Sequoyahs Autumn Argument
2022 — Canton, GA/US
V/JV LD Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideUpdated for ’24-’25. If there’s anything not covered in here (tried to be as extensive as possible), just ask, but if it’s something like “are you good with counterplans” I might be v sad.
About: 4 years of LD in a GA HS (local first then circuit), UGA ’24, ’24 (M.Ed. if it matters to you, it probably doesn’t). Have judged on the circuit and locally since 2021. Familiar enough with the resolution to know what you’re talking about, not familiar enough to know all the intricate ptx DAs. Do whatever you do best—would rather see good theory debates than bad K debates, etc.
- Pronouns: they/she.
- Yes, I want to be on the chain (chansey.agler@gmail.com), speechdrop and fileshare on tab are fine; I won’t look at google docs, PDFs are inadvisable
- Fine w flex prep
- Pls don’t try and shake my hand after the round thx in advance; ask me for permission before recording an RFD
Speaks:
- Speed is fine if you’re clear, be extra clear (start slower) when it’s the first round of the day or of the tournament, appreciate slowing down on advocacy, interp, ROB, standard/criterion texts—more signposting is good, I usually need a few seconds to switch flows—audibly saying “onto the DA” and pausing for a second in the 1AR, for example, is helpful
- Speaks are based off of efficiency, strategy, and clarity, not arbitrariness—playing behind the scenes to try and balance historic gaps in speaks, lowering them for split 2NRs
- I typically average ~28.5 relative to the pool, would usually prefer not to disclose them immediately after the round
Prefs Cheat Sheet:
Ks, Policy: 1
Philosophy*: 2-3 (*not fantastic for tricks disguised as phil)
Traditional: 3
Theory: 4
Tricks: 4
TL;DR: collapse, weigh, common sense is important, read complete arguments, do more link work
Top-level/must knows:
- Will vote on most arguments, better for policy and K arguments (method debates and clash rounds are fine). Experienced w/ philosophy but LD’s execution is hit-or-miss. Theory or tricks-heavy strats need to be complete arguments and have actual warrants. Meaningful, resolvable, complete arguments are good, hail marys are inadvisable regardless of style.
- Explanation, weighing, clash, and judge instruction are crucial. Do more resolving interactions btwn things. Yes tech > truth in that I resolve rounds based on the flow, am open to a lot of args (would prefer to see what you’re good at), but truth matters in the sense that args start at zero and go up from there and I’m not abandoning all common sense, if I didn’t understand it, I can’t vote on it.
- Most judges give awful RFDs—not listening to the round, ignoring arguments made besides what they like/don't like. Trying very hard not to be like that but there is a greater range of uncertainty in my decision when I have to do more work—explaining, doing link weighing, and resolving clash mean I can echo the 2NR/2AR and avoid decisions I am unhappy with, fine with questions but aggression/postrounding are nonstarters.
- Not a fan of frivolous/‘tabula rasa’ nonsense since I think what we do is and should be meaningful, the closer an arg gets to abhorrent or contrary to debate’s intent (think “flat earth”), the likelier it is I won’t evaluate it. Will not evaluate arguments generated exclusively by AI (unless it’s a performance about AI or something ig?).
- Not voting on -isms or discriminatory args, this includes args from hate orgs (ex: the heritage foundation). Will eval impact turns like spark, wipeout, and extinction good (read: as negative util/preserving value) but I understand why many aren’t receptive to these. Not evaluating things like ‘warming good.’ Threshold for responses is always lower the worse/edging on abhorrent the arg is.
- CX matters, you must be able to explain args to win on them, CX should never be 3 min of “what was your first contention…wouldn’t you agree…”
- Independent voters can be persuasive in the age of reading off docs and just not understanding engagement, in the age of widening ideological gaps, and the age of increasing accountability. Not everything rises to the level of independent voter, but speech acts do matter.
- Accessibility is important—lmk accommodations directly if possible, most emails go to my spam (this happened in a round), misgendering/racism/other -isms in round lead to loss of speaks and/or the ballot if egregious. I take misgendering very seriously. You and your opponent have the right to point it out and make it instant DTD, even if it happened in the 2AR. Advocating for this is exhausting. If there’s an issue of similar nature, let me know in whatever way possible.
- weigh <3
Lincoln-Douglas
Policy
- Probably most comfortable judging this, fair game for most things, though I will say I prefer topic DAs (esp w/ specific links to the plan) to generic ptx, not wild about tangential extinction impacts (do we really need to read ‘extinction’ on a topic like “standardized tests?”)
