Debaters in both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum debate need to stay focused on their resolutions. In LD, proving a philosophy doesn't matter if debaters can't prove their resolution to be true. Whether or not a person has a value or a criterion doesn't matter, as long as that person can prove or disprove the resolution. However, looking at a resolution through the lens of a particular value can be helpful.

Remember, the words in each resolution are there for a reason. Aff/Pro debaters need to defend them. Neg/Con debaters need to prove that they aren't true. Debaters also need to make sure they speak clearly.

Speed isn't a problem as long as a person speaks loudly and clearly. If people have any doubts whether or not they can be heard and understood, then they need to slow down. As a judge, all the evidence and analysis in the world are for naught if a debater cannot be understood.

I debated in the mid 1980's, almost exclusively inside South Dakota and coached some HS debate while I was attending college in Minnesota. I continued to judge some throughout the 90's. In the mid 2010's, I re-engaged with the activity. In the 2021-22 season, I added a part-time gig, becoming the assistant coach at SF Jefferson.

Policy: I'm a 1980's policymaker, weighing advantages vs disadvantages, but I will certainly vote on stock issues in the real absence of inherency, solvency or topicality.

Debate started changing dramatically in the late 70's and I was in the first wave of spread 1.0, almost laughable when compared to today's spread on the circuit and collegiate level. I believe spread and K's pushed policy debate to an extreme that required the creation of PF. The speed of today's South Dakota PF feels a lot like 1980's policy debate, quick, but nothing close to crazy. I am making it somewhat of a personal mission to keep PF from tipping over the edge.

I outlined my thought on judging policy above.

Public Forum: I am looking for clash -- real clash and sound logical reasoning and quality extension evidence that makes your case. Don't paraphrase. I consider K's and counterplans out of hand. I also place a premium on signposting (anything that can help me keep as organized a flow as possible). Teams that fail to do this leave themselves at a real competitive disadvantage. Weigh impacts and construct a narrative around why I should vote for your side of the resolution. Finally: If your team is 2nd speaker, your rebuttal absolutely has to get back to your Case and counter the attacks made against it!

I value exceptional speaking and rhetorical excellence. I love speakers that can change my perception on issues, speakers who possess a passion for the topic and the activity. If you find a way to be unique and memorable, you will have a significant competitive advantage over 90% of your competition. While speaking skills are not as important as research and argumentation in helping me decide a round, they are often the difference maker in a close round. They are also somewhat of a lost art as PF begins to look and sound more like policy -- which is a shame.

I occasionally judge LD -- it also has been impacted by the spread/K revolution. I am looking for many of the same skills I'm looking for in PF. I appreciate debaters who help me weigh the competing value/criterions and what should take precedent within a particular resolution. Connect your V/C to your contentions. Tell me why we should frame the resolution through your V/C instead of your opponents. I need help connecting philosophy to your contentions -- take the time to explain it to me in a clear and persuasive manner. Don't assume I have a working knowledge of these scholars, because I probably don't or, the few I may have heard or read about, have likely been forgotten.

On a scale of 1/10 for speed, I would consider myself about a 5 In policy debate and a 6-7 in PF/LD. On a scale of 1/10 for openness to alternative argumentation, I would be fairly low on a 1-10 scale. For policy -- quite open to topicality, less to counterplans, and a big hurdle to get my ballot if your case hinges on a series of Kritik arguments. For PF -- I consider myself a local/regional kind of guy. I am open to speed, not spread. I think disclosure theory is bogus (debate is a speech activity -- an argument hasn't been made until a speech is delivered). Don't run K's.

"Slow Down" - me, on like 80% of ballots

For Public Forum: I'm a traditional, slower speaking public forum judge. I vote on the contention debate. Focus more on the logic and analysis argument. Don't use abusive definitions, and be rude or condescending at your own peril.

For Lincoln-Douglass: I focus on the value/criterion debate when voting, but if the debate is centered on contentions that is subject to adjust. Again, please don't speed read, and respect your opponent

Classic LD: Value, Criterion, Contentions

Rounds are evaluated with emphasis on the strongest logical arguments, sometimes supported with evidence.

I appreciate frameworks and burdens arguments that lay out the parameters of the debate - especially when you follow through with it, and it’s not just a 1x statement at the beginning of a speech never to be referenced again.

I enjoy well-thought out arguments, clash, organization, and arguments that continue to evolve throughout the round, not just repeated.

