My focus is on a debate where you have presented solid evidence that flows through to the end. Following structure, good sportsmanship and voting issues are helpful and considered in my decision. Most of all be respectful to each other. When you present your arguments in this way, then everyone learns more and can better clarify thier side. Including the impact summates the strength of their side and brings more clarity on the bigger picture.

For detailed thoughts on the hows and whys of framework debating, please see my professional profile on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100054643951460). You may learn something.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS (scroll down for PF):

First, some general thoughts: (1) the affirmative debater must defend the resolution; (2) the negative debater is not required to present a case and may choose solely to deconstruct the case offered by the AFF; (3) Lincoln-Douglas is the most philosophical form of academic debate, therefore the strategy and choices employed by both teams in the debate should reflect this fact; (4) I should not feel, during the debate, that I am listening to a one-on-one version of policy debate; debaters should defend the ethics of their respective positions; (5) I always prefer quality of argumentation over quantity.

Second, some thoughts on framework. Framework exists to present a paradigm as to how the audience and the judge should evaluate the debate and place it in one of four quadrants (deontological/individualist, deontological/collectivist, consequentialist/individualist, and consequentialist/collectivist), clarify ambiguous or nebulous terms or phrases in the resolutions and their significance for the debate to follow through definitions and observations. Both debaters should present (1) a paramount value that is an abstract concept/value (ex: "Justice") and (2) a value criterion/criteria that is an operationalized version of the premise; it is a statement, with a noun and a verb, of something that is achieved through upholding/negating the resolution (ex: "protecting the property rights of citizen taxpayers"). Even if the NEG is not going to present a positive case, it still has to present a framework and argue what premise and criterion is upheld through the negation of the AFF case. To reiterate, the value is AN END IN AND OF ITSELF while the criterion is A MEANS TO AN END. With the present resolution (March/April 2024), the AFF framework must be in alignment with rehabilitation. In fact, it is acceptable for the AFF to present "Rehabilitation" as the paramount value.

Third, some thoughts on rationale: (1) if the resolution contains the phrase "when in conflict," then the AFF debater must briefly present a "conflict scenario" that explains how or why two independent values would come into conflict with each other; the NEG debater should grant this scenario unless it is abusive; (2) the primary task of the AFF is to defend its case and this should take precedence over attacking the NEG case if time does not permit both in the same level of detail; (3) the primary task of the NEG is to attack/clash with the AFF case and this should take precedence over defending its case if time does not permit both; (4) the NEG debater should spend at least the last two minutes of the NR departing from the flow and focusing exclusively on the voting issues; and (5) the AFF debater should use the 2AR to exclusively explain the voting issues.

Fourth, on evidence: (1) I would strongly recommend that both debaters bring hard copies of their evidence into the debate as it makes exchanging them a great deal quicker and easier than passing around laptops; (2) if a debater is going to call for/request evidence, this is how it should occur - a) request the evidence in a speech as part of an attack on the opposition's argumentation; b) immediately after the speech, the requested evidence should be offered; the debater requesting the evidence either has to burn prep time to read it or read it during the next segment/action in the debate; c) the response to the request should be addressed in the very next available speech; and (3) if a challenged is issued regarding evidence (misrepresentation, out of context, etc.), the outcome of that challenge will be THE major voting issue in the debate.

Fifth, and finally, on cross examination: (1) use the CX to ask and answer questions and not to make points or speechify or grandstand; I do not flow CX, so these points will not be recorded; (2) the debater conducting the CX may cut the other debater at any time when answering; this will not be construed by me as being rude; time belongs to the one asking the questions and not the one answering them; and (3) do not use the CX to ask for and exchange evidence; I have outlined my preferred manner for challenging evidence above.

PUBLIC FORUM:

First, some general thoughts: (1)the affirmative/PRO team must defend the resolution; (2) public forum is the most audience friendly form of debate that exists, therefore the strategy and choices employed by both teams in the debate should reflect this fact; and (3) I always prefer quality of argumentation over quantity.

Second, some thoughts on framework. Framework exists for two purposes: (1) to clarify ambiguous or nebulous terms or phrases in the resolutions; and (2) to present a thesis that will guide the argumentation offered.

Third, on rationale or case: (1) in the B team's first constructive, it may choose to present an opposition case, criticize the A team's case or a mixture of both; if the B team chooses to present a case, it should structure its case for maximum clash with the A team's case (and highlight for the judge when a contention directly clashes with an A team contention; (2) in the A team's second constructive, if B team presents a case, the A team should focus on attacking that case and not attempt to extend its initial arguments beyond a simple "pull through our case as unattacked" response; if the B team does otherwise, it should attempt to address the entire flow; (3) same holds true for the B team's second constructive; it should attempt to both attack the A case and respond to the A team's attacks on the B case (this is the price paid for speaking second and deferring to this speech any response made against the A case in the first constructive); (4) the first rebuttals/summary speeches need not address point-by-point, given limited time, both teams can pick and choose what they wish to highlight as major points of clash; and (5) the second rebuttals/final focus speeches should delineate the voting issues of the debate and explain why your team wins those voting issues; the points of clash and the voting issues do not have to be the exact same things and should retain some flexibility.

