As the parent of 3 speech and debaters, I have judged for a total of 12 years. In deciding who wins a round I value communication and logic. A conversational speed of speech allows judges to understand your words and to process your ideas and your logic. Avoid jargon (both speech & debate jargon AND jargon that relates to the topic) and

Don't make your judge(s) work. Your logic should be front and center and clear; judges shouldn't have to look for it. I'm looking for a "red thread of logic". The other side of the debate will attempt to cut your thread of logic and you will attempt to knot those ends to reconnect your thread. Sometimes speech and debaters cut their own thread (not enunciating, speaking too quickly, swallowing taglines, using jargon and acronyms). Debaters, your responsibility is to present ideas and supporting evidence and to help me understand your case. It is not a judge's responsibility to "figure out" your case and logic (or lack thereof).

Off-time Road Maps: In Policy, yes, please provide one. In all other forms of debate, please do NOT. Quality debaters typically tend to work it seamlessly into their speeches.

Timing: Please time yourself and the others, which frees me to focus my energies on judging the debate.

Prep Time: Please request to use prep time. Time yourself and let me know either how much time you used or how much time you have remaining. I'll confirm that. This allows you to use prep time without someone interrupting you to tell you how much time you've used.

Policy Debaters: While I have judged policy and am a competent judge; however, I am not a confident policy judge. Competent, yes; confident, no. When using policy jargon, I find it helpful to be reminded to what it refers. I do NOT consult evidence you provide via email or some such. I judge solely on the evidence you state in speeches and then only to the extent I comprehend your words and process your ideas. After all, I can't judge based on what I do not understand.)

I am open to any argument, as long as it makes sense and is backed up with evidence. The tagline must be what the card actually says.

In rounds, my main pet peeve is unclear tag lines. Be sure that you clearly enunciate the tagline if you want me to take it into account.

For critiques and theoretical arguments, make sure you clearly explain both the argument and its implications.

I try to be open-minded and fair about any arguments presented.

I'm a college student, and competed at NCFL and NSDA in Lincoln Douglas debate.

LD- I like more traditional style of debate but won't count off if the style is not how I debate. I want to be able to hear you so don't speak too fast, but also get in all you need to say. I take intensive flows and will pick a winner based on who won the most arguments in the debate.

Congress- I have done and won in congress, and like the speakers to be charming but still taking the session seriously. A joke or two is fine but making the whole session one is not how congress should be done. The PO should keep the chamber as under control as possible.

I'm so excited to be judging!

Good luck!

I don't like to be confused - give me clear voting issues. If I am confused, I'll probably default to impacts / policy-maker or a simple morality question of what the right thing is to do. Speed is okay, and I'll try to follow, but speed with ridiculous breathing is obnoxious. Speed without any change in delivery for tag lines is hard to follow and hard to flow. And again, speed with an argument I'm not expecting and trying to learn is counterproductive. You can say "it's on the wiki" to your opponent all you want, but I don't feel any obligation as a judge to go read your case. Do the communicative work and teach me.

If you're going to run something unexpected (i.e. something a little squirrely or a blatantly non-topical or niche argument) or a kritik that I might not have heard before (well, any kritik, really), put in the work to explain it to me. I like learning stuff, otherwise I wouldn't spend my weekends doing this. What I don't like is being yelled and spread "at" about a philosophical premise I've never heard of before. Dumb it down for me a bit, take it a little slower, and I'll gladly come along for the lesson.

Some pet peeves (certainly not voting issues, but a paradigm is here for me to air all my complaints, right?)

- pointless off-time road maps, particularly in PF and LD. The only reason you'd need to give me this is if you're going in an unexpected order

- statements like "my opponent made a key mistake" - don't critique your opponent's performance for me. Convince me on the actual issues we're debating.My RFD may be dependent on a mistake made by a debater, but the voters you give me should be impacts in the context of the topic at hand.

- standing/sitting around while opponents "look for" evidence, saying that you'll start your prep time once they give you the evidence - always have your own evidence ready to go, and if your opponent doesn'thave it ready to go, ask them to give it to you ASAP, while you go ahead with prep time or your speech - if they are unable to produce the evidence, go after them in your next speech for that - DON'T hold up a round "waiting for evidence"

If you're reading this for Policy specifically: I didn't compete in Policy, but I've been coaching it off and on for a little over a decade, and I've judged frequently at NSDA and NCFL. That said, the circuit I coach in is fairly limited in terms of competition (like fewer than 10 teams at most tournaments), so my approach to policy tends to be pretty traditional, and I understand the event and the stock issues, but I'm not super familiar with kritiks or whatever passes for "progressive" arguments on "the circuit." (And if you can't tell by the quotation marks, as a coach in a small state focusing on just getting kids to competition, I'm a little disdainful of the elitism of "the circuit.") That said, I'm willing to listen to anything and willing to vote on anything, but you need to do the work to explain and teach me. It may be harder to get my vote with a kritik or anything else outside the realm of typical stock issues if you don't clearly explain the impacts of your argument and give me a nice Aff/Neg world comparison.

