Hi, I’m a second-year college student and did 4 years of PF, Debating on the National Circuit from Orlando. Debater on the Florida State University debate team

Overarching things:

Tech>Truth: I evaluate the round solely on what's presented in the round regardless of the truthfulness of the argument. But remember the more sophisticated your argument gets the lower threshold I have on evaluating responses.

Frameworks: I default to the framework most brought up in rounds throughout speeches, If no clear framework is applied I will be forced to decide the argument by myself. If a team provides a framework for me to evaluate the round under it should be introduced as early as possible and extended throughout all speeches. If there are two frameworks please do the comparative for me and explain why I should pick one over the other. However, if only one team brings up a framework and the other team does not engage with it I will weigh all arguments of that one framework.

Comparative Analysis: Please do the comparative for me with different arguments. If both teams are running similar arguments do the comparative and tell me why yours is better. If teams are running different arguments I need to know why I'm preferring your argument. Absent comparative analysis, I will have to interpret things on my own and you don't want that.

Extension: Extending only the authors and taglines of cards doesn't suffice for me. You need to extend the substance of the card as well and how they relate to your impact. If you want me to evaluate something in FF is should be included in the summary speech. I usually allow first-speaking teams to extend defense straight to final focus but in reality, you should be mentioning important defense extensions in summary.

Progressive args: If you are going to run it then do so well and actually explain it with warrants. I will not buy a simple shell case that gets dropped.

Other things:

-I will flow cross. If something important happened in cross, mention it in the speech. A good cross is a great way to up speak.
- Will be lenient with going over time however DO NOT make it excessive, if I think you are abusing the system I will stop flowing.
- Quality over Quantity; don't spread. If you plan on speaking fast please send a speech doc. If I can't understand you I'll say clear and after 3 times I'll stop flowing.
- Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.
- Please collapse on a few arguments in summary. I prefer quality over quantity and clear extensions.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh (as early as possible in the round)
- Implicate turns and defense

L/D

Debate is like driving a car - you need the right accessories, and most importantly, you gotta know how to drive the car. You get better the more you drive, and eventually, you learn some pretty sick moves.. Getting a judge and getting a new car is pretty similar. Both require some getting used to, but once you figure it out, the highway is yours. You might be wondering what kinda car I am. Well, I'm not a 2020 Ford Mustang, but I'm also not a broken down 1988 chevy impala. I'm a 2006 Ford Fusion. I've been around the block and got some miles on me, but now I tend to sit in the garage. Let me give you some advice for driving a 2006 Ford Fusion. Here are some things that make the car run:

If you are affirmative, you should defend some sort of concrete action, preferably an action that can be written in one to two sentences and can be passed to your opponent. I tend to think that affs need stable plan/advocacy texts because it's important to generate stable offense. If your entire 1AC is the text, maybe this isn't the car for you. I also tend to think that the plan action should be topical, or at least topic adjacent. This is really a preference, instead of a hard and fast rule. I'm not a big fan of rejecting the res outright unless it's just that bad. If you find yourself constantly rejecting the resolution, that's awesome, but maybe I'm not the car for you.

Your 2006 Ford Fusion goes 0-60 in 8 seconds, which is a long time. As a debater, try to avoid going 0-60 in 8 seconds. I'm down for speed, but if you start the speech going full speed, I'm probably gonna miss some stuff. I can hang with your top speed, but work your way there. You can drive the car on the highway, but make sure you're using the acceleration ramp.

The car you've been given also has some weird dimensions. I think that debate is a game of net benefits, regardless of the arguments read. I tend to not vote for tiny IVIs or RVI's, but instead, I look at the entire flow. Your job is to create a larger narrative as to why I vote for you, so you should do impact calculus.

This car is a little old. Here's acceptable brands of fuel:

1. Topical affirmatives are great - especially with fleshed out advantages. I tend to award speaker points not just based on the quality of the debate, but the quality of your research. Well researched advantages with tangible impacts are best. The fiat question here isn't too important for me. I assume everything is fiated to some degree, even K affs. Just have something sticky for the neg to garner offense.

2. DA/CP debate is great for me. I love politics and hegemony debates, and I especially love them when paired with counterplans. Make sure your counterplan is competitive and actually solves the aff.

