Melissa ONLINE TFA
2022 — NSDA Campus, TX/US
LD Judge Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Things I want to see:
- I am not a fan of spreading. I'm okay with a brisk pace so long as everyone in the room understands your arguments. Don't speed through the card's content if you are reading evidence or quotations.
- Refute your opponent's case. If you present a stellar case but fail to respond to your opponent's arguments you are at an extreme disadvantage.
- Focus on four-point refutation. Please walk me through the process of the argument. This is what they said and here is why it is wrong, furthermore, this is what I am saying, and here is why I won this argument.
- Strive for lively cross-examinations. Be respectful but don't hesitate to engage your opponent and ask pointed questions that poke clear holes in their arguments and credibility.
- Utilize all of your time in your speeches and cross-examinations.
- Don't be afraid to make creative arguments. Just ensure you present the logic clearly and substantiate your points.
How I judge:
- Good speaks are helpful but they do not play a large role in my decision-making. That said, normally the better of a speaker you are the more I'll understand and be influenced by your arguments.
- For LD, I consider values and criterions a great deal in my decision. I don't weigh evidence and examples nearly as much as logic and value-centered arguments.
- For CX, I consider stock issues a great deal in my decision. Did the Aff prove inherency, significance, solvency, and advantages? Did the Neg manage to poke holes in any of those?
The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. (Yes, I also find it strange that I have to clarify respect is a need, but hey I've seen some bad rounds) So any ad hominem will NOT be tolerated, this includes racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and transphobia.
General Debate Philosophy: At the end of the day debate is about persuasion, your job as a debater is to persuade me as the judge to vote for you. That means that just because you run an argument that does not mean you will be able to persuade me on that argument aka just because you run it does not me I have t buy it.
Debate is a communication event so guess what I believe is key…communication! I do believe that speaker points hold value, I repeat SPEAK POINTS DO HOLD VALUE and believe that speaker points come from multiple areas in the round. I am stingy with speaker points so you EARN every point with me. I normally do not award half points, because who wants to deal with that?
LD Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. If there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. I am a traditional judge when it comes to LD debate aka do NOT run a plan. It will be hard for me to get behind an Affirmative who advocates for a plan when they shouldn’t be advocating for a plan. Aff, you must uphold the resolution, do not try to spike out of it. I believe that observations are not voting issues, however, if ran correctly they may frame the round correctly to influence my vote. If an observation is not refuted or a counter observation is not proposed, and you bring this back up then that is how I will view the round.
Neg, for all that is good CLASH WITH THE AFF. I do not want to hear another round that is just two ships passing in the night. I want you to make arguments against the Aff and PROVE why they are wrong.
When it comes to FW, this is not the holy grail argument that will win the round, but it is a pretty good one to make. If you cannot uphold either VC then why would I vote for you? I do not find it abusive to absorb your opponent’s VC while also advocating for yours.
However, just because you win the VC that does not mean the round flows to you, if you can remove the opponent’s case, whether it be through removing impacts or attacking their warrants, then your opponent doesn’t really have ground to stand on.
I said this first, but I am reiterating this now. GIVE ME VOTERS!
Policy Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. IF there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. Similar to LD I am a traditional judge. I normally do not pref, but AFF it is your job to prove that SQ is not preferred, so read into that what you will. Constructive are used to construct any new arguments, do not run anything new in the rebuttals. If you wish to bring supporting evidence or extensions that is fine, but you better be sure that it is 100% not new or I will not flow it. (This won’t cost you the round, but I won’t be happy with it as it is abusive).
YES the neg block does exist. NO Aff, just because they split it, that does not mean you get to. You are more than welcome to run an argument against this if you wish, but you see my philosophy on the matter.
In regards to. Neg strat, I will vote for generic arguments, but don’t want to. Aff you have every right to refute with non-uniqueness, but that does not mean the argument just goes away, it is your job to argue why this matters and why the non-uniq should be a voting issue. Also, Topicality is NEVER theory, it IS a stock issue, which is one of the foundations of this event. However, if you argue topicality be careful that you do not contradict yourself.
Below is a little more detail about different strategies and approaches to the event to help each team out:
Closed Cross Examination X---------------------------------------------I need my partner to ask good questions and answer questions for me (same holds for prompting)
(If you run a K and then On-Case without kicking OR playing scenarios, you are risking losing my ballot)
Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards
(Analytical arguments can 100% be used against cards)
(I do tend to lean more quality, but this is tough for me. Here's why, if you can layer arguments then do so, but if you run 5 different arguments and the opposing team can group and refute/disprove with one card then kudos to them!)
Conditionality good---------X---------------------Conditionality bad
(Just give me a reason to buy either argument)
States CP good----------------X------------------States CP bad
(Eh…it is what it is)
Politics DA is a thing-------X----------------------Politics DA not a thing
UQ matters most--------------------------X-------Link matters most
Clarity X---------------------------------------------Um...who doesn't like clarity
Presumption-----------------------------X---------Never votes on presumption
Longer ev---------------------------X---------------More ev
(Please do not read me a novel)
I’m a book worm-----------X----------------I only read what you read
(9 times out of 8,yes you read that correctly, I will read the evidence in your card that you didn’t read to ensure you are not misrepresenting or power tagging. Dependent on the severity, this may cost you the round without opponent call out. Don't think this is fair, then you should have cut the card correctly and fairly. If you did powertag and your opp calls you out, good luck getting my ballot)
Fiat anything you desire--------------X----------Let's be realistic about this
CX about impacts--------------X------------------CX about links and solvency
DA’s -----------------------X----------------------On Case
Theory -----------------------------------X---------- Traditional (The more believable the chain link the more likely I am to to buy the impacts. It is hard for me to imagine sending Smallpox Vaccines to SSA will lead to Nuclear War)
Dash from Zootopia ------------------------------X-----------------Amateur Auctioneer
(I am fine with speed, debate should be faster than conversational, but not a race. I hate spreading/rapid fire because let’s be honest no one is good at it, you sound horrible, and it’s not impressive)
Quantity of Arguments ----------------------------------------------X-Quality of Arguments
(I have voted on a round because of T, despite the AFF having a 12 page case)
At State in LD and Policy my default is 27, unless you are truly impressive or the opposite.
Congressional Debate: If you just read out loud to me do not expect a speech ranking higher than a 3 or to be ranked in the room. The purpose of this event is to make extemporaneous speeches, yes research is key, NO do not have a pre-written speech. The students that deliver the best speeches, while also showing they are aware of the debate in the chamber will win my ballot.
PF Debate: Don’t have me judge PF
WSD Debate: I have somewhat of an idea of what I am doing in this round. I am wanting to learn this event to judge, but just not there yet
Do NOT try to read me. Don't try to read me to determine how you are doing, you can be giving a performance of a lifetime and I may look disinterested, even though I am fully captivated. Or I may react to the literature, but that does not mean the performance is on par with the strength of the piece. I have heard many funny pieces that were not performed well and heard very powerful lines that were just thrown away.