Spread and high speed are not tolerated. I will flow only what I can understand.

And while all of that might come off as a little grumpy, I assure you I am not. This is an enjoyable event, there are things that we can all learn from each other, and respect for your opponents, teammates and judges is a great starting point to have a good time, no matter the outcome. Have fun and learn something

E-mail for email chains and/or questions:Travis.Dahle@k12.sd.us

tl/dr - I prefer old school argumentation but won't intervene - I'm also old and slower on flowing 5/10 - don't waste time on evidence sharing

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

I have very little national circuit experience in LD as I primarily judge public forum and policy debate (see more on that below). In LD I am more of a traditional judge as in I like a discussion of the resolution from the standpoint of a value and value-criterion and contention debate. That being said, at Dowling I voted for a Plant-ontology aff, a Counter-plan on the neg, etc. so while I prefer the classic style, I don't intervene into the round either and if you have a good RoB, then I'll listen to it and will focus the debate on that if that's what you make it.

I'm about a 5/10 on speed. I'm old now and prefer to actually hear the evidence of the debate rather than read the evidence on an e-mail chain...

Public Forum Paradigm

Public Forum should NOT be a shorter version of Policy Debate. Meaning, I don't want to see K's, DA's, Topicality, Plans and CP's in Public Forum - nor am I a big fan of speed in PF. I love policy debate, but I also love that Public Forum is not policy and it's an option for people who don't want to do policy debate. This doesn't mean that you can't go a little faster than you would for a lay judge, but don't go crazy.

****EVIDENCE SHARING****

This should absolutely NOT TAKE SO FREAKING LONG!!!!! Seriously people, you should all have your evidence ready to be shared - in fact, I would prefer that people actually share their evidence before they begin their speeches if everyone is going to spend this much time asking for evidence. PF rounds are becoming 90 minute rounds because apparently trying to find evidence and asking about evidence magically doesn't come out of any prep time or crossfire time, but magic time that doesn't exist.

IF YOU WASTE THAT MUCH TIME TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER YOUR EVIDENCE PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR I AM GOING TO START DECREASING POINTS! Have your poop in a group people - this is getting old!

Big Questions Debate - I don't judge BQ a ton, however, I'd look at my paradigm much like the PF and LD paradigms below.

tl/dr - Slow down, enunciate, use evidence and weight the debate at the end - do it all respectfully to your opponent

Extemp Paradigm

I am a mix of content and delivery when it comes to judging. When it comes to sources, don't make stuff up. With the internet available now, if I suspect you are making things up, I will probably check it when you are speaking. You don't have to make stuff up - unlike the olden days where you hoped to have a file on the Togo questions Washington put out each year - you can literally google your info and bring it up instantly.

Also - ANSWER THE QUESTION - don't waffle - pick a stance and tell me why you choose that way. Pretty simple.

Don't overly fidget or dance around - but don't be a robot either.

Have fun!!!!

Policy Paradigm

In essence, I am a tabula rosa judge, meaning that I will pretty much listen to anything and will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round. That doesn't mean I don't have things I prefer or things I think are bad arguments (which I will go over) - but for the most part, I will listen to anything in the round. However, unless you tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, I will default to a Policy Making paradigm. I have been the head coach at Washington HS since 2009.

Speed: I've gotten old here and have grown weary with blazing speed - put me down as a 5/10 on speed. I'd rather have the ability to hear the evidence instead of having to read through everything on an e-mail chain. If you go too fast I'll let you know - you won't automatically lose, you'll just annoy me a little - unless you ignore me, which if I'm on a 3-judge panel and I'm the outlier - I totally get.

Tag-Team CX - It's okay, but I'm not a huge fan of this. One thing I like about policy is that you should know what you are talking about. I don't mind the occasional help, but if you keep answering every question, it makes your partner look like a tool. And even if they are, you probably don't want to show that they are in front of judges.

Arguments I like: I have always felt that the more you know about what a judge likes and dosn't like is essential to winning debate rounds, so to make it easier on you, these are the type of arguments that I prefer to be seen run.

Case Debate - this is a lost art in the debate community. Why as a negative are you granting them their harms and their solvency? If you can have some solid arguments against their case and point out the serious flaws in them, that will help you weight your DA's, K's and CP's over them.

Economic DA's - I have an economic background and like Econ DA's as long as they are run correctly. Generic spending DA's are usually not run correctly.

