustrating me (and to get more speaks and my ballot), I suggest avoiding the following practices:

-- Spending a lot of time on the framework debate when it really doesn't matter. Don't be afraid to concede framework if you think you can weigh your impacts under your opponent's framework. 39 times out of 40, the "value debate" has no weight in my decision-making process. Ask yourself how winning the framework debate affects your overall chances of winning the debate.

-- Not collapsing. Pick one or two arguments and go for them in your final speech. This allows you to develop your central claim much more fully than you otherwise would be able to in a 3-minute 2AR. I promise you will not be able to properly extend all of the offense you read in the constructive in your final rebuttal. Trust.

-- Not having real impacts while reading a consequentialist framework. Your impacts should be a scenario. Try to paint a clear picture of what the world of the aff/neg looks like. Err on the side of over-explaining your impacts. Also, weigh them against your opponent's impacts in terms of probability, magnitude, time frame, etc.

Housekeeping:

1] Post-rounding is good! It promotes education and keeps judges accountable. Feel free to ask me as many questions as you like after my RFD. However, I will be capital p Pissed if your coach comes and fusses at me after the round has already ended — especially if you didn’t ask me questions when you had the opportunity. My only obligation as a judge is to make the best decision I possibly can. Sometimes, those decisions will be flawed. But under no circumstances will I ever be interested in engaging in any flavor of weird national circuit politics.

2] Don't be bigoted. Tech and truth go out the window the second you make a blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise exclusionary argument/remark.

3] For online debate: keep a local recording of your speeches in case someone loses connection. I really don't want to hear a rebuttal re-do.

LD/Policy

I'm putting LD and Policy in the same section because I think most of my relevant thoughts regarding LD and Policy apply to both events. If I have a thought that I think applies to either LD or Policy but not both, I'll flag it as such. Be mad if you feel so inclined.

Run whatever you want. I'll be fine. Still though, there are some arguments that I'm more experienced/better at evaluating than others. Here's a pref shortcut:

1- policy, traditional, stock Ks

2- T, theory, phil, more dense/complex Ks

3/4- tricks (depends on the level of density)

1] An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I won't vote on anything that doesn't meet that threshold. I also won't vote on an argument that I can't explain back to your opponent in the RFD, so be clear.

2] Impact framing is really important in every debate, regardless of whether its a standard DA/CP v case debate or a K v K smackdown. I don't see myself connecting the dots for you, so, again, be clear.

--add on: I've found that I'm very reluctant to vote on vague/poorly explained impact scenarios. Err on the side of over-explaining the story of your impacts. I might care about it more than other judges.

3] I think I'm alright at flowing, but I would really appreciate it if you slowed down on tags and analytics, especially when you're reading theory. I'll say "slow!" or "clear!" as much as I need to, so I won't feel bad not voting on an argument because I missed it on my flow.

4] I think I'm fairly neutral in most K aff v T Framework debates, but I'm more receptive to T Framework arguments that leverage education/clash as impact instead of just "pRocEDurAl faIRnEsS." But in these debates, I think the side that paints the clearer picture of what their model of debate looks like typically wins.

5] For LD specifically, I don't understand what it means to defend the resolution but not defend "implementation." "Defending implementation" seems to me to be a logical consequence of fiat.

6] Also for LD specifically, I wish phil debates focused more on the logical syllogism of whatever normative theory is being debated than a bunch of poorly developed reasons to prefer.

7] I have a couple of defaults that dictate how I evaluate the round. They can all be changed with proper argumentation.

• competing interps
• DTA unless it's something that's irreversible like T
• No RVIs
• Epistemic confidence
• No judge kick
• presumption goes to the side whose advocacy deviates least from the squo
• permissibility goes neg
• comparative worlds

8] Debate means different things to different people. Be cognizant of that.

9] Be accessible. In the context of debate, this means not doing things that would jeopardize debate as a site of inclusive, constructive, and critical discussion. I think most people intuitively know what "accessibility" means in debate, but, just in case, I'll outline a few implications of the "accessibility" maxim:

a] Don't be a dick.

b] Don't be shady. Obviously, don't clip cards or falsify evidence. If you do, you'll lose. But also, be forthright about the arguments you're making. Don't act like you don't know what a floating pik is in cross. Don't send a doc with only some analytics (i.e. sending eight out of your nine frontlined responses to T but not the "I meet").

c] If you're debating a novice or a traditional debater, consider reading arguments with which your opponent can substantively engage. I won't penalize you for going for any particular strategy, but your speaks will look better if you make an effort to make the round productive.

PF

All of the stuff from my LD/Policy paradigm apply to PF too. It's worth noting that I only competed in PF like three or four times, so I evaluate PF rounds the exact same way I would a policy-style DA v case debate in LD. I don't see why that would be problematic in any way, but it might be worth considering. Here are some of my PF-specific thoughts.

1] I think a lot of PF teams get away with really lazy extensions. It's not enough to just jump to impact weighing without explaining the link story of the argument you're going for. I won't vote for an argument that isn't properly extended.

2] It irks me when grand cross is dominated by only one debater from each team. I view every speech as a performance, and cross-ex is no exception.

3] PF rants and side quests:

a] Why are evidence ethics in PF so bad? Paraphrasing is stupid. I will give you +.3 speaks if you read highlighted sections of the actual text of what you're referencing. If you're going to paraphrase evidence anyway, put the full text of the card in the doc and highlight the parts that you're referencing. Also, every card you read should include the name of the author(s), the title of the piece, the date on which it was published, and a link/DOI if applicable.

b] Why are email chains in PF so weird? It seems incredibly inefficient to send cards your opponent calls for after the speech has already ended. Just send a complete doc before the speech starts! I will give you +.2 speaks if you send the doc before the speech starts.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

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!

I judge based on organization & facts backed up by reliable sources.
Please speak clearly and at a regular pace. Be confident!!!!
p.s—NO pen clicking