There is no magic/secret thing to do to win my ballot, except give the best performance. I know super helpful, right? I consider multiple different aspects when judging: polished (holding and mastery of the manuscript), presence in the room, delivery style, performer connection to selection, audience connection, did I get drawn into the performance, etc.
I do realize that because you are interpreting you have to be extra big, but I do look for realism in the performance. Ex: Should someone be sobbing because they spilt milk? Why is someone smiling when the love of their life just died? Remember, this performance is all about peaks and valleys, if everything is delivered the same, or on one level, then nothing is important and nothing stands out to me. If I am convinced that the performer is actually experiencing the piece, that is the best way to win my ballot, because it will draw me in. If I am not drawn in then I don't believe you really interpreted the piece. Make me care about the characters, if something is suppose to be sad I want to be sad with the character. If you don't draw me in/I don't make a connection with a character, then "I won't care that your sister died".
In introductions, I like to get to see you as a person. I want the intro to sound natural and not like a memorized piece of information. Let me see/hear YOU.
1. Speak at a normal rate of speed; no spreading/speed talking
2. Attack & rebuttal "down-the-line" - val, crit, conts, sub point tag lines
3. Be aggressive in CX, but not belligerent
4. Exposit why your val Trump's your opp's val.
1. Speak at a NORMAL RATE OF SPEED.
2. Keep the esoteric jargon/terms/abbreviations to a minimum. ("K's" "disads", etc)
2. Hit the H.I.T.S. (Harms, inherency, topicality, solvency, )
2. I'm looking for cogent, well-exposited arguments supported w/ pertinent documentation.
3. Don't spend too much time on topicality unless your opp's off-topic args are egregious.
4. Neg doesn't need a cp unless it is vital
Hello, I am Daniella and I have been debating since 2015. I debated LD in my first year of high school and competed in many rigorous tournaments. I competed as a CX debater my last three years of high school and was district champion in my region and went to compete at the state tournament from 2017-2019. I used to be a college debater for the University of Texas at Austin. I work as a judge for UIL, TFA, and Great Communicator. I plan to attend law school after I earn my bachelor's degree at the University of Texas at Austin.
Add me on the email chain: email@example.com
My Paradigms for Policy Debate:
I am a policymaker judge and I tend to take the theoretical viewpoint of a "policymaker," and as such, I will vote on which side presents the best policy option. I vote heavily on disadvantages and counter-plans, and on kritiks. The basic policy of this paradigm is the weighing of the affirmative's advantages versus the negative's disadvantages. I will essentially vote on which world is better to theoretically live in, so impact analysis is a must for me to evaluate which team will win.
Theory: Theory args are unacceptable for me to vote on unless you can CLEARLY articulate a scenario for abuse. Otherwise, I probably won't flow it because I'll just feel like one of the teams is using theory as a last resort.
T: T debates are fine, if a good case could be made on a T argument I will vote on it. I would like an emphasis on standards and voters.
Counterplans: Counterplans are cool, make sure they’re competitive, make sure there’s a net benefit. However, counter plans like word PICs aren’t my favorite arguments to vote on, but I’ll vote on them if you articulate a net benefit.
Disadvantages: This is my favorite negative argument in the debate, make sure your disads are either net benefits to the CP or are packaged with some case turns/impact defense.
THE KRITIK: If K’s are run by the negative team they MUST prove how the alt will solve with a good link story. I competed in high school as a cap debater, so if the neg decides to run it they should be warned that I get extremely critical on it because of my familiarity and experience. Nonetheless of a K is run, the neg team must make sure the alternative can resolve the impacts of the case.
Case: Case debates are really underrated, but do what you have to do for your negative strategies. I like to hear teams read on impact defense. This is the traditional aspect of the debate and I really like it when debaters show me the flaws of another card.
Impacts: I really like comparative impact calc because it makes resolving debates much easier for me. Questions of magnitude, timeframe, and probability are important and you should talk about those, but take it to the next level and talk about how your impacts interact with each other.
My Paradigms for LD Debate:
I can follow complex philosophical arguments well, but it's probably best to assume that I don't know the lit for everyone's benefit. Frameworks that use util/deontological norms of LD are my favorite, but I would love to see the debaters challenge themselves with other unconventional values. Make sure you actually know how the value works before you use them in the round.
Ks: Ks are decent when they're done well, but I wouldn't recommend running one of them if it won't be clear for everyone. Don't assume I know the literature, explaining is everything! I might know it, I might have run it, but I still want you to explain the theory anyway in a way that someone who is less acquainted can understand. Make sure you do the necessary work on the link and alt level. I want to know exactly what the link is and how it applies to the aff (where applicable) and I want to know exactly what the alt does and what it looks like.
Theory: Not a fan, but if run well I am more than willing to listen and vote on it.
Plans/CPs: Love them, but make sure counterplans are competitive. Perms are a test of competition.
I'm usually okay with spreading but since we are online and there's bound to be a slow connection, I am less tolerant of it so please be fair to the other team and speak at a pace everyone can understand. Accommodate for virtual debate. If you think something is important, slow down. Please don't be rude during cross-examination or points will be docked off, to an extent, it includes repetitive interrupting but the person in question also can't speak forever on an answer because I will recognize they're just trying to waste the time of their opponent. Nonetheless, have fun and be kind! :)
I am a parent judge who has never competed in speech or debate. Please do not spread.
Delivery and form are important factors for me: in competition, just like in life, when I am the audience, I do not want to have to strain to understand what is being said. I want to be intellectually challenged, with interesting, innovative and well connected arguments, not by having to follow the debate in a foreign language that I am not very good in.
Attack and defense should be respectful and focused on the content of the points made. We are not at court, and a debate is not won a technicalities, but on the strength of arguments and the evidence for the related support.
I like to see debaters make connections to historic and scientific evidence, really put their argument into context.
How well a debater is able to engage with the argument of an opponent and rebut it with evidence based new support that has not been brought up in the prepared speech is an important factor for me.
For the most part I am lay, but I there are some priorities for me:
Establishing framework is very important and who can most utilize their value as tool against their opponent. I want debaters to argue why the value should weigh more and/or why it can even solve for their opponents case. I have judged LD before, and I get disappointed when framework arguments fade from the center of the debate because they should be focus of LD.
Impact debate is important and will ultimately decide the round. I need to know why I should not vote for the opponent and why I need to vote for your case. If there is an impact to not voting your case, let me know. Or vice versa tell me there is an impact to voting for your opponent. Impact debate can be won by using impact calculus and using the framework to tell me what why yours is more important.
I will listen and vote for K debate, just make sure the argument presented has a clear link and not just an overall generic link to resolution.
Any questions, you can ask me.
I am typically oriented around policy maker as a judge. The best negative offense for me, are a couple of DAs and a good CP. I expect the DAs to have non-generic strong links. I will mostly evaluate a DA base around the link debate. My only standards for the CPs is that they are creative and can solve for the entirety of the Affirmative case, with a net benefit.
T args: I will only vote for T if it is pretty obvious that the affirmative is not topical, otherwise if they are presenting a common case then T is a time waster for me.