- Fine with specific plans and PICs, not fantastic for either extreme of the nebel T debate
- Tag and ev quality both matter—incoherent args (tags like “No China war” followed by a long card are as bad as a card highlighted to incoherence) are incoherent (this is a massive problem in LD rn and policy args are imo most affected by this), you only get credit for what’s flowed, do more ev weighing
- I think inserting re-highlighting is fine if it’s from portions of ev already read, must be aloud if it’s a different portion even if from the same article
- I think zero risk is a thing, CX can do a lot of work here too
- Like good impact turns, ev quality is necessary, innovation makes for some interesting debates, stale impact turns like the same version of spark every round are bad
- Yes internal link weighing—contest probability, timeframe, etc., makes my ballot easier when both sides impact to extinction
- 1NC needs to do more competition work in LD, love good perm debates but 10 “perm do both” analytics aren’t it
- Judge kick seems bad, 2NRs should learn to make strategic choices, won’t not eval it but definitely receptive to “it’s arbitrary”
- Case debates are great debates, do more solvency/link turns and not just 1 min of impact D after spraying 6 off (2NRs on case are always welcome btw)
- In LD, you should still warrant util/SV in the 1AC—the 1NC should always go for an NC if this isn’t the case
- If evenly debated, ground > limits for T; Aff on CP competition, Neg on CP theory; condo good; semantic controls pragmatic
- “You get ptx” or “we want ptx” isn’t great as an explanation of models for T, other than that, good for T interps that delineate models of debate and go for topic lit/controversy, 2AR must extend case if T was the 2NR, if you’re reading “X school’s Aff is the TVA,” explain what that means
- Not very moved by tournament dates, popularity, etc. for T—popularity doesn’t make an Aff immune to T as a germane criticism, though functional limits are persuasive
- Bad for plan flaw unless the plan text is meaningfully different from real implementation (“this isn’t how that law works in practice” = fine, “US meaningless/no period” = please no)
Kritiks
- Very solid or very weak rounds based on the work you do to make it great, honestly much better for a more technical K debate though I do understand that performances are important too
- I try to be familiar with a decent variety of lit but I do not guarantee I know the intricate details of your lit base (most familiar with queer theory), you should still explain args as if I do not have a base understanding, have voted from things like psychoanalysis to a simple cap K and back, you do you if you can explain it
- Not familiar with denser critiques of IR, happy to judge these but I’m unlikely to understand it without the 1NC doing some work here
- Have devoted a lot of focus in particular to queer and trans lit—don’t go for it just to go for it, higher threshold to win it when “state bad” is your only link, these lit bases are indebted to Blackness in their resistance strategies (this seems most relevant in methods debates)
- Ks of discourse – be reasonable, policing is bad, racism and other forms of abhorrent discourse are also bad
- Non-T Affs are completely fine, just have a relevant ballot story and do ‘something’ (don’t care what that ‘something’ looks like though—very low threshold here)—I do also enjoy creative visions of affirmation and like Affs that innovate
- FW teams are getting away with murder. Blitzing 13 "ballots don't impact subject formation" is much less persuasive than developing "clash outweighs" and collapsing to that in the 2nr.
- Presumption and case pushes are good against K affs (more than a few short analytics)—a lot of teams fall short in explaining what the Aff does, what it endorses, ballot key, etc.—doing work at these levels treats the Aff like an Aff and makes for better rounds than “fiat is good because I prefer policy debates”
- Have judged a bit of K v. K rounds, K aff v. cap K is usually straightforward but otherwise, do a lot more “turns/solves case” and work on the perm than just “root cause,” resolving work is key—the two Ks aren’t usually a criticism of the same thing so perms that demonstrate interactions or resolve “perms in a methods debate” are more convincing than 5 brief versions of “perm do both”
- Not a fan of the “perm double bind”
Independent Voters
- I tend to view these as pressing concerns that must override substance, I think debaters are oftentimes too quick to throw out “auto-drop” or “repugnant” warrants without explaining DTD implications, but I also think problematic discourse is terrible—very receptive to things like misgendering as an IVI, less to things like “this is independent” if it’s a reps turn or something that should be resolved substantively; I find that many independent voters fall short of DTD and seem more DTA—for example, “legal definitions bad” seems like DTA
- Theory args (condo, CP legitimacy, etc.) =/= independent voters, idk why these are lumped together ngl
Framework (Policy v. K)
- Policy teams that go for “ToP doesn’t explain everything, prefer particularized methods on this issue” along with “state engagement good on this issue” do much better than those that rely on generics
- Aff FW v. K: a) start resolving “weigh case” vs. “debate is about discourse” much earlier, b) “extinction o/w” is overused and avoids clash, c) I honestly don’t usually understand most “procedural fairness” args on their own and so impacting the deficit to fairness is necessary
- T-FW—a) not great for “planless” Affs that still defend the rez in LD (e.g., a Kant AC), b) state engagement being better for movements and solving case is really enjoyable, “rez is worth debating” is good if applicable, c) 1-off FW strategies that devote most of the 1NC time to answering the Aff are honestly really enjoyable because of depth of clash (but spending like 5 min on FW is probably a mistake)
Philosophy
- Pretty familiar with analytical ethical phil, limited familiarity with continental, quicker to understand the former (if it’s like Levinas I can probably understand what you’re saying but if it’s really esoteric then you should err on the side of overexplaining esp in CX), I like good FW debates but bad ones usually hurt my head