There are other DA's, but those usually vary by each year, but as long as you have a solid link to the case, you should be good to go.

Arguments I'm not wild about: Again, the more you know, the better off you will be. Once you read this list does it mean to absolutely not run these arguments - no. What it means is that you better run them better than most teams who run the crappy versions of them. I'll vote for these arguments (and have lots of times) - I'm just not wild about them.

Politics DA's - I've changed a lot on these and used to hate them but realize the strategic advantage of them. That being said, not my biggest fan, but have voted for a lot of them over the years

K's Read at blazing speed - I don't mind some K's, but most of the authors that debaters cite go so beyond the realm of what is possible to discuss in a debate round that they end up bastardizing the entire theory they are supposidly trying to use. Also, if I haven't researched and read the material, how can I evaluate it if you are reading it at a blazzingly fast speed. I don't mind K's, but I'd like to understand them, so please, assume I haven't read the theory - because I probably haven't.

Performance - this is just my inexperience with performance. I've probably only judged it a couple of times, so if you do performance, I may not understand how to evaluate it and might default to the policy framework - so you need to make sure to explain to me the role of the ballot and my role in the debate. I have voted for Performance affs and discourse affs - again, more inexperience than anything makes me put this in the category of things I'm not wild about.

As always, I'm open to questions before the round if you have any other specifics. All in all, I like good debates - if you can argue well and clash with each other, I really don't care what is argued - as long as it is argued well!

LD-

Give me a bit to work on this :)

For Novices:

I doubt that you are reading a paradigm (I didn't even know they were a thing a year into being in varsity lol) but if you are I have some words of wisdom for you. Just have fun and try your best. Don't stress out too much about wins or losses because at this stage you are just learning. I understand you are just learning, so I will not be too hard on you if you go under time or if you can't answer every question. Also, the comments I give after the round are not mean-spirited, they are simply there to show you where you can improve. Good luck, and stay awesome!

1. Debate background:

1. Judged High school debate for (9 years);
2. Assistant debate coach for 2 years.

2. Judging:

• I love flow and base my judgment on logical arguments, facts, science, etc.
• I deliberate on overall presentation of debaters-- i.e.-- argumentation + delivery

I am a traditional public forum debater, so don’t spread or try any Nat. Circuit methods because they won't work in PF for me. Go join Policy debate if that’s your style.

I currently debate for JHS, so I am pretty well-versed on the PF topic.

Evidence clash and warranting are essential to me, and good speaking skills will help you a lot.

LD: I had a very brief stint in LD my first year; I don't do it anymore. Treat me like a lay judge.

Good luck if you have me in LD.

Pray to god if you have me in Congress.

Do both if you have me in Policy.

Hello, and thank you for competing!

A Little About Me

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate for four years at Sioux Falls Washington High School. I also did speech and interp events for all four years, specifically Info, Non-O, and Impromptu. I'm currently on Arizona State University's Oxford debate team for the 2024 Regent's Cup Tournament. I like dogs more than cats and enjoy a good gyro.

If I'm Judging PF...

I started my debate career in PF in the fall of 2019. I transitioned to LD in January of 2020, and I haven't done any PF since. If I'm your PF judge, bear my lack of recent experience in mind. Go slower, and err towards logical arguments rather than torrents of arguments and voters hinging solely on dropped cards. In short, cut my poor LD brain some slack.

If I'm Judging LD...

I consider myself a traditional Lincoln-Douglas judge. The value and criterion debate are of paramount importance, and should be treated as such. The debater who wins my ballot will not always be who wins the flow, but rather who convinces me the arguments they are making are achieving the value that is winning the round. This being said, I recognize the importance of strong contention level arguments, so be thorough in all speeches.

Strong voters are incredibly important, especially to the aff. In the final aff speech, the entire time should be spent on voters, and I generally recommend a first voter on the value/criterion debate before going into the contentions.

On speed, I will not flow anything I cannot understand. I top out at around a rapid conversational pace, so spread at your own risk. The purpose of debate is to instill public speaking and argumentation skills in students, and this purpose is negated if debaters are encouraged to argue in a manner indecipherable to the public at large.