Fourth, on evidence: (1) I would strongly recommend that both teams bring hard copies of their evidence into the debate as it makes exchanging them a great deal quicker and easier than passing around laptops; (2) if a team is going to call for/request evidence, this is how it should occur - a) request the evidence in a speech as part of an attack on the opposition's argumentation; b) immediately after the speech, the requested evidence should be offered; the team requesting the evidence either has to burn prep time to read it or read it during the next segment/action in the debate; c) the response to the request should be addressed in the very next available speech; and (3) if a challenged is issued regarding evidence (falsification, misrepresentation, out of context, etc.), the outcome of that challenge will be THE ONLY voting issue in the debate.

Fifth, and finally, on crossfire: (1) use the crossfire to ask and answer questions and not to make points, speechify, grandstand; questions do not begin with the phrases "Is the A/B aware of . . . " or "Does the A/B realize . . . "; I do not flow crossfire, so these points will not be recorded, they must be referenced in the very next succeeding speech; and (2) do not use the crossfire to ask for and exchange evidence, especially at the end; I have outlined my preferred manner for challenging evidence above.

I have judged and coached a long time and can handle just about any style of debate.

Clash is very important in all forms of debate, and one trend I have seen in some events is ostensible refutation which consists of repetition of a previous point rather than responding to arguments from the opponents. I notice this most often in LD voters and 2AR speeches and in PF Summary and Final Focus speeches. I appreciate a little review, but if you aren't giving any new arguments, then I'm not writing anything down and it's not doing a lot to help you.

I should mention that I can handle speed but I don't particularly like it: I'm not sure I've ever seen a round where a speeding debater gained any advantage from speed that judicious selection of words and careful choice of cards wouldn't have done just as well. I also don't judge based on winning a number of arguments - it's how the arguments impact the overall debate that counts.

Evanston Twp High School '23

Harvard '27

If you need to contact me: mebelsduggan@gmail.com

—————

My philosophy for debate revolves around two main tenets:

1. Have fun

2. Make arguments

Debate is, at its core, a game of arguments. It's a lot of other things to a lot of people, but that's the very stripped-down version. I want to see the kind of arguments that you have the most fun with, whether that's a framework-heavy case, a policy-based approach, or even citing The Onion in round.

This is the most important thing on the paradigm: have the debate that you want to have. I will do my best to adapt to your style of debate and make the best decision.

With that said: I'm more of a flow judge than anything else. I like a technical round because I find it easiest to fairly adjudicate. If the arguments being made are more pathos than logos, I often find myself having to intervene or do work for one debater in order to construct a ballot that I feel okay about. I also don't place any weight on formality or "professionalism". Speaker points are based on how well you debate, not how you present. Wear what you want, stand or sit, whatever. Just make arguments.

The most important thing you can do in front of me is write my ballot for me. I want to directly quote your 2NR/2AR in my RFD. Use the flow to explain to me why you win. I very much agree with my (former) debate coach, Jeff Hannan, on this:

“I will make decisions that are good if:

you explain things to me; you establish a clear standard, role of the ballot, value/value criterion, or other mechanism and explain to me how I can use that to make my decision; you compare or weigh offense linked to that mechanism.

I will make decisions that are bad if:

you expect me to do work for you on the flow or among your arguments; you assume I know more than I do.”

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

A couple final things:

- Please be nice to your opponent. Try to make the round fun and comfortable for everyone involved. I know from experience how anxiety-inducing debate is. Don't make it any more difficult.

- You will get 0 speaker points if you, in my judgment, intentionally misgender your opponent or make intentionally bigoted remarks. I don't care if you curse, but your coach might.

- Making a Justin Vernon reference won't get you speaker points, but it might make me like you more.

I have a debate-level understanding of whatever argument you will be reading

I'm not the best judge for psychoanalysis arguments

I like ks but I'm good with policy stuff too

Blippy arguments make the debate nearly impossible to judge:

Cards should have warrants and you should be able to access the warrant and reasoning behind the card a quote without context is not an argument. You should be using warrants not just reading a quote. If you are extending evidence you should be reading the warrant, not just a blip.

THE DEBATER WHO HAS BETTER ARGUMENTATION WILL WIN OVER THE DEBATER WHO JUST READS A CARD THAT SAYS WELL ACTUALLY WSJ SAYS XYZ.

there should in general, be more engagement on the framing aspect of the debate. Tell me:

How you link into framing
Why that is good
Why your opponent doesn't
why that is bad

pick one main argument that you are winning and link to framing.

pick what offense the other team has and outweigh it

he/him

I have been a coach at Evanston for 5 years, and have been judging for them for 7+

please be clear if spreading, very important that you pause and sign post during argumentation. I will defer to what I hear in speeches and use the speech doc sparingly. It is importance to change cadence when spreading in order to emphasize warrants and impacts in order to differentiate. I don’t want to have to read the cards to figure out what you are saying in your speeches, you should be clear enough so I can flow

Tricks are pretty annoying and don't really help people learn how to debate, It is on a case to case basis on how I will weigh tricks (long story short, id recommend NOT reading them in front of me)

The most important thing in the round is that your arguments are accessible, and inclusive to everyone. That being said, be inclusive to your opponent inside the round. If your opponent doesn't understand speed, slow down. If an argument is not clear and is hard to understand, explain it. If you don't do these things, I will have a hard time voting for these arguments. That being said, I am pretty much open to any argument (regardless of event) as long as it is warranted, and impacted (as long as it is not exclusionary or violent). This includes critical arguments in public forum. Don't lie about evidence. This is a very good way to automatically lose the round with me, and more often than not almost any other judge, or judge panel.