If you're reading this for LD: I didn't compete in it. I've coached it off and on, though not as much as PF and Policy. I'm going to lean pretty traditional for LD, just given my limited background and the circuit my students compete in. That doesn't mean I won't vote on plans or kritiks, but you're going to have to convince me. My default mode approaching LD is that I should be focusing on a value and criterion debate supported by some straightforward contentions, and I'm going to need a little help doing the mental jump into plans or kritiks. I'd certainly rather hear a framework debate about the values presented in the round than a framework debate about whether or not LD should allow plans, but I'll reluctantly follow along with whatever (cross apply my notes above for Policy, I guess.)

If you're reading this for Public Forum: I've coached it quite a bit, including teams that have broken at NSDA and won moderately large regional tournaments. I've also judged at nationals and major regional tournaments. I strongly object to the idea of paradigms in Public Forum debate. Access for students is a broadly discussed issue in Speech & Debate, but we need to remember that access for judges, especially volunteers, is just as important. Demanding paradigms in a debate event meant by design to be accessible to the public is, in my humble opinion, the wrong way to approach this event. I'm not exactly a "lay judge," but you should approach me in a public forum round, for the most part, as if I were a lay judge. Be organized and clear. Don't spread. Don't play games, especially when it comes to evidence and prep time. Give clear voters and an easy-to-understand Pro world vs. Con world layout.

At the top, I would greatly prefer if you sent me case docs so I could follow along during round and easily reference arguments and specific cards at my leisure. Sending thosesusom.hait@gmail.comas early as you can before round it would be optimal. Outside of that, do include me in the email chain if one is made.

Throughout High School I competed primarily in PF on the national circuit. I went to NSDA twice in PF, was a State Champion in the event, and competed in multiple nat circuit tournaments.

Despite this, I don't really like theory and arguments of this nature very much. If you explain it well enough and make me interested I might vote on theory, but don't hold out too much hope. You stand a much better chance of winning if you stick to relevant on case arguments.

I have a pretty high tolerance for speed, but you need to make sure you're clear if you're going to speak at a quicker pace.

I also want to see frontlining occur in the right speeches. (this primarily means 2nd team rebuttal addressing the 1st team rebuttal and not waiting until summary to frontline) If you fail to address an argument at the right time and your opponent says you don't bring up a response, I'm gonna drop whatever argument was attacked without a second thought.

Most importantly, be civil when you debate. Don't try to harass your opponent, intentionally talk over them, or flex that you're some debate genius. Winning one debate round in high school isn't so big a deal where trying to fight the opponent in round. Debate is about discourse before anything else, so act in a way that best suits delivering knowledge.

For LD and Policy, most of the same things apply. Remember to be coherent with clear arguments.

My judging paradigm is very simple. I believe the purpose of debate is to teach competitors to think critically and communicate effectively. Evidence is only important if a competitor can tell me why it's important. It is imperative for the competitor to demonstrate a true understanding of the arguments they are making. To that end, I think spreading should be avoided when possible, but I am fine with some speed.

I like to see clear clash and persuasive argumentation. Assertiveness is good, rudeness is completely uncalled for and may cost a competitor the round if it is pervasive enough. Further, competitors should be respectful and deferential to judges regardless of the judge's experience.

Debaters should come prepared for technology catastrophes. Bring paper copies, USB storage devices, and contingency plans. I flow when I judge, so I only take things into consideration that are said in the actual debate. If you are spreading to the point that your words are unintelligible, I will put my pen down. If that happens, you will not be getting credit for anything you say until you can be understood enough for me to resume flowing.

Don’t spread unless the speed you use allows for enough enunciation that I can understand. English is my second language if you speak too fast I will have hard time comprehending what you say.

for Police debate, I’m more like combination of policy maker and tabular rasa. Better policy has to make sense at first. But if 50/50, debate out needs to be done with strong argument and logics to support.

Updated February 2023

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with four vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

I participated in speech and debate in High School and have been judging debate all year this school year.

I am generally a tabula rasa judge beginning with a blank slate and look to see which side presents the best overall arguments. I tend to put a greater burden of proof on the affirmative since the negative can usually argue to the status quo.