In this vein, I will not consider Kritiks, Counter-Plans, or other policy refugee-esque arguments in LD debate. Just as a baseball player does not have to worry about their opponent pulling out a cricket bat, a debater should not have to worry that their opponent might attempt to play by an entirely different set of rules. This being said, I'm a sucker for a good topicality debate, and I enjoy RA and observation arguments. A general rule of thumb is "does this argument interpret the intent of the resolution, or does it attempt to circumvent or nullify the resolution?" If an argument falls under the former, go right ahead. If it falls under the latter, I'd advise saving it for a different judge.

Generally, I'm a Tech over Truth judge, but if a truly outlandish argument is made in round (an argument that the KKK helped race relations in the south after reconstruction is a particularly salient example I recall from my debate years), a brief statement pointing it out as such will be sufficient.

I flow all arguments given in a round. I do not flow cards. If you wish to make an argument, you will have to actually make that argument (claim, evidence, warrant, etc). You can't just say "O'Connor 11 says climate change will kill us all." In this vein, when pulling through arguments, you have to reiterate the thrust of the argument itself, you can't just say "Pull through O'Connor 11 which proves my opponent can't access...whatever." If you try this, odds are I have no recollection of what O'Connor 11 is, as I only write down "climate change will kill us all." In this vein, I don't believe all arguments have to be derived from cards. A well-reasoned analytic argument will beat a poorly reasoned card every time. So debate with arguments, not by volume of cards, and pull the arguments, not the card through to win my flow.

Don't try bringing up new arguments in the 2NR or (God forbid) in the 2AR. It won't work. I won't flow it. Please save my (and, more importantly, your) time through crystallizations and voters.

A minor final point: I enjoy historical allusions. If you have a command for history, and can give a historical comparison (or, even better, if you can poke holes in an opponent's historical comparison), do so. It will both give you extra speaker points, and make my heart glad.

If I'm Judging Speech/Interp...

I did just about every speech event over my years in high school, and understand the requirements of each. I especially enjoy info, and particularly like speeches about oddball topics nobody cares about (my senior year info was about early South Dakota political scandals). I also reject the infusion of OO formats into info. Thus, I ding infos for including overtly persuasive language or calls to action. The requirement of the event is to INFORM me about something, not to PERSUADE me to do something.

All things considered, I would prefer to not give time signals during speech and interp events (except extemp/impromptu). I want to give you every chance to suck me into your story/argument, and that is inhibited if I'm constantly worrying about looking at the clock and putting up the right hand gesture and the right time. Also, your writing, cutting, and performances in these events are set before a tournament begins. While I understand that at the beginning of a season pieces are often in flux, by the middle and end of a season, you should know that your piece runs under ten minutes. It shouldn't be on the judge to do that for you. Therefore, I will still give whatever signals you ask for, but know that I'll be more distracted during your piece if I'm thinking about signals and if I'm judging a close round at the end of a season, and the only thing distinguishing two pieces is that one competitor asked for time signals every other minute, I'm going to give the round to the competitor who didn't ask for time signals on the grounds that they know their piece better than their opponent knows theirs.

A Word on Common Courtesy...

In debate, be respectful to your opponent. I will not tolerate belittling, rudeness, or offensive language. Recently, I have noticed a troubling trend in Nat Circuit debates of overt rudeness and disrespect in round. Such actions are counterintuitive to growing the activity of debate; after all, who wants to join an activity where they just get yelled at and insulted every weekend. If you engage in such behaviors in round, it will be reflected in your speaker points, and (if particularly egregious), in the result of the round.

In speech events, I will rank you lower if you are disrespectful, loud, distracting, or obviously not paying attention. Speaking to an obviously disinterested audience just plain sucks. As competitors, we can have the basic decency to at least appear like we care about what the other person is saying. If I notice someone being overtly disrespectful or disinterested (eg: falling asleep, talking with another person during a piece), it will be reflected in the result of the round. So, pay attention. And for heaven's sake, DON'T LOOK AT YOUR PHONE!

In short, to quote Bill and Ted, "be excellent to one another."

If you have questions/comments/concerns/funny dog videos/information about Jimmy Hoffa, please email me at jarhinrichs@gmail.com. Alternatively, you can ask me anything you need to know before a round starts. Or after a round ends. Really, any time that isn't the middle of a speech works.

Thank you for reading, and have an excellent round!

Background

I got my bachelor's in Religion and Philosophy from Augustana University (SD) and now I’ve been teaching speech and coaching debate (mainly LD) for Brookings, SD.

Ethics

Coming from the world of philosophy and ethics, I am particularly picky when it comes to respectful debate. Please keep good ethos form the moment you enter the room to the moment you leave.