- Kinda like policy v. phil, judging a lot more of this than I used to, though I would prefer more normative reasons to reject a FW than truth-testing or canned induction fails
- Explain your theory of ethical good, explain the application of Kantian ethics instead of just going “that’s coercive, can’t do it”—I’ll listen to things like “taxation always bad” if that’s the logical conclusion of your FW, but that rarely seems to be the case—I think CX is important in these debates
- Won’t hack for epistemic/ethical modesty but I also won’t disregard high risk of extinction purely bc there’s clash at the framing level
- Not huge on phil ACs that also read a util advantage or phil ACs/NCs that get super tricky
- Unlikely to vote on FWs I can’t explain back to you or that are extremely circular to the point of uselessness—performativity and constitutivism warrants are often culprits here
- I do not want to hear source Kant. If other cards are outdated and constantly need bracketing for things like gendered language, perhaps it is time for revision
- TJFs: a) I understand the necessity for them in circuit contexts, though they usually don’t make sense unless util is in play, b) most TJFs are poorly warranted, explain why analytics or carded offense are good/bad, c) phil ed loss? maybe? idk that’s for you to decide
- Impact-justified frameworks are probably bad
- AFC/ACC: this is debate. clash is a thing and good and args that deny clash make me sad.
Traditional LD
- I started trad and understand it, I only vote off the flow (not “who spoke better”), if you only have lay experience, just be aware that I understand the topic, debate, and a variety of styles—it doesn’t mean “read something crazy for the sake of it.” Unless definitions of words are relevant to the debate (aka topicality), just debate substance. The Aff is not bound to a “plan,” but solvency is a germane question, and you can’t just say “it’s LD.”
- The 1NC must engage with the Aff, not doing so means I’m voting Aff because the Neg has the burden of rejoinder, 1NCs are weirdly orienting themselves to very little case coverage nowadays
- I do not want to hear cases that read like an essay
- Yes I disclose, ask questions in-person
- Ev comparison, weighing, and analysis are good in these rounds—it is not enough to say “x matters,” tell me why x/y matters more, don’t just restate things, grandstanding is unhelpful
- FWs should have warrants and not be “upholding my side of the rez,” explain why util or Kant or whatever is true
-Do not read "constitutionality" as a framework. Reconsider reading something often construed to antiqueerness in front of a queer judge.
- If there’s no clash at the FW level, just concede FW and move on, two people can agree on a metric and disagree on the best action under it, I guarantee I will be happier if I see an in-depth DA + case debate in trad than bad FW debate
- Trad v. circuit: circuit teams should explain their args (esp in CX, not explaining means I’m skeptical of your understanding of the arg), simplifying is good (1-off, case for Ks and 2-3 off w/o procedurals for policy = good), not penalizing trad teams for not understanding circuit norms like disclosure, not penalizing circuit teams for playing the game (ex: if it’s a late prelim/elim and you go 5-off, more sympathetic than early prelims)
- Say the name of the card before what you cut, don’t paraphrase ev, made-up ev = auto-L, brackets that modify meaning = L
- Shenanigans like “they had no value/criterion” if they conceded FW or did something like reading a K will not make me happy (pls don’t mansplain LD to me…)
- “they were abusive” – what’s abusive, do I drop the argument or the debater, how do I rectify this, why do I care (theory >>> “this is abusive” with no warrant/impact)
- Trad debaters can respect in-round safety too, this does cost ballots (overt racism and antiqueerness has made a resurgence in locals again), will penalize this stuff even if there’s not an argument made
- No set lens on the rez (Aff should do something but idk what “something” is), debaters’ dismissal of things like Ks =/= reasons to reject on my flow, if you think Affs should debate the topic, argue they should—read T-FW and not NCs that don’t engage
- Yes, I’m fine with CPs, but most “counterplans” in lay rounds don’t make sense to me tbh—pls endorse a singular, counter-course of action w/ actual ev that the CP solves Aff offense—don’t read an abstract counter-claim—I won’t vote on CPs I don’t understand
Theory
- Have judged a reasonable amount of theory, highly dependent on execution, needs more weighing btwn standards and i/l weighing to fairness/ed—resolvability is key and otherwise I tend to defer to substance and/or presumption—deficits to fairness are rarely weighed (ex: neg flex vs. PICs stealing Aff offense)
- Better for policy theory than LD-style strategic/friv theory, make the abuse story and model clearer (condo always bad? what’s allowed?), if I can’t draw the line btwn speeches, unlikely to vote on it (10 second condo args don’t make for good 3 min 2Ars)
- DTA + reasonability are often persuasive, beating back paradigm issues in general is often persuasive
- Bad for friv and abstract theory, clear and specific interps are easier for me to eval, won’t eval stuff abt opp’s appearance or similar, use common sense, not very good for “URL theory” or “punching theory” or other things circulating rn
- Combo shells are both arbitrary and strategic against spiky affs
- I prefer that you do explicitly extend uncontested paradigm issues but that you not be annoying abt it
- Don’t use theory to shut out tough convos
- Not a fan of “must include links to circuit debater” or the like
- Lots of shells = usually unstrategic, more than 2 and I usually question your strategic decisions
- Not flowing new 2AR theory args unless the 2NR was abusive (“strike it from the flow” will suffice too)
- Have voted for RVIs in the past, not entirely opposed to voting for them per se but I think substance is usually easier to resolve given the lack of weighing or resolving done in these kinds of rounds, and RVIs are usually not well-warranted or extended
- Misdisclosure is tough, I need: a) SLOW DOWN and tell me what was ASKED FOR and what was GIVEN—I eval screenshots from both ends, b) standards that tie into this difference, c) DTD warrants (why not drop an analytic if that’s what you’re indicting?)