Theory: I do not flow on theory, I think it does not take the debate anywhere.
K debate: I am familiar with Ks, especially Cap, and I would be willing to vote on Ks, as long as they are well represented and are not generically linked to the affirmative case.
Case: Aff just make sure your entire case is defended and upheld.
Impact: A big chunk of my decision will be based on impact debate. So each side please provide an Impact Cal, and I am willing to listen to big and small stick impacts. However, I will have a higher standard for probability for big stick impacts.
If you have any other questions then please just ask me before a round starts.
The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. ) So any ad hominem will NOT be tolerated, this includes racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and transphobia.
Who am I?
I am currently the Director of Speech and Debate at The Woodlands College Park High school. I debated on the college circuit for LSCO in Parli debate and almost any speaking event offered. I competed in Policy/Congress/Extemp/Interp in High School and was a state qualifier in all four events. I have worked summer camp for FCDI and will be on staff at Mean Green this summer.
Before the round/ During the round logistics
A big thing for me is staying on time at any tournament therefore I will be starting the round when both teams are present. Please pre-flow before the round starts. I should not be waiting long periods of time to actually start the round. I am the same way with prep time during a round I believe this has becomes extremely abused in todays circuits. Do not tell me "I will take 1.5 minutes of prep and then the timer goes off and you take another 5 minutes to get to the podium. When a speech ends and you are taking prep simply say starting prep now and keep a running clock. Once you are at the podium ready to speak say cease prep and start your roadmap.
Email Chains: I should be on all email chains or whatever is being used to share evidence my email is firstname.lastname@example.org. Please title the chain "Round X, Tournament Name"
During Round Preferences (policy Specific for Nationals 2023) :
First off I am a firm believer in this is your round make what you want of it. I will flow every argument you run and evaluate them at the end of the round to see would I rather live in a place that backs up the stances of the affirmative or the stances of the negative (No matter how crazy them impacts might seem). I would say I lean a little more to the side of tech over truth. If you are going to run an argument run it correctly or do not run it at all (Dont run a K without an Alternative). I am fine with all arguments but I do believe that the arguments should still exist within the span of the resolution. If you are going to run a off centered K or K aff it still needs to be able to link back to why that is important within the framing of the resolution and not take us out on a completely wild tangent.
Theory and K is fine but make sure you slow down on these as I might not be as familiar with all literature on these natures. You also need to show a true abuse on theory. Why is this something that has impacted you specifically and what is the Role of the ballot within this theory/abuse
The one place it will be extremely hard to get my ballot is going to be tricks. Tricks are something that I seem to find unnecessary beat them at the clash dont try to trick a ballot
At the end of the day make the decision easy for me. You should be telling me what my signature means for me and the world if I vote for your side.
Any questions please feel free to ask!
I have a debate background but am only recently returning to the community. I like clean extensions and clear VIs. You can spread but please provide a case so I don't miss anything. I'm not strong on theory. Professional and polite, please!
Hi! Most of my experience is with CX, but I have judged LD for over two seasons now.
I am comfortable with speed and any style of argumentation.
Please, just be kind and respectful.
I am open to any specific questions you have as well before the round starts.
I prefer a resolution of debate issues in the round and speaking skills when I judge debate. Be organized. Use structure and roadmaps.
In CX I fall under policy or stock issues when I am making decisions. At the end of the round when I sign my ballot, your plan is in action. That means that aff must have a developed plan in the round. Don't just read evidence in a round. Explain your arguments.
In LD, I am a traditional judge. You must have a value and criterion. You need a philosophy and philosopher in the round. Weigh the round in your speeches.
I am a lay judge and this is my first year of judging. I flow the rounds, and I generally have some background knowledge on the topic, but please treat the round as if I do not because I may not know what you are talking about.
What I look for in a round regarding any debate style:
Speaking Speed: Please go at a moderate speed. I don’t want to have to judge a round where I am barely able to flow because of the speed the round is going at. I also want to make sure that both I and your opponents are able to understand your contentions. It’s very time-consuming in crossfires to ask for a summary of your contention(s).
Timing: Please make good use of your time. I would appreciate it if you time yourself. I will be timing, but I think as debaters you need to develop the habit of timing yourself.
Attitude: Please be respectful. I will not tolerate inappropriate language, interruptions, etc., and it would be in your best interest to avoid this. I will dock speaker points if anyone is rude.
Crossfires: In your crossfires, allow your opponents to respond completely and don’t interrupt anyone. Also, please have your cards handy in case your opponents call for a card. It would save a lot of time.
Cherry Picking: Please don’t take a single example and generalize it to the overarching idea. I’ve judged rounds where debaters have done this - for instance, on the PF NSA surveillance topic the privacy vs. security argument - and it’s very messy and hard to judge.
Prep Time: Please don’t take any prep time before your crossfires. I’ll be glad to give it to you any other time, like before rebuttal, summary speech, etc., but I discourage taking any before a crossfire. I am okay with taking either running or set prep.
Technical Difficulties: I like starting as soon as possible, and it would be greatly appreciated if you can resolve any tech issues with your partner/on your own before entering a round.
Speaker Points: I’ll be basing your speaker points on your speed, style, timing, attitude, crossfires, and, of course, the actual content of your speeches.
Clarify any questions you have for me beforehand.
I look forward to judging a clean and interesting round.
I debated at Princeton, TX and I'm a CXer by trade, though I've been judging often for the last five years since I've graduated so I know my way around all the other formats. I am a "games" judge so I accept anything and everything so long as I've been given proper reasoning. If nothing fancy goes on I default to a policymaker position. "Conservative" and "Progressive" styles are equally valid in my book.
My three top level principles:
- Framework is King: I cannot evaluate something like American Hegemony vs Human Rights without being given a philosophical underpinning on what's a higher concern. Framework is not an end unto itself, but to be used as a tool for establishing priority of impacts. I highly recommend both sides run something on this.
- Competition over Truth: As a judge, I want to intervene with my own knowledge and logic as minimally as possible because that's your job as the debater. As long as you get the technical performance down 80% I can be flexible on the remaining part.
- Evidence Quality over Quantity: I'm less interested in the number of cards read and more in the reasoning of how they come up with the conclusion in the tagline. I'll only intervene here when there is disagreement on what's written. I understand there are cases when a good argument for the situation cannot be prepared in a card so I accept analytics within reasonability. On areas of significant clash I give it to the side that delves deeper into the warrants. When the competing claims slide over each other, I may end up evaluating it as a wash.
One more request: when you invoke innovation, please elaborate what you mean by that. It's the biggest, most annoying buzzword in all of speech and debate.
Onto the line by line:
Speed - I can accept it as long as it's intelligible. If you get to the point where you're wheezing substantially I'll tell you to clear up. Slow down on taglines and authors. If you spread on analysis and they aren't written down on the file, then I can't guarantee I'll have them down on the flow.
Topicality - I take a layman interpretation on what ought to be topical so my threshold is rather high. That said, the affirmative must still have a good technical performance in their answer.