3. Theory. Theory is a great tool when used responsibly. I tend to like most theory, with some exclusions, which I'll get to below. Please note. You don't overfill your gas tank - so don't read too many theory arguments. I tend to think that 2 pieces of theory during a speech is the absolute ceiling. Otherwise, the debate gets messy and the car won't run well for you.

4. K debate. You should do some of that! You should have a clear alternative with links that describe why the plan actually trips the impacts. Saying "Plan uses the USFG" is fine, but that's only a link. Have multiple links. Also it's important that you very clearly describe the world of the alternative. Providing a really dumbed down two-sentence explanation of the action of the alt is recommended.

5. I'm gonna be honest, this car can only take special types of fuel. If you read the following K's in front of me, I'm more down to understand what you're getting at: Neolib, biopower, antiblackness, cap, fem, and on occasion, D&G. It's not that I'm not familiar with other lit, but I'm just not as well read as some others might be.

2006 Ford Fusions are not super complicated to drive, but here are some things that make it break down:

1. Perms are not advocacies, and I don't think they have net benefits. Advocacies have net benefits, but perms do not. They are tests of competition, so you should talk about competition.

2. I don't like silly theory. I think if you read an argument in the 1NC you should read it with your chest. SPEC is cool, but maybe only read it if you're actually going to go for it AND it would be strategically viable for you to do so. Also, I can't really get behind the whole "you should read the plan text in the first X minute thing." Just don't read silly theory. Make it count.

3. The car breaks down when you read disclosure. I won't vote on disclosure arguments, regardless of the format. It's not my realm to decide what happened before the round, but I often think disclosure only benefits larger schools. Disclose, don't disclose, I don't care.

4. I'll be upfront with you, there's a fair amount of car manuals that are not compatible with this version of the Ford Fusion. I get lost easily when the following lit bases are read in front of me: Baudrillard, Bataille, Buddhism, Nietzsche, and really anything in this tradition of really high theory. Again, I might not be the car for you, but if you do have to drive this car, don't use cruise control. Drive the car where you want it to go, and I'll go there with you as long as the path is clear.

5. I prefer depth. I really don't wanna see you read 7 off in the 1NC just to spread the other team out. Read maybe 3 offcase positions and drive the car real nice.

At the end of the day, the 2006 Ford Fusion isn't a hard car to drive, but there are certain ways the car needs to be driven. The car doesn't have a GPS. I don't know where you are going unless you make it explicitly clear. Rebuttals need to be wholistic and have clear win conditions. You've gotta park the car if you want the ballot.

The last thing I'll say is that I expect y'all to be nice. Don't spread your opponents out if they're a novice team, and more importantly, don't be hateful in your speech. It's been a really rough year for all of us, and this is a space to get away from the noise around us. If you start spewing that kinda speech, the car windows are getting rolled up and that's an auto loss. No exceptions. I really don't really think that people should be rude.

Oh yeah, I forgot to talk about speaker points. If you drive the car mostly right, without a fender-bender, the average is around a 28. If you wreck the car or deliberately start reversing on the highway, it'll probably go down from there. Don't wreck the car.

NSDA 2021 Updates: Add me to the email chain, or however you prefer to get me the evidence.

- Please don't miscut (I will drop you)
GLHF

1.Your background in debate (did you debate in high school or college? If so, where, when, and what events?)

I have taught communication/rhetoric for 10 years. I have coached debate for six.

2. How many years have you been judging? How many rounds do you typically judge each year?

I have been judging for 5 years. I normally judge 5 tournaments a year.

3. Do you have any argument preferences or speaking style preferences that debaters should be aware of?

I do not like spreading. I prefer straightforward arguments, but I do not mind more meta-arguments.

4. When the debate is over, what process do you use to pick a winner (use of evidence, direct clash, speaking style, impact calculations, layers of the debate, etc.)?

I assess the arguments laid out, consider evidence, speaking style, impact, and presentation.

Other thoughts:

-Don't be rude. I do not respond well to aggressive CX

-Signpost. I will be flowing and without clear signposting, I will have a difficult time doing so without those signposts.