Decision-Making:

Framing:

If you tell me to look at a certain framework and it is fair and reasonable, then I will do so. If I don't think it is fair I probably wont evaluate under it, but I will tell you why I think it's unfair, and how to make it fair. For LD, it is more about warranted framing. I don’t like/understand phil framing when it’s spread, and I literally have no idea how to evaluate it when it’s read at 200+ wpm

K's are cool.

Decorum: You should do what makes you comfortable in round, if you want to sit down for cx cool, stand up, cool. Sit down for speech, yeee, stand on your head. Let people know if there is anything you need to make the round more accessible or more comfortable for you.

Speaker points: Being kind in round is the best way to get 30's with me. Also, if I learn something new or interesting, you will probably get good speaks

winners get probably 28-30, then the losing team .5 less

30: you were cool in round

I don't always remember to time, so please be honest and hold yourselves accountable.

Head Coach of speech and debate team for 11 years.

I am a former college LD'er and also really enjoyed speech doing Extemp in high school and college.

LD Paradigm
My paradigm reflects a somewhat older traditional LD judge who believes in topicality and strong argumentation with contention clash and strong crystallization. I am not impressed with debate lingo being thrown about and expected to finish the argument for you. Make it simple and argue on the framework and contentions.
Do not spread. I need to hear and flow your arguments in order to score. If I can't understand you, then I can't score you. Do not heavily rely on esoteric counterplans or kritques. Please do not do theory unless its absolutely required.

Beyond this, I am pretty simple. Argue well, follow basic decorum of the debate and make sure I can follow you. Sign posting is your friend and mine.

PF Paradigm

All that applies in LD applies here as well except I dislike partner imbalance in grand cross and counter coverage in later speeches. I believe PF should also be even MORE open to anyone to judge so less reliant on debate lingo to summarily dismiss opposition argumentation.

Congress Paradigm
Congress is the perfect combination of extemp speech and debate. I pay attention very closely during cross. First speeches are high risk and high reward. If you are giving the first pro or con speech it's basically an oratory and should be delivered as such. Later speeches should crystallize if extending the debate and counter often or taking a new angle and approach. Not that into chamber games, but at the national level I am ok with it.

TL;DR for all- directly CLASH with your opponent and make it easy for me to flow and understand you.

This is my third year coaching and judging debate. My background is in speech and Model UN. I feel that debate is a valuable learning experience and I enjoy hearing new contentions that make me view the world from a different perspective.

I am a flow judge so I appreciate teams that provide lots of evidence and include relevant impacts. In PF, I give a lot of weight to voting issues and mostly award speaking points based on that. I value truth over tech.

Respect your opponents; they help you become a better debater.

Please be mindful of the time limits. I stop flowing after your time is up.

Have fun! I'm looking forward to hearing your arguments :)

I've was an LD debater on the Illinois circuit throughout high school and I now debate both styles of Parliamentary debate.

Basics: Be professional, be kind, and speak clearly.

More Detailed: I love a good clean traditional LD round. That means framework, contention level attacks and analysis, clear signposting, turning cards, and voter issues at the end of the round. I'm fine with speed but please don't spread me out, I won't flow it and it's not in the spirit of the activity. If you're running a meta argument or a K I'll do my best but it's not my background so bear that in mind. I like to see clash all up and down the flow, so try not to drop anything or it will flow through. I will vote on whatever voter's issues are presented, so don't forget to give me something to work with. I don't flow cross-ex, so if something important is said there please bring it up in the next speech. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you, so speak with clarity. If you treat your opponent in a way that is abusive or overtly rude I will give you zero speaker points. Finally, remember to have fun, debate at the end of the day is an activity about having hypothetical arguments, and there's a joy to that I urge you to remember. Have a good round :).

for Fremd tournament: I know you've had a few tournaments with this resolution, but this is my first time hearing it. Don't assume I'm familiar with the topic or have heard any of the common arguments, abbreviations, etc.