Debates tournaments were not a part of my schooling and thus I am not very versed in technical issues with debate tournaments. So I value clarity of argument and speech. Thus fast speech is something that hinders my understanding of what the participant is trying to present. Well-paced speech which is clear in content is valued more than fast speech with more content. I also like to have participant keep their own time. If possible presenting links of reference in the chatbox are prefered.

INTERP EVENTS -

Trigger tag in interpretation events. I will dock points for triggering topics without a trigger tag. If you do a good silly dance I will give you an extra point.

DEBATE EVENTS -

If you do the stanky leg during your off-time road map, I will give you an extra point. I dock points for referring to the other side as "my opponent", please use "the affirmation" or "the negation" instead. Typically tech > truth, however if you're blatantly lying, I will go truth > tech.

I teach rhetorical analysis and argumentation; consequently, I carry that awareness with me in my judging. I do my best not to let prior knowledge impact my opinion of arguments.

In judging LD, I concentrate on the values and contentions; I am more excepting of far-reaching contentions as long as you can make the connections. Definitions aren't everything, but I like to know which ones you are using; subtle differences matter. My focus will be on the actual argument, the claims and rebuttals, and the crosses in the debate. I find "arguments" that rely on exhorting the rules of the process to be disingenuous.

In PF, I appreciate seeing a cohesiveness in the team. I focus on the structure of the argument, are adequate supports provided, and is everything rebutted. Again, I do my best not to let prior knowledge impact my decision. Unnecessary speaking over each other and attempting to drown each other out is uncivilized and irritating. It also works against following your argument.

In Policy, I am looking for a logical argument that should pass, and for the negation, I am comfortable with nearly all on-topic and off-topic measures. I do find continuous definition attacks to be pedantic. As for spread, not an issue. I have clear hearing and have taught English to non-native speakers, so enunciation is not really an issue.

Jude Sims-Barber, as featured on https://www.change.org/p/keep-the-public-in-public-forum?source_location=search

Hello debaters! I’m a university student studying philosophy and sociology, and was a debater throughout high school for three years. My main proficiency was with Lincoln-Douglas debate and Congressional debate but I am very familiar with Public Forum, Policy, and IDPA debate (and, to a lesser extent, British Parliament and World Schools Debate).

I use any and all pronouns and my email is njudesims@gmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: I have minor hearing loss. My inner ear tissue is scarred and my speech perception is affected as a result. This is not an issue of volume, it is an issue of clarity and enunciation. As a result, I cannot understand spreading. It is simply out of my ear's reach. And before you ask, no, you don't magically have the perfectly understandable spreading cadence.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Notes (please read):

Debate is educational first and foremost. Yes, it is competitive (a "game"), but you should always debate in good faith and not use cheap arguments or tricks just to win. Try to understand your opponent and their arguments, and try to make the debate reach a point of conclusion rather than simply making cheap dunks or disingenuous attacks. Communication relies on mutual trust and a desire to learn, not a desire to dominate or win.

Truth over tech. Techy truth is generally fine. I will not disclose. I don't have time to argue with high schoolers about why they lost.

While I understand the desire to make as many arguments as possible, the default should be using an ordinary, pedestrian speed to communicate well-researched ideas. Do not be disingenuous, either in the arguments you choose to run (knowing that they're designed or cut in a manner to disorient your opponent) or the way you explain/extend them.

-Stay topical. You chose to come to this tournament, you paid the entry fee, you know the topic. It's different when academics decide to discuss the weaknesses of our discourse models or the symbolic violence inherent in... English syntax. You aren't an academic, you're a high schooler competing in a competitive tournament you voluntarily signed up for--debate what the resolution says.

Time limits exist as a statement of how long the statements you need to make should take. They are not an excuse to cram as much stuff into that time by spreading.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Lincoln-Douglas:

-Keep it traditional. The most engaging LD debates are those that speak in concrete terms about abstract ideas, using what we examine on a surface level (mere political issues) and revealing hidden moral assumptions or frameworks (theory).

-Is is not ought. Merely because something is the case in the real world says nothing about whether such a thing is morally justified. No, you don't have the solution to the is-ought gap.

-You must have a Value and Criterion. Lincoln Douglas is all about framing topics with an ethical framework. When we say that something is moral or immoral, we must do so with an ethical framework (i.e., consequentialism, deontology, etc.). A value of Morality is meaningless, as the purpose of LD is to normatively prescribe a special importance to a particular value or good (it tells me nothing as a judge if you value morality. You might as well say "it is good to do good things and bad to do bad things").