-I like to see congenial debaters who are respectful of their opponents.

-Generally, arguments that devolve into debating the worth of a single piece of evidence or contention drawn out across multiple speeches do not interest me. Of course, this is not true if the evidence or contention is integral to the overall argument.

-I like seeing passion and emotion. I dislike dull recitals of speeches with a monotone voice. However, I equally dislike zealous, over-the-top speaking.

-Eye contact is important. I understand looking down to remind yourself of your points and structure, but do not like it when speakers stare at a piece of paper the whole time.

General

• Because argumentation is a game, technology trumps facts.
  Speed: Please keep your conversation contained and talk at a normal pace. You should know that the quicker you run, the more likely I am to miss anything.
  Any surrendered defence must be made within the speech itself, just after it was read.
  Instead than merely saying "we agree to the delinks," a concession should imply how the defence interacts with your argument.
  Provide trigger warnings; if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, adjust it. I don't care whether you sit or stand, wear professional attire, or anything else. You are free to discuss the merits of trigger warnings for discourse and society, but you should not intentionally damage another person.
  The defence isn't cohesive.
  Tag-teaming speeches/CX and flex preparation are ok by me.
  I'm going to assume a negative vote on policy items and a first place vote on "on balance" topics until shown otherwise in the round.

  Case

  Be merry. Just do what you want.
  Authors that frame their arguments in terms of a case study (like those who write on extinction or systemic violence) have my undivided attention.

  Rebuttal

  As such, I shall have a lower bar for responding to the offensive overarching arguments included in the second reply.
  I believe it's important to make a strong showing in the second rebuttal, but you may use whatever approach you choose there.
  The odds of a conceded turn are always one hundred percent.

  Summary

  There's a catch with the twists and turns. If you extend a link turn on their case, as my buddy Caden Day and I both feel you should, you should also make the delineation of what the effect of that turn is, otherwise I don't understand what the goal of the turn is.
  It would be much easier for me to follow the argument if you listed case offences and turns in order of author. Don't state "extend our link" if you want your argument to be upvotable: "Expand our jones evidence which suggests that extensions like this are beneficial since they are simpler to follow." I want amplification of originality/connection/impact.
  Do not finish your summary with a barrage of shaky, unreasonable statements; this includes arguments that have already been acknowledged.
  Initial Synopsis
  The defence should be pushed back, but if you push it back in the last round, I'll be a little easier on your side. This is particularly true given that the non-native speakers have had two opportunities to address the issue. Nevertheless, it is not a fatal defence at this stage, and it will at least lessen their effect.
  Second Synopsis
  In the event that the weight is not present at this time, I shall not consider any further weighing from your side.
  Defenses need to be made more expansive.

  Final Focus

  Simple repetition; emphasise originality; increase relevance and effect.
  Don't imply meaning where none exists; It is not feasible to check to see if I misheard, and it wastes my time.

  Cross

  The cross is persuasive, but only if mentioned in public.

  Evidence

  Notwithstanding my awareness of the problematic nature of evidence ethics, I will only request evidence if the other side requests it of me.
  If your opponents are deliberately misrepresenting evidence, you should address the issue head-on in your argument.
  A excellent analytic with a decent warrant, in my opinion, is superior than a fantastic empiric with no warrant. Put it to good use
  You have one minute to provide the proof your opponents have demanded before your speaking points begin to be deducted.
  The only exception is if the wifi is terrible or if you need to bypass a paywall.

(General paradigm at the top, event-specific paradigms listed in [brackets]. If you're here for congress/speech/interp scroll to the bottom.)

I judge from a blank slate. In other words, it is up to the competitors to make their arguments, prove their points, and weigh the impacts. I will vote for the side that wins on the flow no matter how good or how flawed I personally think those arguments are.

The only time I bring in outside knowledge to a debate round is for very basic facts. Example: if a debater says that the current U.S. president is Lebron James, then I know for a fact that this is wrong and any arguments based on this being true will be dropped from my flow. This is only for basic facts that I am 100% sure of and which should not be in dispute; if a fact is at all controversial, complicated, or I am not 100% sure, then I will leave it up to the debaters to hash it out and I will not judge based on my personal opinion.