Theory - It's okay with me. On conditionality, I think it's of a lower priority than material issues and mostly evaluate it as a tiebreaker.
Turns - Link turns, impact turns, and case turns are all very powerful, but please substantiate what's going on materially. There's nothing more confusing than when both sides claim they subsume the other.
Counterplans - The viability of a CP lies in the net benefit that's established. Mutually exclusive plans are the clearest for clash and competition. I accept PICs but there better be a good reason that the aff can't perm. Unless otherwise specified or kicked, I view CPs as part of the negative's world advocacy that can be held against them. Running multiple CPs or CP and K may obfuscate the neg's advocacy, but it's up to the aff to point that out.
Case - If offense is lacking or well defended I often let the affirmative access the try or die argument. I'm not strict on case architecture on either side, but stock issues will always be fundamental and we can't forget that.
Disadvantages - On economic related impacts, the way to break beyond surface level claims is to actually tangle with competing economic theories. Is the Keynesian, Neoclassical, or the Marxist school most accurate on the scenario regarding recessions? I don't know, you tell me. On politics, I think you're obligated to read political capital theory or else it's easy to defuse with thumpers, but I don't accept that you can fiat out of it. Generally I value strong and specific links when it comes to the impact calc.
Kritiks - I can follow along with the theory, though if you start using buzzwords and jargon you'd better be able to elaborate on that. If you run a K you should understand it well on a conceptual level. Like disads, specific links and contextualization to the aff are very important. On the aff side, I'm willing to follow along with K's bad theory, counter-kritiks, and really all bets are off here.
Send the email chain to email@example.com, I'm also available for questions and case advice.
I'm a parent judge
- I have some basic experience judging CX & NPF
- Please go SLOW unless you flash blocks
- Please flash whenever possible
Basically: Talk slow or flash analytics, be organized when speaking, explain well.
She/herI don't tolerate transphobia. If you have an issue with this, strike me.
Affiliation: Wylie HS '18
Experience: Wylie HS 15-18 – TFA circuit CX for 3 years.
Rutgers Newark – 2 years debating NDT/CEDA
Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org (please put me on the email chain)
"When I understand the words you say I take them more seriously
Do what you want. I follow tournament rules, try not to throw things"
Don't be a bigot, you'll lose. If both teams are bigots, I'll flip a coin
I'm skeptical of the utility of these things at the HS level since it seems that no one listens to them beyond "yes I am ok if you read a Kritik". But here we are
I will do my best to evaluate the round exactly as presented to me while leaving my personal opinions about arguments and ideas out of the RFD. However, for those of you who want to know, I do have some specific thoughts on certain matters. This is not to say that you should take my paradigm as gospel though. I try to keep an open mind and will listen to most arguments and strategies. So you do you. There's a reason I continue to edit this page.
I've run everything from politics to afropess. My preference when I debate leans heavily critical, but I've run and judged strict policy strats too. I can judge whatever you want to throw at me and despite my personal argument choices, I am just as happy to judge a good DA/CP as I am to judge a K v. K debate. I’d rather you do what you’re good at.
I may ask to see evidence after the round if it is a legitimate point of tension in the round but other than that if I have to look at the evidence to evaluate the debate you're most likely making me do too much work.
K affs/nontraditional affs- Affs should probably defend something, although my interpretation of "something" is flexible. I'm good for these affs but the explanation of these arguments is important since I'm probably not as well-read in your literature as you. Assume I don't know what you're talking about. Because even if I do I still need to parse out the specifics at 400 wmp.
In all the time I've spent debating/judging/coaching K affs I’ve come to believe that most of them don’t actually do anything. I think that your aff should be doing SOMETHING. Explaining a theory of power and how it links to the res is not an aff. Presenting pure structural critiques of the res is not an aff. Your aff should do something but my leniency for what this something that your aff does is fairly high.
K - I mostly debate the K, but that means I generally have a higher threshold to vote on it. My biggest deciding factors in the majority of K debates are the Link and framing debate. You should have links engaging the actual implications of the 1AC (more than a state link). The more specified and contextualized your link work is the more heavily I will weigh it. Impact out your links. If the only impact work I'm looking at out of the 2NR is your 1NC impact evidence then you've probably not done enough work. I'm also not a good judge for ROB-type arguments. I find it hard to be convinced by them since they are almost always self-serving and usually read more as just "vote for me" than actually giving me any kind of directive for how to evaluate the round.
Solidify your plan before the 2nr. If your plan is to go for the floating PIK, utopian fiat, kick the alt, whatever. Set that up in the block. If your opponent is surprised by it in the 2AR, I am also usually surprised by it. I am in general a good judge for these kinds of spins but I am prone to protect the 2AR if these are not properly set up beforehand.
Don't ever assume that I know what you're talking about. I’m reasonably up in the lit on afropess, queer theory, Marx/cap. Anything else I have not spent extensive time understanding. Regardless, you should debate in a way that ensures EVERYONE in the room understands what you’re saying.
"Assume I don't know what you're talking about. Because even if I do I still need to parse out the specifics at 400 wmp"
On the cap K. I have always said I will listen to just about any argument and vote on almost anything that is well-argued. An amendment to that is in order though. I will still vote on Cap-Good arguments if they are won totally outright but I will think you sound EXTREMELY silly and have a very high threshold for being convinced this is true :/
DA - Make SMART disads. explain the internal link story. The more specific to the aff the better. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link. Line by line. Analytics. Ev comparison. DA 2nrs almost always sound ridiculous because they devolve into two ships passing in the night. Both have evidence that says different things. And neither makes an effort to convince me which one is correct beyond simply asserting that you're right and your opponent is wrong. Meaning I feel I am often forced to intervene in these decisions and without some very serious work on the case flow, I err towards aff. Give me warranted reasons to prefer your explanation of the status quo. Do that work for me.
CP - CPs have the potential to be cool. Make smart cps. specific net benefits and concrete competition.
T - I have to admit, I like a good T/FW debate but there are a lot of mistakes made on both sides that make this kind of debate difficult. The Aff usually forgets to extend their aff but odds are the 2NR will forget to extend a terminal impact anyway. I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise
Also, I do not believe debate is LARP of roleplaying. You're lying if you think we're RPing in round. I play dnd, LARP, etc. I know what RP and LARP are. Debate is 100%, not that. That doesn't mean I won't vote on it but you're fighting an uphill battle to convince me that this is true.
Case - Case debate is underutilized. I think most affs are bad. Not to say you shouldn't ever flip aff, or I will never vote aff. I just think that affs always have some sort of fundamental contradiction/fallacy etc. that is inevitable in an event where we simulate or engage in praxis. Neg teams need to exploit that on the case page, and aff teams need to be ready to answer larger questions of solvency.
Theory - I actually really like a good theory debate. I think one of the most interesting things about debate, is your ability to debate debate. However, I hold a high threshold to vote on it in the 2NR/2AR. You HAVE to extend terminal impact calculus though (which means shells like disclosure theory AND SKEP are rarely ever voters in my eyes).