-Ethical theories are not values. You cannot 'value' utilitarianism--it is an ethical framework through which we quantify or evaluate that which we hold important. We can examine the utility of 'positive freedom' as a value, but we cannot simply value utilitarianism.

-Avoid criteria that are bulkily worded ("ensuring healthcare access" or something similar). Try to limit criteria to established philosophies, ideas, methods, or theories.

-I highly value philosophical consistency and a solid understanding of the philosophical ideas and ethical theories argued for. I know judge intervention is frowned upon, but if you misrepresent a philosophical position or idea, it will be hard for me to trust your proclaimed level of expertise on the topic. Simple mistakes are perfectly okay, as a lot of philosophy is rather impenetrable.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Public Forum:

-PF is not policy. You used to be prohibited from citing evidence in PF until after Ted Turner sponsored it. PF is the lay debate in high school circuits. Keep it simple. To clarify, I do expect you to use evidence, but also your own proficiency for debate.

-If you know a piece of evidence is deeply flawed or even wrong, why run it on the chance that your opponent won't know how to respond? Does that not seem disingenuous to you?

-I'm primarily a flow judge, and I care deeply about clear statements of arguments and rebuttals. If you don't signpost, I'll likely miss it. Tech mainly bores me, so do try to make quality arguments--if you make bad arguments, then I won't prefer them solely because the opposing team couldn't mention the sixth drop of the fourth subpoint in a three minute speech. If the argument is bad, then it's bad--simple as. (By bad, I mean poorly explained, incoherent, frivolous, or cheap.) Drops are only a point in your favor insofar as the dropped argument is actually substantial to the overall debate.

-Focus on broader impacts. Remember that the burden of the CON is not to propose any comprehensive plan of action, merely demonstrate why the PRO is ineffective or harmful.

-Do not spend too much time on one specific point with one specific point of evidence. Give weight to what's important. Collapse by the end. The earlier, the better.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Big Questions:

-Big questions is a descriptive debate, which means that you are debating on what is (descriptive) rather than what ought be the case (normative). What this means is that you are, on aff or neg, answering the big question at hand. What's more, big questions require big answers, and any reasonably big answer contains quite a lot of philosophy. Your case should include some measure of balance between raw theoretical material (philosophy, broadly) and hard science. Depending on the topic, you might lean more to one side (e.g., objective morality exists vs. humans are naturally self-interested).

-In my experience (for the few years BQ has been around), disputes over evidence in BQ shouldn't be boiled down to "well our sources disagree." Generally, a dispute around a big question is epistemological, about how we come to know things and how certain that knowledge really is. For example, saying that "humans are naturally protective of their young" is not really disagreeable on a factual basis, but whether that information is significant as to whether humans are self-interested is a matter of specific theoretical framing and definition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Policy:

-Don't spread. If you go too fast, I'll say 'clear' until you slow down. This has resulted in me saying clear within the entire 8 minutes of a speech, so please do slow down.

-Please do not force me to rely on an email chain to decide the round.

-On T: I am pretty lenient when it comes to whether a plan/counterplan is topical or not. My standard for determining this is whether or not the plan fits in what I conceive as the "spirit of the resolution." Something may not be strictly topical as per the verbiage of the resolution, but is still topical as it fits the resolution's intended spirit as written. The only times I will flatly reject a plan on topicality is (1) if it is too large in scope, as to encompass the resolution rather than the other way around, or (2) it is so disconnected from the topic that it may as well be a non-sequitur. As an additional note, please don't waste time making a bunch of topicality arguments. It is often time-consuming.

-K's are most commonly a cheap trick, in my view--I know that they're used topic to topic and round to round with little change, as a means to minimize exhaustive prep and real engagement with the topic. The only exception I'll give is to specific instances of abolition/discourse K's, in which you argue (in good faith, I'll be able to tell) that the verbiage or framing of the resolution overly limits available/acceptable discourse. Regardless, don't anticipate a vote in a K's favor. You signed up for this tournament, after all, and your decision to sidestep the topic reflects at least partially on your intellectual honesty.

Courtesy, clarity, and connection. Please be polite, speak to make your points or performance clear to the audience (the judges), and (in debate) explicitly articulate the connection of your evidence to your point(s).

Speech & Debate is as much an educational activity as it is a competitive activity, so my comments will be focused on what seemed to work or not work within the context of what it appeared you were trying to accomplish.

I give only a brief paradigm here because I do NOT want you to attempt to tailor your presentation to a bunch of imagined traits and preferences I may or may not possess. Run YOUR case; give YOUR performance - I will judge and comment upon the presentation's face value to the best of my ability.