You must tell me how to weigh/decide the round, then you must tell me why you win under that decision framework. The jargon I'm using here is very LD but as a general concept it's true for PF too.

On warrants: if two opposing warrants contradict each other then I resolve the conflict based on warrant quality and relevance to the argument. I very much appreciate it when debaters go into detail about why a warrant should stand/fall to help resolve the conflict. If warrants contradict and neither comes out as superior then the arguments are a wash and I drop both from the flow.

On speed: I am fine with speed but my ear isn't as quick as it used to be, so please slow down for your tags and impacts so I can make sure we're on the same page. If this is an online tournament then please keep the speed to an absolute minimum because the audio distortion is a real problem. Please take this seriously.

[LD] The value framework is only important to me in terms of telling me how the round should be judged. I am very flexible when it comes to frameworks; all I care about is that the debaters' cases follow a logical structure and they explain why I should vote for their side. It's okay to appeal to your opponent's values, multiple values, or implicit values. You don't need to talk about "values" at all if you provide a clear mechanism for weighing the round.

[LD] Kritiks/theory cases are fine but you need some sort of offense. Even if you completely nullify your opponent's case you still need something on your side of the flow showing me why I should vote for your case/world/whatever. I do not believe in Affirmative burden in LD so if the round is a wash I do not automatically vote negative.

[LD] Special note on Utilitarianism: You must always link your arguments into the round's accepted framework, especially if it is your own framework. Util is no different. If you use Util as your VC you MUST provide a Util analysis at some point in the round. All Util frameworks boil down some concept of weighing net benefit and harm. Therefore to win the round you must explain exactly why your side gives the most benefit and/or least harm, and this means directly weighing your net benefit/harm against your opponent's net benefit/harm. If only one debater provides a Util calculus and the other does not then the one who does will probably win the round. I normally don't like giving such a specific paradigm but Util is very popular these days and I think it is very unfortunate how many rounds are decided entirely because someone uses Util and then never explains why they win under their own VC. If you have no Util calculus, you have no Util link.

[PF] I view each side as advocating for or against the position taken by the resolution, not on whether or not I "accept" the resolution or the pro/con case. This means that I do not give much weight to overly specific or unconventional interpretations of the resolution, and most theory/kritical arguments are limited to rebutting specific arguments. However I do not reject any arguments outright and I will listen to your justification for making that argument. I judge entirely based on whether analysis of the flow leads to advocacy for/against the resolution position; barring extreme circumstances I do not factor debate style into my RFD.

[PF] I do not flow cross examination. CX is for clarification and explanation so the debaters can hash out how their arguments interact with each other. There is zero benefit to being combative in CX because you cannot win or lose arguments during cross. I do still listen to CX though and what is said in cross can affect my understanding of the arguments made during the round.

CONGRESS: I primarily value good discussion. A good speech should 1) Have something useful to say, 2) Say it clearly, 3) Justify it with solid evidence and reasoning. Every speech should progress the discussion; no speech should merely repeat previously made arguments, even if you're giving a summary speech. Speeches early in a bill should provide new arguments. Speeches later in a bill should directly respond to arguments made by other senators. Speeches near the end of the bill should analyze/compare/weigh the arguments already made. Questions should similarly progress the discussion and try to reveal more about the speaker's position and arguments. I do not place much emphasis on how "congressional" your style is, however I view the goal of your speeches/questions to be promoting the public good via the role of a congressperson, and I will judge the quality of your speaking to the extent that it promotes/detracts from your advocacy for/against the bill.

I

My background: I was born and raised in Kansas City, graduating in 2011. I do not let personal bias dictate my decision. I qualified for Nationals in Lincoln Douglas Debate and made it to double elimination rounds (Top 30), losing to the National Champion. I do not say this to brag; I just know how a lot of judges can be in this region so I want you to know I am very versatile and enjoy flow rounds as equally as you may see on the coasts.

Judging preferences:

CX: absolutely anything flies. I have no problem with T arguments, CPs, or K arguments; I hold the traditional belief that in this type of debate the burden lies with the Affirmative. In order for the affirmative team to get my ballot, their plan must retain all of the stock issues, or at least those that are debated in the round. For the negative to win, they only need to prove that the affirmative fails to meet one of the stock issues in its entirety. Rapidity of speech is not an issue so long as you do indeed speak cohesively.

