https://docs.google.com/document/d/11jZDk15UIPhhyBojzFnXayCETBt36yUnRHWGgTizBEI/edit?usp=sharing

I am a lay judge who enjoys a compelling, logically sound argument. That said, I am a former high school English teacher and current school administrator, and I would like to believe this has prepared me a bit more than the typical lay judge.

I respect arguments that are well-organized and thoughtful and, though I can keep up with a quick pace, I absolutely prefer a natural pace and speaking style, and I value speakers who genuinely know and have internalized their content so that they are able to naturally adapt to the flow of the debate, demonstrating the ability to formulate poised, well-articulated responses on the fly.

Please keep policy discussions and counter plans out of LD debates, as I respect the philosophical focus and original intent behind the LD format. Competitors who condescend or who feel the need to be offensive to their opponents will not earn points from me.

Note that I philosophically do not believe in those who "run Ks" or spread.

I am a middle school speech and debate coach. I have been a coach for over ten years, and I have been a judge for the high school level speech and debate tournaments for over five years.

My decisions on debate are based on familiarity with the topic and the complexity of understanding the topic, and refuting the opponent's arguments. Also, important facts should be cited unless you are doing Parliamentary debate, then no citation is needed . Off time road maps also help me keep track of what I should be looking for in your structure.

As for speed, I do not mind speed of speeches but debater must be able to articulate what they are saying. Debater will need to present their speeches rather than just read them from a device or paper. Communicate with the judge .

For Policy debate: as long as I have the cards a head of time, spreading is okay and eye contact during spreading does not need to be made. But, eye contact should be made at some point during cross fire and rebuttals. Delivery of your debate rather than just reading off from your cards is a plus [ except when spreading].

Structure of the speeches must be clear and when asking questions make them purposeful. Also when asking for cards, have a reason to do so. I have judged many debates where the opponent asks for a card and then finds a flaw with the source or finds the context was not as the opponent attended it to be. These are examples of what I am looking for when asking for cards.

I do appreciate the debaters standing when speaking. Try not to be monotone but I do not want a debater to yell at their opponent. Do not mock your opponent. Be respectful when debating. Always a good idea to fist bump or shake hands with your opponent/s after a round or simply saying great job. But DO NOT tell them good job DURING a round.

As for Speech. I need to feel the energy in your presentation. Eye contact / camera contact is important. Annunciate and make sure your moves are sharp and distinguished. Also, voices need to match character/s. I have seen EXCELLENT speeches judging online and in person. Both ways deliver great speeches. If doing online, try and make your lighting in front of you versus behind you. Also, make sure that camera is treated like the judge/audience. This way the energy can come through.

I am always impressed the moment I see you in a room. Joining the speech and debate team in school has so many advantages not only while in school but later in life as well.

Great job!

I was a reasonably competitive policy debater for all four years of high school and for one tournament in college. I also practiced law for nine years. Spreading is fine; I can definitely still recognize quality over nonsense mumbling. I will not tolerate disrespectful/unethical behavior, shady tactics and unnecessary aggression. The flow is determinative in that I will not make arguments for you if you didn't articulate it in the round. Proper skill in navigating the flow is something I very much appreciate and respect.

Finally, be passionate even if you don’t personally believe in what you’re arguing for; learn to be an advocate. Have fun!!

I am a lay judge. This is my fourth year judging, and I have only judged at lay tournaments. I prefer that you speak clearly at a speed you prefer, as long as it is reasonably comprehensible. I support diversity and equal opportunity. Please make sure to respect each other and have fun.

Hello!

I was a past debater for about three years, specializing in LD, but I have done both PuFo and Parli as well. I do flow and base a lot of the round on the flow, so please be good with signposting! Treat me kind of like a lay judge, over explain if you want, and tell me where you are on the flow during speeches. As far as pronouns go I use any, feel free to state yours if comfortable.