Name: Anusha Jayaprakash

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging: 5 years

General:

- keep speed within reason; if you’re going too fast for me, I’ll put my pen down and look at you until you slow down

- I judge off the flow, lay everything out for me, I won’t make any assumptions or connections for you

- arguments need to be extended throughout the round; if something gets dropped and doesn’t make it to the end of the round, I won’t vote based on it

- give me clear voting issues, I don’t care who won more arguments, tell me why the things you won mean that you should win the round, weigh clearly for me, tell me why I should care about the arguments you won, why do they matter

- I don’t flow cross; if something important comes out make sure you bring it up in a later speech so it ends up on my flow

- keep track of your own time and prep time, if you opponent is going way over, let me know

- treat me like I know absolutely nothing about the topic, I haven’t done any of the research you have

LD:

- I don’t care who wins framework, just make sure you weigh under whichever framework is agreed on

- I don’t like pointless framework debate, if your frameworks are compatible, like justice vs morality, just collapse and move on instead of wasting time arguing which is better

PF:

- If you’re speaking first, it doesn't make sense to go back and defend your case before you opponent’s rebuttal

- the round should funnel down; your constructive and rebuttal focus on the line by line, by the summary you should pick voting issues and address the line by line arguments that tie into them, in final focus I don’t want any line by line arguments, focus entirely on the voting issues for the round and weighing them

- no line by line in final focus, it’s too late for that

Miscellaneous:

- I view debate as a game. It is not all about winning. Your round should be fun, educational, and equitable for everyone involved. Be respectful at all times.

- The more specific the argument the better. I'm open to any arguments that may come up in a round so don't be afraid to try anything.

- Please impact. A lot, preferably.

- I would prefer line-by-line rebuttals.

- I like topicality arguments.

- I can flow speed but if it becomes unintelligible I will set my pen down and stop flowing (I will also do this if you go over time). The more I can get down what's said, the better off you are.

- Tech > truth

- If your frameworks are basically the same I'll ultimately collapse them to make my decision. If you have impacts that only link under your framework then by all means argue the heck out of the framework debate! BUT PLEASE NOTE: "they don't link to their FW because I actually link better as shown in my contentions..." is NOT a reason to prefer your framework, it's just a solvency argument.

- And, ask any questions you may have before the round I'll be happy to answer them.

LD:

Values and value criterions are a weighing mechanism for the evaluation of arguments. Winning the value debate matters because it changes how I view impacts in the round and prioritize them. I understand the idea of “upholding a value” as the end goal of an LD round, and I can buy into that as a way to win a round, too. However, if that’s what you do, I probably won’t vote for impacts outside of that framework. You should choose between (1) upholding a value as a virtue or good in itself or (2) winning impacts that you will frame using your value/criterion. Both are valid, but I am inclined toward the impact style (option 2) by default.

I tend to think of LD debates in four parts: Definitions, Value, Aff Contentions, and Neg Contentions. I think it makes sense to flow LD on three sheets: One for definitions and values, one for aff contentions, and one for neg contentions. That makes the clash in definitions and aff/neg value easier to isolate and prevents a lot of strange and usually unnecessary cross-applications.

I am a traditional LD debater.

FW is a tool to weigh the round through. Defend your framework. If you lose framework or collapse, it’s not the end of the round. Make sure you impact everything through the winning framework.

Extend arguments and tell me why that extension is important. Signpost so I know where to flow your arguments. Voting issues to tell me THE MOST IMPORTANT CLASH IN THE DEBATE AND WHY YOU WIN.

That being said, I have been debating on this specific circuit for 3 years so do with that what what you will.

Don’t spread, I want to hear what you are saying! Be respectful. This is a competitive activity. But at the end of the day, you WANT to be here to so enjoy please.

I do not have any experience with kritiks, counterplans, and theory debate. These are usually not run in our traditional circuit. 

Get competitive, the round is never over and give it everything you got!

Please forward any questions => mishra1016@students.d211.org

I am a traditional Lincoln-Douglas judge and have been judging / debating since the early 2000s.

Value (V) & Value Criterion (VC) Debate:

The decision-maker & breaker is based on whichever side BEST upholds their Value / Value criterion. Essentially, the winning debater will be able to showcase that in his/her world his/her value is superior and is better upheld. It is always beneficial to attack the logic of the other side's Value / Value Criterion to demonstrate this. For example, say the affirmative has a value of Justice and a value criterion of Equality. A successful attack on the logic here would be to show how Equality and Justice are in conflict such as if we set hiring quotas, affirmative action, etc. (everything will be equal but it is not always fair). Of course, bringing this up in the context of the resolution will bolster the argument (for example, if we are not debating affirmative action). Logic and reasoning hold a lot of weight and can substitute for traditional evidence (statistics, studies, quotes, etc.)

Value criterions are there as such: a weighing mechanism. This is often lost / falls on deaf ears amongst debaters. A weighing mechanism is just that -- a method to determine what is the best determinant for a specific value. Let use this crude example illustrate that. Say we are debating what makes a great UFC fighter. In an LD context, our Values are "Successful MMA Fighter." Well, what determines their success? Is it heart? Is it experience? Is it youth? Speed? Strength? Striking? Wrestling? Resilience? Whichever criterion you think best allows for a successful UFC fighter should be the "VC" in this example.

Burdens and Case Logic:

The affirmative has the Burden of Proof during the round. This means, they must prove the resolution valid beyond a reasonable doubt. Similar to a criminal case, it is the prosecution job to prove the defendant is guilty. It is not the defendant's responsibility to prove his innocent, he simply has to prove that he is not guilty. This applies to the negative as well, he does not have to prove the inverse of the resolution. Please ask me for clarification on this point if you wish.

The negative the burden of initiating clash during the round. I would prefer that AT LEAST SOMETHING is said for each of the contentions and sub-points, even if you are running out of time. It can be something minor.