Disclosure
- Disclosure is good on balance but I’m not huge on disclosure theory esp when the violation gets more contrived—as of late I think reading disclosure theory is a mandate for equality over equity and I’m pretty receptive to exceptions to the rule, policy v. policy is where I am most persuaded by it and K rounds least so
- Don’t need to disclose performances or similar materials (narratives probably fall under this umbrella)
- Not voting on this at a local. Y’all haven’t figured out how to format a doc, let alone use the wiki.
- New Affs bad is not my favorite arg but I’ll hear you—go for better warrants over generics, skip “can’t engage” if you put a lot of answers on case, “new Affs justify some level of Neg abuse” >> DTD, the joke “I prepped for “it’s new”” was maybe funny once in like 2019
Tricks
- I honestly do not understand TT as much as you probably want me to if I’m in the back, ELI5 for most arguments that aren't ethical paradoxes (will vote on things like trivialism, it's just that debaters rarely explain it in a way that can pick up my ballot)
- Okay-ish for things like ethical paradoxes and maybe epistemic ones (one-card “skep Ks” are a nonstarter but gettier problems can be cool), not big on strategies designed to avoid clash—not a fan of sweeping theory spikes or “disregard the flow” that are tricky in nature, much worse for theory tricks than things like paradoxes
- Warrants are key, if I can't explain it back to you based on what was said in-round, it doesn't get the ballot
- If permissibility/presumption are triggered, I would prefer that you also explain why either one affirms and then ELI5
- If you want paradoxes to take out a framework, you have to devote time to them
- Bad for crazy logic paradoxes, I cannot flow a million Ps and Qs or understand an equation in the context of an LD round
- Slews of analytics are hard for me to flow, slow way down if the 1AC/1NC is loaded
- I evaluate all speeches in a given round, the exceptions do not usually come from tricks
Evidence Ethics (all events)
- I'll eval both theory and ev ethics challenges, the latter stops the round and winner gets a W, loser gets low speaks, theory plays out like any other theory debate
- If it's an ev ethics challenge, everyone needs to be silent and I’m looking over everything, if coaches/debaters try and sway this after the challenge, it’s an auto-L
- For clipping: I tend to not flow off the doc—this means I need a recording and definitive proof (beyond just a line or so)
Misc Stuff
- LD Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence – I have no defaults on theory (make arguments), permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, though presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy – it is MUCH easier to convince me that presumption affirms than permissibility
- I don’t care if you sit or stand—just be clear
CONFLICTS:
All entries – Sequoyah HS (GA), Perry HS (AZ), Ivy Bridge Academy (GA), Dean Rusk MS (GA)
I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.
Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm
What I Like
I've gotten a few notes from debaters that my paradigm is mostly about what I don't want to see, rather than what I do. In an attempt to remedy that, here is what I enjoy in a debate round.
Evidence Debate - I love when debaters actually engage with the internal warrants of their opponents evidence and arguments. Point out contradictions between pieces of evidence, expose evidence that is too specific or too general to apply, call out evidence that is just claims rather than warrants. Any engagement with evidence beyond "my opponent's evidence is wrong because my evidence is right" will greatly increase your chance of winning my ballot.
Meaningful Framework Debate - I love when debaters pick and choose their battles on framework and clearly impact the results of the framework debate to how I should evaluate impacts in the round. You will not lose my ballot solely for conceding your opponent's framework. Not all rounds need to have a framework debate, even with different values/value criteria, if those frameworks evaluate impacts in roughly the same way or if both debaters have the same impacts in the round (eg, people dying). Debaters who recognize that and focus on the areas of framework that will actually change how I judge arguments, then follow up with an explanation of what I should look for in evaluating the round based on that change will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.