Not a fan of spreading/super fast talking, I can flow fast if need be but I'd prefer not to as I'll likely miss some arguments. Also not a big fan of kritiks and off-topic arguments. I was always a traditional debater- pen and paper- so adding more policy takes to LD makes it harder on me since I'm not a big fan of the two colliding at all. Traditional > circuit debate.

I put a lot of focus on the value/value criterion debate so please go philosophical and hit me hard with it!! Connect your case and contentions deeply with your framework and impacts. Speaking of impacts, state them clearly, please!!!

If you have questions before the round feel free to ask! All in all, focus on having a respectful debate.

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2021-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

I value clear communication and appreciate a regular speaking speed. Please avoid spreading because if I can’t follow your speeches, I’m unable to judge you fairly as well. I also would really appreciate any and all acronyms to be explained clearly, even if it’s something that might be common, just to make sure I’m on the same page as you. Thank you!!!

coaching (LD/Worlds/Speech) for Harvard-Westlake (2023-present)

coached (PF/LD/Policy/Parli/Speech) at Flintridge Prep and Westridge School from 2018 - 2023

competed in NPDA and Speech at LAVC

competed in Policy at southwestern cc and USC

email chain —-> trojandebateteam@gmail.com,

*ask me about debating at USC*

(I try to change my paradigm up a little bc I coach and judge a lot of things and it can be overwhelming if you think im a worlds person when I do policy or when you think you have an LD judge in the back of your congress rd)

for Worlds TOC (-- 4/20/24)

ask questions, I’m happy to answer things. Above all, I love good spirited debate, strong refutations, collapsing down of arguments, strategic concessions, comparative weighing and framing. Tell me how I should be seeing the round so I don’t have to intervene and frame it myself and your rfd will likely follow suit! I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story to resolve things and tend not to to have the energy to weigh alternative ways in which the round could’ve gone, but I’ll give you recommendations of what might’ve gotten my ballot or where I felt I could’ve been persuaded.

• content — good presentation of information, structure,
• strategy — good debate tech, answering of questions, taking questions, etc
• style — in depth analysis of said content and its implications, your aesthetic representations of this

Quick thoughts for pref sheets (usually for LD/policy)

general debate thoughts

1) I don't tell you how to debate but I do have preferences. That's just because I want everyone to see my ballot as accessible and within reach, not because I'll drop you if you challenge my preferences. I often rewrite my paradigm bc of how talented and exceptional debaters are. As such, I will vote on anything except:

• RVIs on T,
• friv theory (I think you can justify good practices and make them into args on the flow, disclosure is not friv)
• Tricks (these should be impact framing args imo),
• and I will not vote on arguments that implicate something that has happened out of round that I have not witnessed or been a part of. Screenshots are fine but I give a lot of defense bc I personally have no context

2) I think debate is super fun when there is an embodied or critical element to it -- if you read plans and defend us heg, just be passionate about it and tell me why I should care and I'm certain you can snag a 29 or higher otherwise disembodied debates tend to be super stale and you should definitely disconnect from the document and make the debate feel real for me. I am not a drone and I like debates to feel like I'm not an ai robot

3) I have a pretty low evidentiary standard (LD background sorry), but I do have a research background and would like you to do some work with your evidence. I am a strong proponent of doing more with less. I will read along as it happens. That being said, my contemporaries are considerably better card people, I did a lot of performance. (translation: pls dont put me in a 2nr/2ar debate about competition theory about the counterplan)

4) I prefer people tell me how to evaluate their debates, framing included, what matters, what doesn't -- filtering / sequencing etc

5) debates are simplest and imo best executed when people reduce the number of args and clarify their argumentation and spend more time discussing the relation to the other teams args / participation in relation to their args, as well as making the link -> impact story more persuasive.

Lastly, I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story possible. Please collapse and make a choice. I think thats the beauty of debate is winning your argument rather than forcing me to have to do the evaluation of a number of sheets in the 2nr. Basically, if you go into the 2nr with 4 off case and expect me to vote on one of them, I'm going to be really upset.