That being said, just because someone misses a contention doesn't mean that it can make or break a debate. The debater must demonstrate WHY that particular contention matters. Of course, the other extreme is not appropriate either (i.e., a particular side fails to attack anything or misses major parts of the case but has a strong case of their own).

In addition, I like when the contentions relate in someway to the value and value criterion. It clarifies the logic in the case and in general makes it easier for the side to argue their Value/VC.

The Negative's case can be flawed yet still win if the attacks on the affirmative are strong enough. Conversely, the negative can have a much better case than the Affirmative but if it never initiates clash, then I will defer to the affirmative (this hasn't been a problem).

Evidence is great, but evidence is not an argument. Debaters need to explain how/why that piece of evidence matters and relates to their argument. In addition, debaters need to explain the source and why this person's opinion matters. Just throwing "cards" at me, will not sway my decision.

In some ways, I prefer philosophical and logical discussions based on axioms and syllogisms. Stat-bombing me with studies and "cards" are not a substitute for solid argumentation and logical analysis. This may be controversial to some of you. But should we dismiss the arguments of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle simply because they didn't have peer-reviewed studies which fit a certain criteria?

General

I am a traditional LD debate judge, have been doing this for 20+ years. I generally dislike when you concede frameworks it shows a lack of analysis into the values and criterions themselves and kind of comes off as lazy.

Speaking can be a little quick but if you speak too fast and I miss contentions/sub-points it will negatively affect you (i.e., spreading).

Obviously, sign-posting is a must.

Cross-ex needs to be used strategically. It only matters if you refer back to it in a subsequent speech.

Clear, specific and unique arguments for each contention that are powerful and sub-point is superior. Repeating the same argument over and over again is not a strong strategy for success. Quality over quantity.

Voting issues are best at the end and it helps when the debater provides a clear reason why I should vote for a particular side.

hey everyone :) I'm Cari and I've been debating with Fenwick High School for four years now!

I just about ok with anything you want to do, but I appreciate signposting and really maintaining your framework throughout the debate.

Just have fun and be confident! If everyone wants me to disclose I'm fine doing that (not sure if I'm allowed to but oh well)

Also, bonus points if you have fun computer or water bottle stickers :)

Name: Karla Nunez

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: Public Forum Since Fall of 2016 - approx. 7 years | Lincoln-Douglass since Fall 2019 - approx. 4 years

⟨⟨ Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round: ⟩⟩

Before answering these questions I'd like to express that normally when asked if i have a Paradigm I'd answer along the lines of "I trust that you know what you are doing, so give me what you've got and I'll do my best to fill you in on what you need to improve". I other words, You, your coach, and teammates are expected to work together to ensure you've got what it takes to win the round, and I ensure that i asses and provide you with tools that can help you improve and succeed in the future. If you take anything away from this is that I'd like for you to GIVE ME WHAT YOU GOT! I want you to show me what 100% of you looks like in that moment. and just trust that your 100% now will change with time and effort.

Speed of delivery- During your constructive any speed as long as you are clear and enunciate properly. If it were a range of 1-5, (1 being slow with heavy pauses and 5 being the fastest ever I could call you McQueen and exclaim "Ka-Chow!") I find students do best at about a 3-4, I would be more concerned with your opponent’s preference.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- If your opponent said something that changes the game then address that, but i like big picture stuff.

Extension of arguments into later speeches- ?????

Flowing/note-taking- You should definitely be flowing 1000000%, and I'll flow your speeches as much as possible, I'll lend an ear to cross incase any of my questions are answered, but none of it will flow through.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? ?????

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? I believe that if you state "I win on so and so because my opponent is just wrong", you have plenty of work to do.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? makes sense to me.

-Make sure you're addressing your framework in all of your speeches--both supporting your framework and weighing your impacts through your framework

-Roadmaps are appreciated--if I don't know which contention/card you're addressing, it's difficult to flow it through

-Hateful arguments are not tolerated (sexism, racism, etc.)

-Voting issues are really important to me--don't forget them in your last speech!

Overall, just have fun with the round! This is my 4th year debating in LD and my second year as an LD captain, so feel free to ask me beforehand if you have any further questions about how a round works or about my paradigm. I'm looking forward to judging your round :)

TLDR:

1) Signpost

2) Have good evidence.

3) Give me voters.

4) Don't forget your framework.

5) Don't be boring; have fun.

Have fun!

Illinois Math and Science Academy (IMSA), c/o 2023

If you need to contact me or create an email chain, use dpatel4@imsa.edu

-----

Hi! My name is Dhruv, and I co-captain the LD team at IMSA. I'll keep things short:

1) Be nice.