Internal Consistency - I love when debaters commit to their positions. Many arguments, especially the more unusual philosophical arguments require commitment to a whole host of concomitant beliefs and positions. Embrace that. If someone points out that utilitarianism requires defending the interests of the majority over the minority, be willing to defend that position. If someone points out that Kantianism doesn't permit you to lie to a murderer, don't backtrack - explain it. Don't be afraid to say that extinction does not outweigh everything else. Conversely, if you argue that prediction of the future is impossible in order to answer consequentialism and then cite scientific authors to support your claims, I will be much less likely to believe your position. A debater who is committed and consistent in their ethical position will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.
Argument by Analogy - I love when debaters use analogies to explain or clarify their own positions, or to expose inconsistencies, absurd statements or flaws in their opponents arguments. I think analogies are underutilized as a method of analytical argumentation and debaters willing to use analogies to explain or undermine arguments have a much better chance of winning my ballot.
Comparative Weighing - I love when debaters specifically compare impacts when weighing in the round. Rarely does a debater win every single argument in the round and weighing significantly assists me in making a decision when there are multiple impacts for both sides. While I like weighing arguments in the vein of "This argument outweighs all others in the round" more than no weighing at all, a more specific and nuanced analysis along the lines of "this argument outweighs that argument for these reasons" (especially when it explains the weighing in the specific context of the framework) will give a debater a much better chance of winning my ballot.
Disclosure
I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card in which case I will ask to see evidence after the round.
Speed
I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.
Flex Prep
No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.
LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no action, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate. As with other arguments, I will evaluate a LARP round but will have a low-threshold to vote on evidentiary arguments, link/brink severance, and framework exclusion.
Evidence Ethics
I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if no argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.
Arguments
Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.
Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.
Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world or in debate. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts. That said, I will vote on pre-fiat Ks - a good metric for my preference is whether your link is specific to the aff's performance in this round or if it could link to any affirmative case on the topic (or any topic). If you're calling out specific parts of the affirmative performance, that's fine.
Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.
Topicality: Totally fine to run. I have a slight bias towards genericist positions over specificist ones, eg "a means any" rather than "a means one".
Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA because it doesn't link to the aff.
Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.
Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts because performance cannot be erased.
Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.
Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to risk of offense.
Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true and the alts are often unclear. I will vote on them but run at your own risk.
Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.
Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments. I don't believe that disclosure as a norm is beneficial to debate and I see it used to exclude non-circuit debaters far more often than I see debaters who are genuinely unable to engage because they could not predict their opponent's arguments.
Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.
Speaker Points
Since I've gotten some questions about this..
I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.
25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.
26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.
27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.
28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.
30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.
Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.
While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.
Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.
Judging style
If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.
Public Forum Paradigm
Frameworks
I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.
Topicality
I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".
Theory
Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.
Counterplans
No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.
Kritiks
No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.
Burden Interpretations
The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.
- LD - Value/Value Criterion (Framework, Standard, etc,) - this is what separates us from the animals (or at least the policy debaters). It is the unique feature of LD Debate. Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it. I am open to all arguments but present them well, know them, and, above all, Clash - this is a debate not a tea party.
- PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.
- Speed - I like speed but not spreading. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. If you spread - it better be clear, I will not yell clear or slow down or quit mumbling, I will just stop listening. If the only way I can understand your case is to read it, you have already lost. If I have to read your case then what do I need you in the room for? Email it to me and I can judge the round at home in my jammies - if you are PRESENTING and ARGUING and PERSUADING then I need to understand the words coming out of your mouth! NEW for ONLINE DEBATE - I need you to speak slower and clearer. On speed in-person, I am a 7-8. Online, make it a 5-6.
- Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
- Casing - Love traditional but I am game for kritiks, counterplans, theory - but perform them well, KNOW them, I won't do the links for you. I am a student of Toulmin - claim-evidence-warrant/impacts. I don't make the links and don't just throw evidence cards at me with no analysis. It is really hard for you to win with an AFF K with me - it better be stellar. I am not a big fan of Theory shells that are not actually linked in to the topic - if you are going to run Afro-Pes or Feminism you better have STRONG links to the topic at hand, if the links aren't there... Also don't just throw debate terms out, use them for a purpose and if you don't need them, don't use them.
Short-pre-round version: Speech and Debate coach at Calhoun High School (Georgia). Former high school policy debater in the mid 1980s. Since re-entry into the activity via UTNIF in 2018, I have worked hard to learn innovations in debate since my time in high school. My paradigm is still evolving. Even though I am willing to listen to anything, debaters must have clash and explanation. - following Toulmin (Claim, Warrant, Explanation). I flow, so I expect you to signpost, label, and explain.
Longer, working on prefs, version: If you think from visual clues that I am not getting the argument, I am probably not.