I'll do my best to explain the world you've laid out for me in the debate and how I came to my decision in my RFD but I will not likely explain the the entire world of the debate in relation to implication of (x) unless it helps me vote differently.

keep reading below for specific preferences or how I think about things

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Stuff for Strikes/Prefs:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

debates about debate / pre-fiat: truth > tech

debates about warrants and information / post-fiat: tech > truth; but if you drop a DA, that usually means you lose if the impact o/ws the aff. if it doesn't, I'm just gonna be like wow you really let case o/w that's tough

t/fw: have voted on it but I've been labelled a K hack because of the args I read. I often feel like people should implicate the world view of the framework page more and tell me what their model of debate creates and impact that out. makes life a lot easier for everyone involved imo

Nebel T: boy, I don't get this and I'm too afraid to ask questions now, so pls explain what an up-ward tailed test is or we will both be lost

Theory threshold: kinda high actually, umm LD debaters need impacts to theory and clash is not an impact, it's a standard or an internal link to something -.- in policy, condo is cool. I will vote on condo but I have a high threshold for why you couldn't read the perm and a da to the alt

Critical Non T Affs: I love these, I've even been inspired to write specific positions by 2 debaters I've judged so I guess there's your spillover warrant -- pls have your fw answers and i'm super down to learn some new stuff!

"debatably" T/NonT Affs: really big fan, win your stuff

Tricks: pls don't thx ~~

Cheater CPs: love a smart counterpane debate, I had some fun reading some cheater CPs but I am not a counterplan competition maximalist -- please treat me like I'm a child in this debate, I will not be patronized

High Phil theory: pls strike me ; I genuinely do not enjoy the process of linking offense to a FW in which two things feel very similar and struggle to eval these debates unless there is a comparative advantage / cp / k format. I will judge them if I have to, but its a debate I don't enjoy.

high Phil Ks: I read a good amount of psychoanalysis (Lacan/freud), D&G and some others for classes as well as for leisure reading. That being said, please dont just assume we have mutual understandings of order words or the real x symbolic x the imaginary.

Args like Warming good / Recession good / death good; if warming is good bc it’s great for that one species of phytoplankton, tell me why that phytoplankton is key in comparison to the climate conditions of others; i.e., incremental warming is what's happening now, incrementalism is good) Same for like death good; it's gotta be like "we need to reorient how we see death" otherwise, you're gonna be in for a rough time

K v K debates: probably my preferred debate, as long as you explain what's going on, I'm here to let you run your round and evaluate it how you want me to. These are really fun debates for me to become engaged in and one I love watching.

Case Debate / Turns: yee these are cool

I believe that debate should help prepare students for the real world. Spreading, incivilty, and blatantly unnecessary topicality are highly discouraged. If I had to describe myself in a particular judging style, I would say policy maker.

DEBATE: Please speak clearly and not too fast. I value evidence especially for bold arguments, refutation of opponents arguments, and respect given to fellow competitors.

SPEECH: Prove your interpretation to me, I go into every round with no agenda, and take my perspective out.

Parent Judge

Speaking speed as long as its understandable

keep crossx substantial and don't get sidetracked

Do not use crossx time to look at evidence; limit only necessary one

No cutting off to intimidate the opponent too frequently

finally please be respectful refrain from yelling or being rude to opponents

If spreading please consider sending written materials so I can follow along - if permitted. If spreading try to articulate so I can hear, understand and follow. I prefer competitors not interrupt opponents, including during cross-examination.

I’m a lay parent judge. I’ll be taking notes during the debate and so please signpost your arguments. Don’t talk too fast and make sure you maintain eye contact throughout your speech. Have solid links between your arguments and your impacts, and in your final speech, make it very clear why you think you should win. Be polite to everyone in the room, keep the debate interesting, and have fun.

My background: I'm primarily a Speech Coach and have been since 2003. I coached Public Forum a long time ago and judged Public Forum and Lincoln/Douglas at the high school level since our school was heavily invested in those forms of debate.