2) Debate well. This includes:

a)Signposting.I cannot stress this enough -- you must tell me where to look on the flow. Point me towards specific subpoints, contentions, and evidence. Go down the flow systematically, because if I can't tell where you're at, it'll be tough for me hand you a W.

b) Evidence.Include a whole host of evidence -- quanitative, qualitive, philosophical, and more. And remember, you must contextualize your evidence; I like one solid piece over 45 different cards that are very tangentially related to your arguments. And on that note, I care more about how strong your arguments are, over the quantity that you present.

c) Voters. Voters. Voters. Voters. Voters.Five times should be enough. Please give me reasons to vote for you at the end of your speech. Both sides should spend about 1-2 minutes doing so, and I don't care how you give your voters (completly seperate or dispersed throughout your speech) -- just do it.

d) And the most important thing: framework. This isn't PF, this isn't Policy, this isn't Congress. The whole premise of LD is a value and a value criterion, and you must remember this. Don't give me your value at the beginning of your constructive, and then throw it on the back burner for the rest of your speech. Forget your value, forgot getting good speaks.

3) Have fun. Don't be monotone, don't be boring.

Hello! My name is Krish Patel and I am a varsity debater. I'll try to keep my paradigm short and simple.

1. Speed during your speeches is not an issue with me. If you do talk fast, try to enunciate your words clearly because I am old school when it comes to flowing aka I use pen and paper :) If I need you to slow down I will let you know.
2. Please be respectful. I understand that in debate your have to stand your ground but please don't go up and start saying racist stuff.
3. For the actual debate itself I want you to think I am a lazy person. What I mean is I want you to walk me through everything. Which of your opponent's contentions are you referring to? What impact does your value have? Why does your contention 3 uphold your framework? I don't prefer framework over contentions and vice versa. Instead, I prefer a debater who can show me the connection between the two and the overall impacts behind them.
4. I love real world examples. I think that they are a strong way to prove a point and I think a strong argument is one with a strong example that has a strong impact.
5. I don't disclose unless I am required by the tournament. I will give verbal feedback after the round if you want it.

Hello! I am a former debater from Homewood-Flossmoor High School and I am currently a first-year at The University of Chicago. I am very familiar with LD as I debated in the local circuit, national circuit, and competed at NSDA in 2020 and 2021. I also have minimal experience with PF debate. I am not going to ask you to change the way you debate. Just do your thing! Some things that I do like to see is clear speaking, good analysis, and clean voters issues. One thing that is so very helpful is signposting. This is when you give me a clear explanation of where you are on the flow. Additionally, I love to see impact weighing (magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc. )Please do these things and it will make following the debate and my voting much easier. Other than that, just show me a good debate. Good luck!

If you should ever need my email, you can reach me at alexandriap@uchicago.edu.

Specifics to March LD 2024 (Criminal Justice):

• Please make your arguments concrete. Criminal justice reform is happening in the SQUO in America and beyond. Give me examples of programs. YOU be the one to set the definitions of rehabilitation. Instead of being so theoretical, show me what this actually looks like, please!
• I am OK with counterplans on neg especially for this topic.
• Remember that by round 6, your judges will have heard many of the same arguments. Maybe try to spice it up a bit with something unique!
• Have the best time this weekend :)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

Hello! I am an English teacher and a debate coach of 5 years, and I judge both PF and LD. First and foremost, I want everyone to have a good experience during your round!

In both LD and PF,my #1 priority is this: argue respectfully! If you are rude to your opponents or exceedingly arrogant in your speeches, it will result in a loss of speaker points.

2nd Priority: make my life as a judge easy. Tell me what to do! They dropped your 2nd subpoint? Tell me! Want me to flow something through? Tell me! You're the experts here, and I'm just trying to keep up. Don't assume that I'll catch everything that you catch in a round :)

CLARITY AND SPEED: I value clarity over speed. Obviously sometimes speed is necessary to ensure your speeches will fit in the time limit, but if I miss a tagline or a name of a card, it's only to your detriment!

CONCRETE ARGUMENTS: 2nd point on clarity-- remember that while you have spent a lot of time and effort researching your topics, your judges have not. Before you make your more intricate or unique arguments, spend some time in your FW or contentions explaining the basics or the fundamentals of your case! Give concrete examples when you can!

PRIORITIZE THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE TERMINOLOGY: Sorry, clunky, but I don't know how else to say it. Debate should be an accessible space for all, and when it's convoluted with hyper-specific debate terminology and lingo, it make it so hard for this really great activity to be somewhere that people don't feel totally intimidated to join. Also, I'm NOT a former debater. Everything I know I've picked up from coaching in the past 5 years. I vote on arguments, not on technicalities.

ORGANIZATION: I appreciate a nice, well-organized, line-by-line rebuttal!!! Attacking your opponent's cases in order is a huge help to me for flowing.

CROSS: In general, I listen attentively and may write a few notes of good points brought up during CX, but I would prefer anything from CX to be flowed to your later speeches.

IMPACTS: Impacts! You can have all the cards you want in the world, but you need to be able to explain them and explain the impacts of your cards on your case. Again, I'm an English teacher, and I consider your impacts/explanation of cards to be just like your analysis of quotes in an essay. Without it, the essay falls apart!

SPEAKING: While it doesn't weigh much on my decision of who WON the round, I do also appreciate when a speaker uses inflection and proper emphasis in your speeches. Be convinced of your case and convince me to believe in it! I love a good stylistic speech. Keep me engaged! This will definitely impact your speaker points.

WEIGHING: I do prefer clearly listed voter's issues and weighing mechanisms, but not including weighing mechanisms won't necessarily cost you the round.