LD:At the end of the day, the debater who proves that on balance their value is better upheld on their side of the debate when supporting the Resolution through their contentions will get my ballot.

I believe the VC can serve as many roles. I like the value criterion to measure or uphold the value. At the end of the day, it is a value debate so that holds more weight. I won't count drops unless you call them, however if it doesn't impact the Value debate it is negligible. Respect the intent of speeches (no new arguments for instance in last speeches) and I am okay with voting issues on the Aff last speech. The burden is equally on the Aff and Neg side to affirm or negate the resolution unless you run a more circuit style case. I prefer a more philosophical approach to LD- this can be completely rooted in evidence and real world analysis.

Public Forum: The side who upholds their contentions, has a better speaking style, and successfully achieves the art of "debating" will get my ballot. I must emphasize I do not let personal opinions sway my decision. I am very open to all styles of public forum debate.

For IEs, feel free to ask me anything.

I have about 12 years of experience in competing, coaching & judging both speech and debate. I competed on the collegiate level and tend to go for strong topical arguments and clear, persuasive, and passionate speakers. I’ll keep detailed notes and normally vote on impacts, magnitude & topicality. Feel free to ask anything else before and/or after the round.

faith.lopiccolo@gmail.com

In debate, I value true debating. I look for clash and actual consideration of competitor's arguments, not just person after person reading their pre-written, un-customized cards or speeches. I also value communication. If you talk too speedily and I cannot hear distinct words, those arguments will not be accounted for in my judging. This is not to be mean, but if I can't understand you, I can't really judge you. Finally, you will be polite and respectful. Yes, I want clash, but nothing personal. Debate your opponent's points, not their personality or appearance or whatever else. Honestly, that would just make me more sympathetic to them, so don't do it. And PLEASE, no lingo. Say real people words. I do not care enough to learn every swanky fancy term for something you could just call by name, so if you use debater's slang around me, I just plain won't know what you mean, and that's not good communication.

IEs are a little different. Of course you will not be clashing, so those parts don't apply. Still, I expect you to speak clearly, and I expect to not. be. yelled. at. I don't mean I don't want to be lectured, because extemp speeches and oratories are literally lectures, but do not raise your voice at me. Get passionate, vary your tone, all that good stuff, but don't literally yell. It's kind of the same principle, if I can't hear you well and you're just being mean, I'm gonna have a harder time giving you first place.

And for POs in Congress, please, be chill. I'm not saying be lax on the rules, but in my opinion, an amicable (but not lazy!) chamber is the best kind. I don't like being yelled at. As long as everyone gets to speak and you run the room fairly, you'll be good in my book, and you'll be satisfied with your rank on my ballot.

I just want y'all to be nice to each other. You're all overachievers who choose to put on a suit and debate politics on the weekends for fun, there's no need to get nasty or cutthroat or anything l like that. You're a lot more similar than you are different, which is a good thing! Just be cool, and I'll be cool too.

Good luck, all!

Value/Criterion:

I listen closely for a well-organized case and rebuttal. Be sure to clearly state how your Value and Criterion (V/C) are relative to your cards and contentions. During the rebuttal, don’t lose the V/C argument, relate back to yours or your opponent’s V/C and how your arguments best accomplish the V/C(s) that is the focus of the round.

Solvency & Topicality:

These two are crucial in your cases and rebuttals. Reiterate your burden of solvency and stay on topic. Make sure your plan, evidence, and burden of solvency relate to the resolution.

Speaking:

Please make sure to articulate yourself, speak clearly.

Voters:

Be sure to include voters. Be careful and try not to completely drop a voting issue.

Overall: Be prepared, be organized, be professional and respectful, and be confident in your arguments and rebuttals.

Please introduce yourselves and state the topic before the round begins. Also state Road-map (OFF TIME) and tell me where you are going. It helps me understand your case better. As a rule I do not time road maps.

Please avoid snarky comments and approach the arguments with politeness and respect.If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it with speaks.