I am "old school" and prefer debaters speak to me as if I were a lay judge. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I know nothing about debate. It's just that I really don't like to hear a lot of debate slang. If you speak too fast for me to understand you, I will stop typing or writing. I don't like abusive arguments, but if you are on the receiving end, you should mention your opponents’ argument is abusive and why it's abusive. And if anyone runs an "everybody dies" or "nuclear war and the world ends" kind of argument, it better tie VERY logically to the topic or I will drop you.

I like rounds where there’s clear framework set in place. Give me a way to weigh the impacts in a round.

Please respect your opponents and all people in the room. I will dock speaker points if debaters are rude or don't let opponents get a word in during crossfires or cross-examinations. On the other hand, I will hand higher speaker points to those who use soaring rhetoric and appropriate humor - did I mention I'm a Speech coach?

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit Policy & PF, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Send speech docs WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
4. Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your floor.
5. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
6. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
7. I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(This is more an exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you are)

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Three caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score, 3) I won't penalize debaters in novice or MS rounds who don't send card docs. We all have enough to learn in those debates without also having to send docs. But if you are a novice team competing in an open/varsity division, the expectation is that you send cards.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Don't do it. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentive you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will get from me are a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your floor.

5. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

6. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

6A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

7. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y"). Also, Neg DOESN'T get to counterplan. Again, you can't specify anything, so neg doesn't even have the resolution to fiat. So, no actionable K alts and no CP texts (even if you call them a "generalized, practical solution." You are stuck defending the status quo, absent a good role of the ballot framing arg for critical negs.

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, If you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

8. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - Because PF Negs don't get fiat (e.g. no power to CP), I don't buy that Neg gets the power to fiat any type of action-based alternative. You can reject or maybe do nothing, and, of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want. But trying to fiat any action as an alternative (e.g. engaging in active resistance, or anything similar) isn't likely to fly with me, unless you can make a really solid ROTB arg to change what my vote means. This severely limits what you can do from the Neg in front of me. Be warned.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

9. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

10. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

11. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

12. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...")which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

I am a parent judge with limited experience, so please convince me why you win using ordinary terms. I do not understand debate jargons

I'm an "OLD" former college NDT and LD debater when cards were actually on cards, I was a volunteer coached to HS and College teams. If you share cards with each other, please share them with me as well. Please be polite but I expect a clash, ad hominem attacks will ensure your lost of the round, and "I will tell on you." However, a friendly jab among friends keeps the debate fun and entertaining.

I am not a fan of speed, but I think I can keep up. I'll tell you to slow down if you're going too fast or being un-comprehendible. My big voters are IMPACT, Solvency, and Inherency. I'm a flow judge most of the time.

I love to see strategies and I do buy Topicality and Counterplan, but you better know it inside and out otherwise you can be heavily penalized. If you run T, please be specific. Time-suck T will be penalized, I love "turns" if you can sell it, and please carry/extend your key arguments, this helps flow and decisions.

I dislike BS contentions unless it's part of your "time-suck" strategies, or plans with no significant or inherency is an easy voter for me. If you catch the other team using it as a Time-Suck, call them out on it, and move on. Always tell me why and what you're winning. I appreciate a good off-time road map. I do not penalize speakers for NOT using all their speaking time...if you think you won the round, tell me where and how don't have to stand there and repeat.

I don't flow CX, that's your time for clarification and my time to listen

Parli/Ceda/UN etc. - Same rules apply. Value over value is a voter, even though plan/implementation is not required...realism, common sense, applicable arguments are.

I love to see debaters having fun and not taking things too seriously. Good Luck

*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college super trad policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and a few open. She/her. Docshare >

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

Ex. Fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.

If you take longer than a minute to exchange a card you just read, it starts coming out of your prep. Speech docs make sure this is never an issue, so that's another plug.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

Other "progressive pf" - I have minimal experience judging it. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but I'm saying be aware and slow down if I'm the one evaluating. Update: So far this season, I've voted down trigger warning theory and voted for paraphrasing theory.

I'll accept new weighing in final focus but I don't think it's strategic - you should probably start in summary to increase my chances of voting off of it.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A good debate means both sides have strong, well researched cases with points that are supported with evidence and easy to follow. Debaters are respectful of each other and the spirit of the event.