LD SPECIFIC - I don’t like frivolous theory, I will likely never vote on it because I don’t think it has an impact or a point other than a “gotcha” in debates. You can try to prove me wrong if you wish. I’ve said I’m always open to changing my mind and you should absolutely read what you’re best at. This is a PSA though
UPDATE TO LD THEORY - I really think LD frivolous theory is dumb. Starting the 1AC with a laundry list of random blippy spikes etc. is not where I ever see myself voting. If you read 8 spikes at the top of the AC, none of them are ever well warranted, and certainly not impacted out well. I fail to see the utility in these, and they are not
I am a nerd. I like puns and sci-fi/fantasy references.
Speed is cool. Clarity is cooler. If I can't understand your tags/analytics/line-by-line I have no way of flowing it
Once I've signed the ballot the round is over. No returns or refunds. DO ask me informational questions about the RFD. If you disagree with the decision, ask about it. I'm more than happy to explain my thought process but DON'T argue with the decision. If it's a paper ballot I'll just start taking off speaks
Long overviews are OK. The same way I look at speed applies here. If I can't understand you, or your overview is a total mess I won't be able to evaluate it to its full potential.
I try not to read evidence. However, I will if I feel it is absolutely necessary to resolve the round. I will default to the speaker's interpretation of the evidence unless otherwise contested.
LD: I look at the debate from a traditional lense. Value/Criterion -> link to your Contentions. I'm expecting clash throughout. You may read fast (but not too fast) you should enunciate. Voting blocks at the end help summarize the debate and that's my preference to hear in the final ARs. Unlikely to weigh counter-plans. LD is a value style of debate. Resolution is absolute unless specified. I'm very tabula rasa with 99% of arguments. However, if it's something completely off the wall I'm not going to weigh it. However, it's your opponent's job to still attack that specific argument (if it has some miniscule form of credence). You don't need to spend much time dismissing it in your rebuttals if it's non-sensical. No K's, Theories, Piks, other random things.
I want to see a Value and a Criterion. Both, that's TWO. What do you value, how do you get there (criterion).
PFD: Traditional lense. Clash is expected. Summarize key voting issues. The debate should center around the topic. Whoever can display their case is stronger than their opponents (makes more sense logically, with impacts) wins the debate.
Another thing; Let's say your opponent failed to attack your case in any of those speaking blocks where they must do so. In your next speech just go ahead and say that and save us all all this time so we can move on with our lives. No need to continue droning onward if your opponent just literally dropped the entire round unbeknownst to themselves. I wouldn't put this here if it didn't happen before.
Outside of the above you should be using all your time. I'm sure there's something either A.) You missed or B.) You can add some analytical analysis of something throughout the round.
Also, let's not make it awkward after the round. If you want an RFD then just ask.
I am a new parent judge. I will be judging based off your delivery, and the research and logic used in your arguments. Be sure to stay polite to other competitors. I will also judge based on the content and structure of your speeches, and rebuttals to counterarguments.
For LD debaters, please share your case with me.
i am a flay judge (I've only ever done UIL LD so I prefer a slower round)
****i want to emphasize that I was a pretty traditional PF/LD debater and my experience with theory/other progressive arguments was very limited. That said, I have voted on theory arguments before. Run at your own risk.****
- I vote on the flow, with that being said if it is not said, I can't vote on it. However, if both teams are not doing the work, I'll have to do it on my own and you might not like my decision. (so do the work)
- Don't ask me if "defense is sticky" idk what that means. Respond to everything if you are going for an argument. If you don't respond to it, it's conceded.
- Whenever you extend case you need to extend the entire link chain, not just the argument. This includes extending authors, warrants, and impacts.
- If you have any specific questions email me or ask me in round:)
I’ll evaluate the round in whatever framework you place me in, and I’m fine with judging whatever form of argumentation you feel like presenting. However, I strongly prefer that you make that framework explicit — tell me what to vote on and why.
I want a balance between evidence/cards and analysis, especially later in the round.
Stylistically, I’m fine with speed as long as taglines and analysis are clear. If there is a clarity issue (not just speed but diction, volume, etc.), I won’t call clear or put down my pen; I'll continue attempting to flow and what doesn’t make it onto the flow won’t be evaluated — it’s your responsibility to make sure that I can understand you. **NOTE: in an online format, I’m much more lenient about speech clarity — if I can’t understand you due to mic issues, etc. I’ll let you know in the chat. I'll follow the TFA guidelines for tech time (10 minutes of tech time) for most rounds. Beyond this time, we will start running prep.**
I like very structured speeches with clear signposting, clear organization, delineation between arguments, etc.
Add me to the email chain — my email is email@example.com. Also feel free to email me if you have any questions about your ballot, the round, etc. Do not email me paradigm questions before the round — I’m glad to discuss my paradigm further and answer specific questions in-round, where your opponent can also hear my answers.
Qualified to the TOC in LD
I don't think you should worry about reading this too closely, I'll evaluate anything and evaluate arguments however you tell me to in round and I will try to be tab as possible but I do have biases which while I can try to keep them out of debate, some will implicitly be present and I feel like it would be better for me to make you aware of them rather than pretend they don't exist.
TL/DR: These are just my preferences as to what I believe is good for debate I won't default one way or another unless there is absolutely no pushback from either side.
Regardless, a ranking of how familiar I am with things:
Policy/K/T - 1
T-FW/K Affs - 1
Theory - 2
Phil - 2
Dense Phil/ Pomo read as an NC - 3/4
Tricks - 4/5
K Affs vs FW
- Been on both sides and these are my favorite debates to judge however I probably do lean slightly neg.
- CI's are good to resolve some offense and provide uqs for an impact turn but it's not necessary.
- 2N's need to do a better job winning the terminal impact to FW, don't overinvest into reading long blocks that explain why the aff is unfair/decks clash because let's be honest, they aren't gonna contest that most of the time, focus on implicating why that is important both in the context of debate and in the context of the affirmative.
- Framework 2nr's I've thought were excellent often use the same verbiage as the aff instead of using long o/v blocks.
- TVA/SSD to resolve some offense is good, even if it doesn't
- 7 minute 2nr's entirely on the case page often get confusing for me when they lack good judge instruction -- try and be clear as to what you are doing on teh case page before you get into the lbl
- good for larp v k
- bad for k v k (biased towards the perm + often get confused a lot); if I do end up unfortunately judging one of these, judge instruction is paramount. I will evaluate these debates generally knowing that theories of power are largely compatible. So, my ballot will be a reflection of differences between the aff and the alternative and the impact to those differences. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is worse than the aff, I vote aff. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is better than the aff, I vote neg.
- lbl > long o/v's
- Framework CI = you don't need an alt unless the aff says you do and winning links is sufficient if you've won framework
- Alts that result in the aff are fine absent a 1ar warrant why they aren't (being shady in cx is kinda annoying tho)
- Only understand cap, Moten/Harney, Warren (never read this in round), and a little bit of Baudrillard -- explanation is good.