I expect to receive an email chain for 1A and 1N at deguirek@calhounschools.org
My team: I coach on the national and regional (Georgia) circuit. My team has transitioned from a policy only team to an LD only team. Now, the team writes most of their own arguments, but my varsity teams run a lot of Ks. Understand that just because my team runs an argument doesn't mean that I like it, or that I will understand it without your thorough explanation of the argument.
Likes/dislikes: I teach debate because I love debate, the community, and the education it provides. I try to be extremely objective and vote for teams because I think their arguments won, never because of rep or outside (or inside the round) influences. In fact, I tend to react badly if I believe a team or coach is trying to exert undue influence. Post-round I will give you as clear a critique as I possibly can and will answer respectful and honest questions from the debaters. I expect a team I drop (and their coaches) to be unhappy, but no matter what, please be nice to your opponents, your partner, your coaches, and your judge.
LARPing: I can deal with LARPing as long as I can follow it. If you spread through the analytics or don't signpost or don't weigh the args, don't expect me to vote for it.
Weirdness:I do not like performance-based actions of any kind. No challenging opponents to any kind of physical altercations, especially tortilla fights (don't ask.)
My email: deguirek@calhounschools.org
Updated 2025, following Barkley Forum
Dr. Brice Ezell – The Lovett School, Debate Coach (he/his)
Bakersfield Christian High School, 2006-10 (LD, competed mostly in local CA tournaments and at NSDAs; broke in LD in 2009)
George Fox University, BA, 2010-2014 (WUDC, competed nationally and at Worlds twice)
University of Texas, PhD and MA, 2015-21 (involved sporadically in judging, but was not on UT's college teams; my PhD subject matter involved a lot of reading in phil/K lit, however)
Speechdrop is preferred, but if it's email do add me to the chain -- my email is brice.ezell@lovett.org
The TL;DR below should honestly suffice for most folks. PF debaters: scroll to the bottom (though plenty of my judging philosophy in the LD section aligns with my thinking for PF as well.)
TL;DR Summary of Everything in this Paradigm
In general, I will vote on whatever is most successfully warranted, weighed and impacted in the round. Arguments can have all sorts of impacts: to the fairness of the debating activity, to the possibility of nuclear war, to violating a universal ethical principle, etc. However you impact your arguments, you also need to sell me on some kind of standard by which I am to evaluate the in-round impacts. This doesn’t mean you have to use the old-school value/criterion structure, but rather that you as part of your weighing need to tell me the yardstick by which to measure all the in-round impacts.
Prefs
Though I hesitated to do this at first, as I don’t want debaters to get the sense that they have to run one kind of argument in front of me to succeed, below is how I’d categorize my preferences when it comes to LD -- listed alphabetically by section. I recognize there is value to being transparent about this as a judge, though I really try to be tabula rasa in-round as this is an activity whose practices are created by its participants. Debate is as much a creative as it is an academic activity.
I Like These and Vote on Them Regularly - Run Truly Whatever
Philosophy
Policy (LOVE plan/CP debates)
Post-fiat K debates
Skep (moral or epistemological - big fan of args involving the latter, actually)
Theory
Truth-testing
I Could Definitely Vote on these But My Threshold is Higher
Performance (though I stress one thing: make sure you know what the word "performative" actually means)
PICs (the closer to mutually exclusive they are the more I respect them -- not a fan of "the whole AFF except one minuscule part of it," e.g. 50 states CPs)
Serious gaming
I Have Resistance to These Arguments but I Have Voted for Them At Least Once Before -- Try at Your Own Peril
Non-topical Affs
Pre-fiat Ks
Strike Me if These Are Your Thing
Frivolous theory (e.g. "URL theory," font sizes, etc)
Tricks
A Few Explanations of the Above
*I will of course listen to substantive arguments about evidence ethics. But I put things like "URL theory" under the "frivolous" label because almost every one of these shells I've read/heard is incredibly thin on the ground, and they tend to make some pretty absurd claims. For example, on URLs: you're telling me a debater should be punished for going to the library and doing meaningful research with old books that haven't been digitized? ONLY digitized evidence counts? Or, on the most laughable one of these I've heard, "bracketing theory," which claimed that it's bad scholarly practice to bracket a quotation to adjust for tense, etc -- if that's true, then that's news to me and the authors of articles in peer-reviewed journals where bracketing is, in fact, a common and accepted practice. If your opponent meaningfully misrepresents evidence or plagiarizes, that is absolutely a key concern on which I would vote. But lots of the theory claims made about cutting evidence just amount to trying to win on the blippiest technicality rather than serious charges of scholarly malpractice.