I judge on framework and flow. The debater that wins will be the one who best defends their case with supported rebuttals and upholds their value through the end of the debate.

Hello! :D

I did speech and debate my entire time in high school, with a focus on IE and Congress. I've watched a lot of debate rounds over the years, but please treat me like I know absolutely nothing! I like to see well-outlined cases with clear evidence, values, contentions, transitions, etc. I take a lot of notes, and I always refer back to them when I make my decision.

There will always be clashing evidence and, instead of arguing the same point back and forth, please focus on the value/value criterion! It's my favorite part of debate, so state and connect them clearly throughout your entire case. If you feel like you're mentioning it too much, that's just the way I like it :).

Also, it's never impacted my decision, but presentation is important to me! I was a speech kid, after all. Enunciate, have good volume, good posture, etc. Whatever makes you look and feel confident at the podium.

I used to do debate. Economics and Education are my specialties.

I am not a lay judge. If you see me stop typing then go onto your next point

I will consider goofy arguments if they are better than serious ones. As long as they are debated correctly.

IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS

PLEASE don't knock on the desk after each speech.

If you want feedback ask me after the round. I will not be writing long RFD’s.

If both teams agree I will judge a round off of double loss theory.

Do NOT spread. I will stop listening and start playing Clash of Clans.

Do NOT BS your information. I will know...

But if you can make it rhyme your score will be prime.

If you have a P.O.O. please say “Pause time Poop” That will be funny I think.

good luck.

I value clear, logically reasoned arguments delivered at a comprehendible speed. Signposting is excellent. Pithy and unique turns of phrase are a definite plus. Eye contact, tonal modulations, and a sense of your personality are all important.

An unusual, thought-provoking case is always appreciated provided you can back it up with facts/logical reasoning, and you're not working way outside of the box. Ontological arguments, for example, are often not particularly persuasive.

I'm a traditional judge who prefers non circuit arguments. Evidence is important, but you should also use logic and reasoning to persuade me. Spreading is a no go with me, if you start I'll tune you out.

Hello,

I have been a parent judge for 5 years. Please speak slowly and coherently. Do not spread.

ALL DEBATERS:

▪ Lay judge, usually no flow

▪ Please signpost your arguments

▪ Please speak slowly and clearly

▪ Make your arguments easy to understand

▪ Link your arguments to your impacts

▪ In the final speech, make it very clear why you win (signpost!)

Jill Van - Preferred Debate Styles: Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, Policy, Congress 

I believe arguments are effective when audience can properly understand your points of view and supporting evidence presented. Therefore, I ask you to consider the need to moderate your speed to ensure proper audience understanding in the time allotted.

When you begin your debate, tell me who you are and who you represent, maintain eye contact, speak clearly throughout.

I welcome all types of evidence including philosophical, theoretical and empirical. I look for all elements of a well-reasoned debate, including ethos, pathos and logos. As you begin, I evaluate your contentions from the structure to framework and then to elements. From your contentions, I look for your understanding of the resolution; whether there is clear definition of the questions raised in the resolution; logic supporting your arguments, including relevance of evidence cited. I also look for your understanding of the evidence presented, not a mere recitation of them. 

When rebutting, I look for questions directly addressing opposing side's facts and evidence, whether there is meaningful exchange of ideas, not just insistence on one's own point of view. 

I strive to only judge based on the merits of the debate itself, including content, delivery and style; not based on my preference of one approach vs. another. The individual (team) with the well-reasoned argument and effective delivery will prevail. 

What an absolute pleasure to watch, listen and learn from these phenomenal young people. It is such a privilege to participate.

I like to see a lot of clash between arguments. I like it when competitors explain their argument and the impact of their arguments. I weigh heavily on the value criterion and voting issues expressed in the first constructive speeches, extending to the last rebuttal speeches. I do not like fast reading or spreading. I am OK with value debates, policy debate and philosophical debates.