- All the interactions that people consider "k tricks" should be implicated in the 1nc or else 2ar answers are justified (saying lines in the card make the claim most often doesn't really count)
- Like this a lot
- UQS prolly controls link direction
- all cp theory can be dtd granted a warrant
- hate reading cards and I will stay away from it as much as possible but end up having to read ev in most rounds.
- defense is underrated and can def be terminal if implicated as such (i.e: bill alr passed prolly is terminal)
- solves case explanation can be new in the 2nr as long as it was in 1nc evidence
- perm shields the link/cp links to nb -- explain these args to me! I'm not v smart/takes me time esp since I don't know the topic lit most likely
- Haven't read anything besides util/Kant and a little prag -- think it's hella interesting doe if that counts for anything
- Weighing is important, spend more time explaining your syllogism and why that excludes theirs.
- TJF's prolly o/w and are the move if I'm in the back
- weird complex ev mandates not-weird not-complex explanation
- Like this
- Weigh between standards
- low threshold to vote on rvis -- still need to justify them and w/e
- reasonability should be explained and is v strategic at times -- I will not vote on an RVI if you are going for reasonability obviously
- will vote on these as long they are implicated fully in the speech they are read
- I can't flow for my life so like try and slow down a Lil bit
- did pf for 2 years, cut cards weren't a thing, people paraphrased, the average card was shorter than T definitions, and evidence was sent via url's + ctrl F -- I really don't care at all about ev ethics until it's mentioned but i'm p sure my standards for ev ethics are very stringent so if you do call it out/stake the round on it in PF you will probably win 90% of the time
- if staking the round, that should happen the moment the violation is called out. -- don't read a shell and debate it out until the 2ar and then decide you wanna stake the round instead
(i.e: Miscut 1AC ev means you should stake the round immediately after you see it BUT at the very latest after 1nc cross)
- I'm cool with post rounding -- not cool w/aggressive or toxic post rounding
- I am awfully new to LD (Started at strake my junior year) so clear judge instruction is really helpful
- Will disclose speaks, j ask
- Hate it when people steal prep (rip speaks)
- hate unclear signposting (rip speaks x2)
- Record your speeches in case audio cuts out
- if you say moo once in the round, I will bump speaks
- time yourself and stop at the timer.
I am a new parent judge.
Hi, I'm Lylliam! (She/Her)
I debated LD for 2 years and then switched to Policy CX Debate for my last two years. I competed in UIL, TFA, NSDA, and TOC tournaments and have qualified to TFA state, placed at UIL state, and have won a district championship in CX debate. I have also have competed in Persuasive Extemporaneous speaking for all of my high school career and have won various accolades.
Be nice, respectful, and professional to one another!!! If you create a hostile space within a round your speaks will take a hit. Include trigger warnings and respect respect respect all around! And no slurs you have no agency to use.
Be courteous and don't steal prep, or use the internet when you're not allowed to, or clip. Don't compete dirty.
Do not read anything anti-immigration in front of me under any circumstance please and thank you. The same goes for anything racist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-semitic, islamophobic etc. Use common sense, don't be hateful, and be good people.
Please add me to the email chain- firstname.lastname@example.org
If you're spreading some long typed out analytics and/or pre-written blocks please send them in the email chain it makes life so much easier.
My debate partner and I were K debaters so yes you can read the K in front of me HOWEVER don't assume I, or your opponents, know of your specific literature and are aware of all the jargon. Please don't assume I'm smarter than I am, explain the terminology and why your lit matters in today's round and all that good stuff. :))
Be mindful of Performance K's and Theory in front of me, I don't feel I am qualified to evaluate these rounds.
Policy v. policy rounds are perfectly okay, I truly do appreciate a good policy round.
I love when you "write my RFD for me" in rebuttals.
Also I enjoy FW debate.
I don't like wash debates, don't make me vote on presumption.
!!!WARRANT OUT ARGUMENTS AND EXTENSIONS!!!
ROB/ROJ arguments are great.
Open CX is okay.
Experienced teams need to be nicer to novices.
Love, love, love voters in rebuttals.
Put me on the chain: email@example.com
I like good T debates, but they can get messy pretty easily, so clean line by line here is important. Competing interps are probably good. I am most persuaded by predictable limits in that it shapes prep and probably is the best internal link to clash filled debates and education.
CPs specific to the aff are always preferred. Condo is probably good, but if there is in round abuse story, theory can be convincing. Otherwise, I'm fine with cheating process counterplans, but they should probably have solvency advocates/a lit base.
Read them! I love politics disads, but anything case specific is probably better. I think each part of the disad can be reduced to zero percent. Smart analytics can beat cards. Do impact calc.
I'm familiar with most of the basic Ks (cap, security, fem...). I'm fine with high theory stuff, as long as you make it clear what you are critiquing and the impact to that. Weighing the aff is probably good, so I err aff on framework, but I'll try to stay as unbiased as possible. Good/specific link analysis is a must ! I will defualt to plan focus.
If you don't read a plan, make your method or advocacy clear in how it functions and what a world post aff looks like. You can weigh the aff against framework. I will be more persuaded to vote for you if the aff is in the direction of the topic, in the case of immigration you advocate less restrictions on immigration, however if you go the other way that's fine as well.
If there is an email chain I would like to be on it. firstname.lastname@example.org he/him.
tldr: Do you what you do best. I mostly read policy arguments in high school. If you are a K team spend the time to explain the lit that you almost definitely know more than me about. Be nice and make the debate accessible. If you have questions, ask them. For LD, most everything applies, just for phil rounds hold my hand and trix are probably a no for me.
Speaks: To get good speaks in front of me I want good line by line, impact weighing, and judge instruction. I also try to reward strategy in speaks but not as heavily as earlier listed things. Being rude, overly aggressive, discriminatory, or just overall hateful is a pretty good way to end up with bad speaks. Something I want to make sure to emphasize is PLEASE MAKE THE DEBATE ACCESSIBLE. No, I am not asking you to jeopardize the round. I am just asking that you reconsider your plan to absolutely demolish your novice opponent in an attempt to look like a good debater. If you decide against this, you won't lose the ballot but you will lose speaks and make me sad.
Style/Speed: Make sure to sign post well so I can stay organized. Fine with speed slow down on analytics if I dont have them. Please please please please please read prewritten blocks slower than you would read a card. I'll give more leeway on this if what you're reading is in the doc but if not please slow down.
Logistics: Flash or email isn't prep just don't take forever. If you want to delete analytics from the speech doc please do so before ending prep.
T: Can either be pretty interesting or really really boring. Not saying don’t read T, just saying that a meaningful standards debate and proof of in round abuse will go a long way. T is a voter and RVIs are probably not the best idea in front of me.
Theory: probably reject the argument unless condo. I don’t like the 3 second ASPEC blips or ASPEC hidden in the word doc with no verbatim heading.
DA: I don’t need really specific links, just contextualize it to the aff. I think that disad turns the aff is convincing as well as a good impact calc. Feel free to read politics or generics but specific disads are always neat. Using aff evidence, cx, and strategic choice of other off to get links for a disad is impressive and can be good strategy (just insert rehighlighting dont read).