If you have any questions, just ask! Thank you and good luck!!!

I am lazy and stupid. Please treat me as such. Tell me exactly where to flow, how to weigh, and why you won this round. I am a coach, but I am not a former debater. So if you would like to run ks, plans, theory or whatever, you can. However, you need to break it down to a fairly basic level, and they should be used to enhance the debate space, not to limit it. I'm fine with speed as long as you enunciate. If I am not getting what you are saying, I'll make a face like :/

I judge a lot, and I hear the same thing over and over so many times. If you have a non-stock case, I'd love to hear it. Run something weird!

Pet peeve: Making debate an exclusionary space in any way.

email chains to moiraquealy@gmail.com

Name: Moira Quealy

School Affiliation: Barrington High School

Were you previously affiliated with any other school? I student taught at Carl Sandburg in 2017, and I helped out the the PF team while I was there.

Number of years and/or tournaments judging the event you are registered in: I've judged LD since 2017. I tallied it up in Tabroom, and I think I have judged over 200 rounds of LD just at tournaments. I am a weary soul.

Have you judged in other debate events? Please describe if so. I have judged PF from time to time, but it is not my specialty.

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery preference (slow, conversational, brisk conversational, etc.): I like a quicker pace if you can pull it off without sacrificing clarity. If you are spreading, I need an email chain. If you are at a local tournament, you should probably not be spreading. If you speak quickly as a strategy for confusing your opponent, you should definitely not have time left over in your speech.

How important is the value criterion in making your decision? Generally, I think it is my rubric for the debate. That being said, if your frameworks are similar, I don't feel the need to spend too much time going back and forth. Collapsing and focusing on who fulfills the general fw better is a very fair and time-conscious move.

Do you have any specific expectations for the format of the 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal and 2 Negative Rebuttal (i.e. line by line/ direct refutation and/or big picture?)I would say the 2NR should be pretty line-by-line. You have the time. I do not have the same expectation for the 2AR. Voting issues are essential, and I'd rather have those than a line-by-line.

Are voting issues necessary for your decision?I wouldn't count it as an automatic loss if you don't do voting issues (especially as a Novice), but oftentimes voters are where I end up making my decision. Not including them is a detriment to your ballot.

How critical are ”extensions” of arguments into later speeches. This is an essential part of debate. If you aren't doing this, I am not sure what the debate round would consist of.

Flowing/note-takingI flow on my laptop. I may jump to my phone during CX to check in on my team and make sure everyone's rounds are going okay, but I will still listen. If you are running a team case and I have judged your school before, I may just copy and paste the flow over, so don't worry if you don't see me typing during the constructive.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument is reflected in your ballot, style is reflected in your speaks.

In order to win a debate round, does the debater need to win their framework or can they win using their opponent’s framework?You can win under your opponent's framework, but YOU need to make that connection for me.

How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (analytical and/or empirical) is in the round? This is an essential part of debate. If you aren't doing this, I am not sure what the debate round would consist of.

Any other relevant information (optional)?I will not flow new arguments in the 2NR or 2AR. It's a waste of your time and mine.

Maria Raza

Belleville West Highschool

I've been a debater and judge for both LD and PF throughout high school, so I am familiar with both events.

Public Forum:

Any speed of delivery is okay but conversational is preferred. or if you're going to go fast make sure to be clear!

I don't have a specific format I'm looking for in the Summary Speeches but I do like to see big picture arguments.

Always extend arguments throughout the debate. If you're not extending I'm going to assume the argument is dropped.

Make sure to always flow! don't just say "Extend card xyz" Explain the impacts, relevance, etc.

second speaker - Do your best to attack the opponents' case and defend yours, If not possible I'd prefer to at least hear you attack the opponents' case.

I vote for arguments and voter issues in the final focus. To me the final focus is both sides giving me a wrap-up of what to vote for, the most important arguments, etc.

and of course, Be respectful! Have Fun! :D

Lincoln-Douglas

Any speed of delivery is okay but conversational is preferred. or if you're going to go fast make sure to be clear!

I don't have a specific format expectation for the the 2nd rebuttal but I like to see big-picture arguments included.

I vote mainly on voting issues! tell me what is the most important arguments/evidence, tell me what you are winning and why, and give me impacts.

AND DON'T FORGET YOUR FRAMEWORK! This plays a big decision in who I vote for.

To win It doesn't matter if you use your framework or your opponent's. As long as you clarify what framework you're using and you show why you're winning.

Always extend arguments throughout the debate. If you're not extending I'm going to assume the argument is dropped.

Make sure to always flow! don't just say "Extend card xyz" Explain the impacts, relevance, etc.

Evidence is always important! always have evidence to back your argument.

and of course, Be respectful! Have Fun! :D

Be respectful and have fun!

I like to see debaters connect their case to their framework, and a clear explanation of why you should win(aka voters issues)

while evidence is a big part of the debate, I’d like you to show me how your case best upholds your value.

Hey my name is Jainik and I've been debating for 4 years now! Just a couple things to consider for when you have me as your judge

1. DON'T forget about FW. Rounds are won and lost on this and the FW debate should be addressed at some point during the debate. The goal is to attack their value criterion and explain why yours upholds your value better. Why is (your value criterion) the best route? Why is your value criterion the best at upholding your value? This is tricky, but remember to ALWAYS address their value criterion directly and connect it back to your case.