*On pre-fiat Ks and non-topical AFFs: I have a pretty low threshold for voting for well-argued T violations against the AFFs, same for arguments from AFFs that the ROB shouldn't be about assessing pre-fiat states. In my experience, these kinds of arguments make weird suppositions about what one can't do as a debater on a given side, which supposedly justifies the "rupture" of not affirming the resolution/not engaging the fiat of the resolution. I don't think a lot of the versions of these arguments I've heard have ever overcome the fundamental contradiction identified in one RFD at the end of that Resolved documentary from the 2000s: if debate norms are so procedurally corrupt/racist/sexist/ableist/etc that pre-fiat interrogation or norm-breaking through eschewing topicality is a necessary intervention, then one wonders why we keep doing this activity at all. Or, to put it succinctly: if the opponent to a pre-fiat K or a non-topical AFF makes the case that participation in this activity evidences a clear embrace of its values, I'm likely to vote them up, especially because -- as many debaters have successfully argued in front of me -- the profusion of these kinds of K cases since the 2000s has not, in fact, completely upended debate as an activity, and if anything debate has gotten *better* about inclusivity of ideas in the past decade and a half. (That said, I do need more from debaters opposing these kinds of cases than "vote for whoever's the better debater," which is on its own not a terribly helpful ROJ.)
Stray Things
Speed: No problem! But be especially clear with your tags and author attributions. If I have to say "clear" more than once some of your args might not end up on my flow.
Tech>Truth?: Yes. But this bears saying: when I'm listening to and flowing your arguments, they need to, at some level, make sense. So if you're running a K or otherwise philosophically inclined argument with its own jargon, explain what key terms mean and what they look like applied to the debate at hand, even if you think I know the body of literature from which you're drawing. An example: feel free to run a psychoanalysis K in front of me, but if you read some tagline that's like "The alternative is to run towards the Real," like... I'll flow it, but I don't know what that means unless your tag or card gives me some explanation of what that would look like. You shouldn't be clarifying key claims of a case only in the rebuttals. The strategy of obfuscating in the 1AC/NC and then in rebuttals being articulate in the way you should have been in the constructives will bode poorly for speaks in front of me.
Cross-x: Is binding. I flow it and think it’s one of the most important parts of the debate.
Flex-prep: I’m cool with it.
Timing: I trust debaters to keep their own time but note that I will keep time as well (a) as an extra accountability measure in case there’s a dispute, and (b) because I like to make note on my ballot of how speakers allocate their time strategically.
RVIS?: Probably not.
Speaks: I don't disclose speaks, nor do I listen to any arguments about speaker point allocation. Trying "give me 30 speaks" arguments in front of me is a recipe for not getting 30 speaks. Here's how I allocate speaks unless a tournament gives me a bespoke speaker point scale:
30: No notes. If I were a betting kind of person I'd bet you're going to win the tournament.
29.6 - 29.9: Near-flawless strategy and delivery. If this kind of performance is repeated, I'd expect you to get to late elims at this tournament, if not win the tournament altogether.
29.2 - 29.5: Your strategy and delivery mark you as a debater I'd expect, assuming consistent performance at this level, to get solidly far into elims.
28.8 - 29.1: I'd expect you to break based on how you executed strategy and delivery in this round, assuming consistent performance at this level.
28.4 - 28.7: I'd award in this range if I thought you'd break or be on the bubble for breaking, but there are strategic or delivery issues that I could see being an issue in other rounds.
28.0 - 28.3: This is where I start my adjudicating of a round. A debater who stays at this score level is merely "fine" -- nothing too bad, but nothing too flashy either. I would not expect a debater consistently competing at this point level to break.
27.0 - 27.9: You've got a lot of work to do, either in strategy or delivery.
26.0 - 26.9: You've got a lot of work to do in both strategy and delivery.
25: You did something profoundly offensive.
One sure way to get good speaks from me: quality on-case argumentation and engagement with the opponent's cards and tags. I too often feel that even good debaters hear the tag of the AC (e.g. "oh they're running X policy case"), and then rather than engage the substance (or maybe lack thereof) in the AC, will go only for off arguments and weighing, leaving little time for direct arguments on case. Go for your offense, of course, but show me that you're engaging your opponent's case in detail! Put most succinctly, debaters that get good speaks for me eagerly go for clash, and to me part of good clash is getting into your opponent's case and saying how and why they're wrong.
What About Public Forum?
I am generally of the belief that PF should be insulated from the "circuit-ification" that's endemic to the other major debating formats. A PF round really should be viewable by all, including the mythical "average person on the street." This isn't because I'm a "PF originalist," or am against spread/circuit debate -- far from it. Rather, I just think the strictures of the form (four minute speeches max, topics that change every month) make "circuit PF" a kind of contradiction in terms. PF should be about a clearly defined and persuasively delivered (in the traditional sense) clash on a current events topic with which a parent uninitiated to debating could follow. Though PF doesn't have the value framework of LD, your weighing mechanism for my decision in the round -- these are often called "voters" or "voting issues" -- should still be clear by the time you get to the Final Focus speeches.