CP: Same thing as DA’s, generic is fine, specifics are cool. Make sure your cp text is specific and says the part of the aff that cp does. Something like "Have the executive do the aff" or " Do the aff and ..." is not good practice, just take the 15 seconds to type it out. I wouldn't say that cps must have a solvency advocate but it's a debate to be had that I probably favor the aff in. Don't let this discourage you from reading an analytical cp against new affs or in general, just wanted to state my bias in the issue. Reading 5 cps with no solvency advocate = :( . Affs should be able to explain what each perm would look like. Tell me if you want 2nr judge kick.
K: They can be fun with good debating and understanding of the argument. I am not going to know as much about the K literature as you do, debate accordingly. Specific links can be convincing but contextualization of any link to the aff is a must. I think long K overviews don't help my understanding as much as you would think / as much as they might for other judges. I would much rather a shorter overview and more explanation in the line by line.
K Aff: Same thing as K, do some work explaining the thesis but feel free to read them. I feel like affs should win their model and be able to tell me what voting aff does.
Case: read it and impact turns can be fun if you really flesh them out in the block/2nr.
LD: for larp / k everything above applies. Feel free to have a more traditional round but just understand that I rely heavily on offense / defense in my understanding of debate so you will need to do work in that respect. Phil - I'm not against it just rarely judge these types of debates so you will need to hold my hand. Trix - probably no
Hi everyone (: I was a Speech and Debate competitor throughout high school. I mostly focused on LD and Extemp but have also participated in other events as well.
LD: I am more on the traditional side when it comes to LD however, I will not automatically vote you down for presenting a progressive case… Just do it well. LD is a philosophical/values debate, if you choose to go progressive that’s fine but I will not vote off of how many cards you can show me in a speech. I expect both debaters to present a well explained value/criterion, tell me why I should buy your framework over your opponents and be sure to carry out your value criterion throughout the whole case. Your contentions must show how you are proving your framework, that being said, just make sure you're wrapping up your case nicely for me and why it would be a mistake not to vote for you.
My next thing is voters. TELL ME WHY YOU WON. especially on the neg, make your last speech count. When you can tell me what to vote on and what arguments/impacts I should be taking into consideration the most, it definitely tells me as a judge that 1) you understood what happened in the debate and 2) you're taking advantage of the last minutes you have to persuade me to vote in your favor.
Lastly, facts and evidence are important, but execution of facts/evidence are of greater importance. You could be a top debater but if you’re spreading your heart out you risk the chance of me missing some rather important things you may bring up during the debate. So please, DO NOT SPREAD. Especially when online it’s important that both your judge and opponent can understand you clearly. Spreading will also cause you to run the risk of losing speaker points.
I will not tolerate any disrespect throughout the debate, you will take an L for it.
My background is 90s policy debate for Vestavia Hills HS & Georgetown University. I'm confident that I can handle aggressive pace and esoteric arguments. However, I demand clarity, appreciate intonation, and I am more likely to vote for arguments that I personally believe are true. Please don't read bad evidence. I might punish you for that. Personally, I have an undeniable preference for justice-based arguments like human rights and economic egalitarianism. However, I aspire to be non-interventionist/tabular as a. You can win just about any argument if you make a compelling case within the debate.
I have been coaching all debate events for the past 8 years.
I'm a stock issues judge. I prefer traditional formatting and style of debate. I love to see a lot of framework debate in LD. I do understand at TFA tournaments a more progressive style is the norm. I will judge progressive rounds fairly and will not vote against someone because they are more progressive. I just prefer traditional.
I will not vote on Ks. I do not like to see them in round.
I'm not a fan of spreading. I have found that in a virtual format it is next to impossible to understand you when you are spreading. I don't mind if you are speaking fast and clearly.
Respect and professionalism are important to me. There is no reason to be disrespectful to your opponent. Professional language is important for you to be credible in a round. I don't like to hear ums, uhs, likes in rounds. This is a speaking event as well as a debate event and I want to hear excellent speaking.
I've been coaching congress for 8 years. I have coached UIL, TFA, and NSDA state/national qualifiers.
Clash is what I look for the most.
I hate re hash. I do not rank people who do not bring new information into the round. I think 45min is a great time cap for debate on each piece of legislation. That helps prevent rehash and allows for better debate.
I appreciate representatives moving to previous question when the debate turns into only re hash. I very rarely rank representatives who break the aff neg cycle.
Quality of speeches is more important than the quantity. I do want representatives to be really active in the chamber. I want to see great content and great presentation. Content and presentation are equally important to me. Keep content organized and clear. Speed should be slow and clear. I do not like yelling in a congress speech.
Remember to have fun and enjoy the round! As a judge I'm always rooting for you to do your best and enjoy the debate. :)
Background: I did national and local circuit LD for 2 years before I graduated in 2019. I was a progressive debater but primarily focused on stock and policy arguments. I understand fem arguments and focused on plans and counter-plans.
I have judged many tournaments for Worlds School Debate and LD. A couple of notes on my judging preferences:
1. Be kind during round.
2. Do not make blippy arguments.
3. Extend arguments. I will not extend arguments that you drop and there needs to be weighing between arguments on both sides.
4. Give voters and tell me why you win the round.
Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. Make sure to explain your arguments well, especially if they are more nuanced. DO NOT READ A FLOATING PIC/PIK. I don't like abuse. I think abuse is unhelpful to the debate space. Do it, I probably will not vote for you.
Theory/T: I think running theory is fine if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments.
Speed: I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. You can consider me a 8 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.
Miscellaneous: I think permissibility and skep. arguments are defense and don't prefer to see them in a round. I default to comparative worlds.
1. Don't try to win on tricks...I will severely dock speaker points and just be generally sad and probably won't vote how you want when making a decision (aka don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc). I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence "argument" that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun, this a great learning experience!
WS DEBATE PARADIGM-----
How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?
World School debate is a team debate that talks about relevant topics. It is done through conversational speed and is highly integrated into the practicality of life.
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?
I use Excel to take notes.
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other?
I do not have a preference. I like to see comparative worlds arguments, so if you win on the principle/practical tell me why and how your world is net better.
The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?
I evaluate a speaker’s strategy based on fluency, articulation of arguments, and relevance. If it hits both the principle and practical levels, I evaluate it higher.
WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?
If I have to say “slow” you will have points deducted.
WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?
I look to see what how the evidence is relevant and if it is engaged with and articulated well in a round.
How do you resolve model quibbles?
I look to see how the practical influences the principle to resolve quibbles.
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?
I accept them. I want to hear why your model/countermodel works better than the status quo and the impact analysis.
Hello everyone! My name is Isabella and I am honored to be judging your rounds and look forward to hearing what you have prepared!
I strongly believe that debate is a game--I am not a policy maker--debate should be fun so argue what you want to argue.
For LD/PF Competitors: add me on the chain, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Create an email chain EVERY round, it saves time from calling for evidence, thanks.
I have experience in and a solid understanding of every speech and debate event. However, I specialized in extemp, PF, LD, and WSD. I currently debate CX and IPDA in college.