I understand your case more when there is voice modulation in your speech, reading as is from a screen makes it hard to follow and seems uninteresting. I love to see when you speak with passion and when it seems like you really mean what you are say.

Don't have to ask me if I am ready before beginning each section of the round.

Please manage the timers yourselves.

TLDR: I am an interventionist judge that prefers truth over tech. The way to get me to get me to buy your arguments is to explicitly explain the link chain running through your case and spend LOOOOTS of time on the warrants and links for each card you read, each off-case, and each rebuttal. Just spreading piles of cards will get you dropped. I do weighing and cross-application myself as I flow, only spend time on it if you say something non-obvious, otherwise I ignore it. If you want to win on framework, focus on it almost exclusively, as blippy ink all over the flow for everything is too easy for me to disregard. It's not that I prefer traditional debate to progressive, it's that I want progressive debate to be used to raise the skill ceiling rather than lowering the skill floor.

Edit for Congress and Parli: If you are an opening/authorship speaker, you have a natural disadvantage, try to have at least one preemptive response to an obvious argument the opponents will bring up, otherwise, you risk reading non-interactive material purely based on how the rest of the debate goes. For parli this is less of a problem, so be sure to carefully and responsibly frame the debate so that other teams can interact without going too far afield.

Edit: I DO NOT VOTE ON CROSS APPLICATION ALONE. YOU MUST WIN YOUR CASE FIRST TO CROSS APPLY. SAY IT BRIEFLY IN YOUR FIRST SPEECH. BUT SAVE THE EXTENDED WEIGHING FOR THE END, DONT WASTE YOUR SPEECH ON CA WHEN YOU SHOULD BE ATTACKING OPPONENT'S WARRANTS.

CARDS ARE JUST DATA. YOU MUST STILL SUPPLY AND EXPLICITLY EXPLAIN THE WARRANT. TELL ME HOW THE NUMBER WAS ARRIVED AT AND READ YOUR OPPONENT'S NUMERICAL IMPACT CARDS TO CHALLENGE THEIR WARRANT. I will vote for someone who explains mechanisms of action but has no cards over someone with all the cards and no explanation. If you don't explain the warrant, and defend against opponent's alternate explanation, you don't get to claim the number. Don't just have cards that form a link chain. EXPLICITLY EXPLAIN THE LINK CHAIN. This sets out clearly what the opponent must do to respond.

I only vote off framework if the cases are a wash or you spend a ton of time on it. I'm much more easily persuaded by resolutional analysis on how an example is or isn't part of the aff world, and how relevant the stats are as a result.

Counterplans must explain how they are explicitly different from aff world (especially if the aff is claiming ground that the prewritten cp was not meant for), else Neg loses all unique offense.

Did PF and LD in high school, extemp in college.

I don't need to be on the email chain if you speak normally, but do if you spread. Most debaters who spread read too much evidence to effectively use, and most of the time reading the card reveals that the tag does not match the card text, or card text is more equivocal than the supported claim. Spreading can be used to lower the standard of evidence, as opponent has less time to respond. Therefore, I will intervene much more heavily on your side of the flow to compensate, cutting out any and all cards and links I don't personally buy.

Most arguments are fine.

If I miss something due to speed, it's not flowed. If you spread at least pause through author and date, missing those may cause me to put something in the wrong place on the flow.

The only time it's acceptable to extend an argument without briefly explaining it is your final speech.

Even if I know the K lit, I'm only voting on it if properly explained and linked.

SIGNPOST. SIGNPOST. Tell me where you are on the flow and what you're responding to.

Overviews and roadmaps shouldn't go longer than 10 seconds.

I don't vote off cross ex alone unless someone concedes something. Use it for clarification or to set up your next speech. If you use it to attack a warrant, you can save time in your next speech by referencing cross instead of reexplaining, I like it when people do that!

I strongly dislike when the text of a card does not match or fulfil its tag. If tag says extinction, the text should either say or be easily linked to extinction.

I dislike frameworks whose only function is to lock opponents from the round. In the case of a framework tie, I prefer the wider, more permissive framework.

If I'm not told how to weigh the round, I'll have to intervene. My default is to tally up the offence that links to the winning framework. I will vote off topicality.