When it comes to theory arguments in PF: I am fine with disclosure and T arguments (funny enough, the first time I have ever voted on disclosure was in a PF round), but not really anything else. And I say this only in the context of the national circuit; if you run disclosure in PF at a local GA tournament I will be VERY predisposed to vote for your opponent.
One specific note on the rules of PF debating, since this issue has come up in some rounds for my debaters: the CON is not required to defend the status quo. Though plan texts are verboten in this format, the CON is allowed to advocate (without a specific plan-text) alternatives to the PRO advocacy. For example, on a topic like "The United States federal government should forgive all federal student loan debt," the CON is not required to defend a world with no student loan forgiveness or only the types of forgiveness that exist in the status quo; they could say, as a generalized claim, "We support some targeted means-testing style forgiveness programs, those that target historically disenfranchised groups in America." There couldn't be, however, a specific plan iterating the details of that advocacy. I'm not sure why so many people think PF would be set up to where all debates are "X or the status quo," and in any event there's certainly nothing in "the rulebook" for PF to suggest that the CON can't offer alternatives in the same generalized way that the PRO advocates for a given case.
Hi, my name is John. I use any pronouns, and I debated for 4 years in LD and congress at Cherokee HS, 45 minutes north of Atlanta.
If there's anything in this paradigm that you don't understand or that wasn't covered, let me know before the round in person, by texting me (+1 470 232-4546), or by sending an email (johntpeterson355@gmail.com). good luck!
If you send a doc, cc me: johntpeterson355@gmail.com. I'm going to delete your doc at the end of the round.
I'm gonna keep it real with you, i've gotten a lot dumber since I stopped debating. i've regressed. you need to explain complicated stuff really slowly. treat me like a parent judge if you run advanced phil. i need to understand and hear your argument in order to flow it. my ability to understand speed is... a lot worse now than it was. that being said i'll flow most things as long as they're done well. being racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist/etc. is penalized with an L. **this includes the sources you use! i will notice if you cite a hate group or hate publication. also flex prep is cool
do lots of weighing and talk at a reasonable speed ????
I couldn't say it better myself so to borrow from Beau Larsen's paradigm:
"Every coach, opponent and teammate has shaped how I judge. I love this activity and consider myself a lifer.
Please introduce yourself to me, I like to think of myself as a judge that gets to know the debaters they judge over the course of a season/a debater's career".
---
I enjoy being called "jsp" or "Josh" rather than "judge".
My email is joshuasp.debate@gmail.com
Everything said below in the paradigm is pure theatrics and in my opinion unnecessary but read on if you will.
---
Recent Affiliations:
Coaching: Ivy Bridge Academy (PF), Thomas Kelly College Prep (Policy), Able2Shine (PF), Branson HS (Policy)
Debating: Western Kentucky University (2024-present), Georgia State University (2021-2024), Sequoyah High School (2017-2021)
---
PF:
Treat me like an average "tech" judge. Have the debate you want and I will be fine, as fast or as slow just do you. Be accomodating to the other judges on a panel and to your opponents.
The judges I disagree with the most are ones who have strong unwavering opinions on things like Truth vs Tech when the reality is truth and tech inform and can't without each other.
The judges I agree with the most have little argumentative preference besides rules like "front lining is good". This debate is for the debaters.
I have a policy background meaning I am okay with Kritik's and Theory but also am very critical of bad/annoying uses of such.
---
LD:
I have debated and coached all styles of LD, don't be afraid to do the style you are comfortable to vote with. You rascals really want me to say these things though:
Tricks: Not the best for tricks, but am willing to depending on the tricks (ie TJF's are more persuasive than something like eval after 1ac). I have been made to judge some dense tricks and theory debates however I flow on paper and don't look at the doc, and if I miss it then that is 100% on you.
Framework: I am 50/50 for this, i have found i am almost always voting for the team that is winning impact level and then the most direct line to the impact level.
Traditional: I love these debates, I think progressive debaters should adjudicate things like speed but arguments should make enough sense the opponents can engage. "Unreasonableness" still is never an argument against a progressive position.
---
Policy:
In short: your standard flex/clash judge, i am only putting notes I think are necessary info
I am realistically 50/50 for framework, I think I am a good judge for the side that impacts out their arguments on the framework flow, this means i don't care about your fairness push unless there is an impact to why fairness matters and I need a more thorough impact level analysis of the debate.
I need pen time, i flow on paper and by ear, my laptop will likely be closed till the rebuttals, I will yell "clear" or "loud" as much as needed but I would rather not have to and I will just stop if I get tired of saying it - speed will always be fine - clarity though is just as important
I don't enjoy purely inserted rehighlighting, if you do that though I need a theory argument as to why its justified as I am a believer in the opposing team being able to argue inserted rehighlighting is not allowed and should be read as to make me not evaluate it. I don't particularly lean either way on this debate but i think that almost no one has stances on this even though
I do not usually vote on presumption absent a planless affirmative
Tabula rasa is a conservative debate dogwhistle