- Tech > Truth
- I auto drop for racism/sexism/homophobia or anything that is problematic that can make the debate space unsafe for others.
- Spreading is fine.
- If you provide rational impact calculus and extend the right arguments, it will be reflected in my ballot.
- AVOID SOURCE WARS
- I classify myself as a "traditional" debater, with that being said it might take me longer to understand high theory. If you are running K's make link clear in every speech and explain well.
- Tech > Truth
- Spreading is fine.
- I enjoy framework debate.
- Complicated and convoluted arguments that are poorly conveyed are worse than simple arguments conveyed convincingly and strongly.
As a general blanket statement, I am going to weigh and vote off of the arguments and the warrants you provide. If your spreading is muddled and incomprehensible I will stop flowing until I can understand you again.
If you have any questions or advice on your round, simply ask me after the round or email me at: email@example.com
My name is Niti Singhania. I am a lay judge. A couple of things to keep in mind:
- I would appreciate really clear arguments so I can understand what you are saying and in the end can vote for the winner.
- Please speak loud and clear. If you speak too fast, I will stop flowing, raise my hand and let you know.
- No Spreading.
- Be civil and respectful towards your opponents. Please don't be rude or overly aggressive, especially in cross.
College: UT Tyler 22-Present
High School: Lindale 17-21
General philosophy: Feel free to read whatever you feel most comfortable with. I went for critical arguments almost every debate my senior year, but the previous three years I spent reading exclusively policy arguments and I read a mix of the two in college. You know what is and is not appropriate to say within rounds and if you don't adhere to that, your points and ballot will reflect it. If you have any questions about your argument and whether or not I'd be receptive to it, it's better to ask than be bothered by my ballot.
If you say the words "for a brief off time roadmap," I am going to be sad.
Tech>truth. A dropped argument isn't assumed true without an extended and weighable warrant.
Depth>breadth. I'm not the best judge for more than 6 or 7 off, but if you feel like you need 13 pages to win a debate, I'll just be sad.
I prefer you to not read 30 cards in a speech. Evidence quality is really important and if you throw that out of the window just to throw the other team off, your speaks will reflect it. Comparing evidence quality is a great way to turn the tide in your favor in debates in front of me, as I will do my absolute best to evaluate only what was said in the round.
If it gives you better context, the most influential people to how I view debate are Cody Gustafson, Quaram Robinson, Yao Yao Chen and Nico Juarez.
-Uniqueness controls the direction of the link, this goes for both sides. If you want to win a link turn, you must win that the disad is non-unique and if you want to win the link you must win that it is.
-Zero risk is possible
-Much more persuasive if they have a solvency advocate, just reading a line in the 1NC just to dump 6 minutes on it in the block means that I give the aff leniency in rebuttals to catch up, but that isn't an excuse for sloppy 2ACs
-This is one place I am very up for a theory debate, whack counterplans that wipe out much of the aff lit base are probably bad for everyone, but the amount of times I've gone for counterplans that definitely cheat on some level puts me in the middle here.
-Doesn't really bother me if they're specific or not, but even if you don't have specific cards you should be able to explain why the counterplan solves the specific harms of the aff with a risk of a net benefit
-Generally for judge-kick, you just need to actually say it. This doesn't mean I can't be dissuaded by the other team in the final speech though.
-Feel free to read them on affirmative or negative, but don't get lazy with them and engage with the arguments the other team is making. Just reading the blocks you wrote at the beginning of the season and not referencing specific authors, lines of evidence from either side and engaging with arguments without specificity is a good way to get really behind in these debates.
-Framework isn't as important to win on negative in a lot of these debates, but if winning a research method through framework is what your critique is all about, of course you must win it.
-Most familiar with critiques of capitalism, settler colonialism and various areas of literature involving anti-blackness. Have read a bit of PoMo, but it is probably the argument you will need to spend the most time explaining. Regardless of my familiarity with your argument, you should be doing the work as if I've never heard your argument before.
-Specific links and explanations of links to either the topic or the affirmative are really important. Even if your link is generic and fits into every shell, that doesn't mean your 2NC or 2AC should sound the same every round. Great link explanation and application is a great way to get better speaks. The inverse is true as well.
-Impact and alt debates are often very muddy. Explaining your impact in a way that it can result from the links and be resolved by the alternative is something that is important. Alt explanation doesn't have to be hard, you just need to do it. History is your greatest resource in these debates, don't forget about it. Examples and explanations are great ways not just to get better speaks, but to win my ballot.
-Do your thing here and go for the impacts you are most comfortable going for. These debates often get lost in the internal links and fall short in the impact debate, be very careful there.
-Topical versions are important, but you need to make inroads outside of them to implicate why they're important within the debate. Don't just shallowly extend it or acknowledge it and move on, these can shred most of your offense on either side, but are very important to win when aff.
-Impact turns and impact defense are important here, but fleshing these arguments out is something a lot of teams don't do.
-I have a higher threshold for voting for this against policy affs, some of these T interps are getting out of hand. That being said, T and advantage counterplans were my favorite arguments to go for, so feel free to read it if you think you can win it. Sometimes you might need to take these debates a little more slowly, it will benefit my comprehension given there are generally fewer pieces of evidence in these debates.
-Having good definitions (that define words in the resolution) is important.
-Please don't refer to a sheet by the authors name, instead refer to it by the word/phrase that the author intends to define.
-Please no tricks, they're bad for everyone
-Reasons to reject require warrants and weighable impacts
-Counterplan theory is probably a good idea, look above.
-IVIs/RVIs are cool, but not every sheet is an IVI. For example, if the negative reads a topicality shell in the 1NC and then choose not to go for it, that isn't a reason to vote affirmative.
I am a parent judge, so please speak slowly in order for me to follow your arguments. I applaud those that have logical arguments rooted in evidence. Be very careful of exhibiting microaggressions. It will not bode well for you.
Looking forward to a great debate on the fundamentals of the topic.
I am a speech and debate coach. I consider speech events to be an excellent way for student's to have real-world practice in conveying their thoughts and beliefs. I enjoy listening to speech events that show a speaker's range as it pertains to vocal tonality, personality and knowledge. I look for clear preparation and organization through details brought fourth in the introduction, body and conclusion. Sources should be clearly stated and expanded on. I want to hear content on social, political and educational topics that revolve around current events. Adding in personal touches when appropriate are also appreciated. I consider debate a communications event. Please present your arguments using a professional and conversational style. I prefer a traditional style of debate and am big on speaker clarity. I’m okay with a speaking pace a bit faster than ‘normal’ conversation but avoid monotone speaking and inhibited breathing! Do not spread. Better evidence is more important than more evidence. Sources matter! Evidence isn’t an argument; it should support arguments. Be sure to extend your arguments, especially after they’ve been attacked. Take advantage of Cross-ex to set up arguments for the rest of the round. Topics reflect concerns in our society, so take it seriously and do not waste my time with case approaches that do not consider the framers’ intent. My vote is based on the arguments you and your opponent present. Please don’t be jerky or rude – it will cost you speaker points!