2. In terms of speed, you can go fast but be aware that I flow on paper so speed needs to be reasonable enough for me to be able to flow on paper. If I can't flow it, it'll be tougher to get your point across.

3. Time- please be on the lookout for time during your speeches. Try to use up all of your time and allocate it in an efficient manner so you have enough time to address all of your opponents claims. I know this is tricky at first but practice makes perfect- the more you debate, the better you'll get at this

4. Be respectful towards your opponent.

5. Remember your Voting Issues! It may seem that you're getting blown out by your opponent but if you stand up and give a great voters, that can completely change the tide of the debate! Try and allocate a decent amount of time on your voters and be sure to clearly outline why you won the debate. Why did (blank) argument matter so much? Why did your opponent not addressing (blank) make you the clear winner in this debate? It helps if you plan some of this out in your prep time so just be aware of that

Other than that just make sure to have fun! Getting nervous is super normal (trust me I've been through it) but remember that debate is a place where we go to have meet new people and have a good overall experience. If you ever feel overwhelmed at any point in the debate, just take a deep breath and remember that everything will be ok:)

General Focus

The debate case should have clear contentions with evidence supporting your claims that explain the topic well. Generally, your case should be structured so it is easy to flow and understand as the audience. The arguments should be concise, and clash is essential. Follow the structure of the debate format you are competing in. For example, in LD, the Value and Value Criterion are significant; centralize your case towards them. Extend your arguments throughout the Debate; consistent repetition is not necessary.

Hello! My name is Nandana, I'm a co-captain of IMSA's LD team.  

In a debate, here is what I'm looking for: 

1. BE NICE- Remember to be respectful.
2. FRAMEWORK-Framework is the must fundamental aspect of LD so make sure to properly address yours and your opponents value and value criterion when debating. I want to see clash surrounding your framework. 
3. SIGNPOSTING-Make the round clear for me as I'm flowing, I need to know where to look on the flow. Talk about specific contentions, subpoints, and cards as you make your arguments because without them, it will be difficult to flow your arguments through. 
4. EVIDENCE-Make sure you have a variety of evidence throughout your case and be sure to analyze that evidence- simply stating a card is not sufficient to show me that I should vote for you. Explain what the evidence means for your arguments, what the impacts are, etc. 
5. VOTERS-Make sure to include voters in your speech to help me understand why I should vote for you. 
6. HAVE FUN!

I debated for 4 years in high school, I have been judging LD/PF for 11 years and coaching LD/PF at Fenwick High School for 8 years. I will be evaluating each team based on their clarity, logical coherence, evidence, rebuttal, delivery, cross-examination, and respect. I will be looking for the team that presents the strongest argument overall, based on these criteria.

In general, I am open to nearly every argument; with a few exceptions/variations.

1. Theory - I am fine with it. I find some theory debates to be quite interesting, however I will not vote on frivolous theory, especially not on disclosure theory.

2. Kritiks - In general, I think they can be very educational arguments. However, I am not a fan of performance arguments. I just do not enjoy them. Plain and simple.

3. Plans/CPs/Disads - Even though I believe these often stunt an otherwise incredibly intellectual atmosphere, there are exceptions to this rule. If you can run a good plan, I can see myself voting on it. As for counterplans—no PICs. Please. I do not find that these make for a decent debate round.

4. Voters Issues - Please have them.

Speed is okay but I will say “clear” if I cannot understand you or if you are speaking too
fast; because if I can’t hear it, I can’t flow it. Be intelligible and make sure to signpost

Hi! My name is Cindy and I'm a captain/varsity debater at Barrington High School. My pronouns are she/her.

In a novice debate round, I'm looking for some of the following things.

1). Signposting - make sure your case and rebuttals are organized so that it's easy for both me and your opponent to understand. The easiest way to do this is to go down one flow and then move to the other, so we're not jumping around.

2) Connection to framework - refuting contentions is important, but make sure you connect it back to why the things you're arguing is important to the debate. Explain to me why it's important that your case supports your value criterion or value, and/or why it's important that your opponent is not upholding your framework or their own, etc.

3) Don't forget about your own case! Defending your own case is equally as important as refuting your opponent's case. Make sure to use your timing well and address as much as you can - even if it's just one sentence - so that you don't drop anything in round. On the other hand, if your opponent drops something, flow that over and explain why that's important to round.

Good luck to all debaters, and feel free to ask me any questions if you need clarification!

1) Signposting is very important. If I don't know where you are on the flow, it will be very difficult for me to record your arguments.

2) Make sure to prioritize clash, both contention-level and framework-level.

3) Don't forget to connect all of your impacts back to your value and value criterion. It's very important that you explain to me how your arguments should be weighed under your framework. Otherwise, I will simply resort to weighing all of your impacts through a consequentialist lens.

4) I can handle speed to some extent, but if I can't hear what you're saying, I won't be able to flow much. I will make this clear to you during the round.

5) Lastly, don't forget to have fun and enjoy the experience!