SPEECH EVENTS

When it comes to Interp. and IEs, it’s all about delivery (and content where appropriate). Make sure your voice is loud and clear, but be careful in humorous / dramatic pieces. Things like laughter, screams, cries, etc. are often done too loud for a small room. I’ll comment on everything from movement, to clarity, to character and everything in between. For pieces that you’ve composed (orig. oratory, extemp., etc.), I’m looking for cohesive structure, good intros/conclusions, and clear main points that follow the purpose of the piece.

DEBATE

Overall:

I am fine judging however fast you feel necessary; however, go faster than conversational speed at your own risk. However fast you go, your presentation should be clear, understandable, and well structured. If I can't hear or understand it, I don't factor it into the debate or my decision.I also love clear and concise voters / clinchers in your final speeches!

Under the consideration of what’s listed below, I’m willing to listen to and judge based on what you deem important so long as it’s clear, relevant, and uses sound reasoning. As far as K’s, I’m open to listening to them; however, I’ve found them relatively ineffective, especially if they are not run well (you need to make sure they still have connection to the resolution).

LD:

This is my bread and butter. With a philosophy background, I’m pretty familiar with just about any philosopher you could throw my way. Particularly with the more popular philosophers, make sure you know how the philosophy you’re using works. If you don’t, it will show.

When it comes to how I judge a round, LD is a value debate and I think this should be the main focus. Your contentions should be purely to support your framework, not the only focus of the debate (it’s not PF).

PF:

I feel evidence plays a bigger role in PF than in LD, so I’m far more interested in hearing evidence-based reasoning in round. Just like LD, outside of this, I’m willing to judge what you, your partner, and the other team focus on throughout the round, just keep it clear and structured.

If you want to do speech drop/email chain that's fine I guess. My email is katie.jacobs@k12.sd.us

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!

Hey y’all! I’m Noah Johnson, a current senior who competes in LD and USX as well as judges for O’Gorman. I’ve also done both for the last 3 years with moderate success, and I also have a little experience in Inform, Commentary, and Impromptu. If y’all like judge prefs, primarily for LD, here are mine:

TLDR: Be respectful and I prefer in LD: simple FW, moderate speed with excellent signposting, good links, and weighted voters. I don't flow a ton unless it is emphasized or is a tag. I hopefully never judge PF. Have fun!

Speed: like 6-7/10. Slower is better for me to hear everything, and faster is better for keeping me engaged. Try to Goldilocks it. When in doubt, slower is better than faster. Quality is always better than quantity in terms of arguments.

Flowing: When flowing, I will almost always take the contention level and subpoints. Past that? I’ll write down important keywords if they’re emphasized, but I’m not very adamant about writing down twenty different small notes. The best way for me to get something is to slow down and be super clear, especially regarding impacts. Related: I also don’t take card names/authors unless I’m in a stealing kind of mood. If requested, I’m more than willing to share my flow at the end of a round.

Framework: I’ve discovered I’m much more of a logistics LD judge over the framework, primarily because nearly every single round I’ve done or judged is a mess framework-wise. This isn't to say you shouldn't care about framework, as I do take the framework into account for deciding who wins, but you’ll have to link to it and use it in all speeches for me to give you credit for it. Also I'm not amazing with philosophical frameworks. In nearly all frameworks, I expect at least a little time devoted to defining it and its importance.

Weighing/Voters: I like voters at the end of a round, and I need you to give me a reason to care about them or why that voter is more important than the voters of your opponents. If you're not doing voters, you need to be sure that you are winning all over the flow and that your opponent has no ground. Voters make weighing and choosing a winner very useful, although they aren't necessary. Also link your framework here, because tying that together will make your case stronger. I assure you, even some of the most seemingly hopeless situations can be won if weighing and voters are done well.

Timing: Phones are fine for timing and off-the-clock roadmaps are encouraged. I time all speeches as well, but I figure most people do anyway. As for prep, I will do running prep. I'm good with people telling me when they're done, so long as they are actually done.

Respect: Be respectful to your opponent, judge, and room. There's no reason to be overly aggressive or make people dislike the activity. I think debate is the best when everyone can participate. Debate is a competitive event for a reason, but even in sports intentionally hurting someone is a bad move. A single round will not define your debate skills or future life endeavors, but disrespect will define how you are viewed in debate and in life.

Disclosure: I don’t disclose unless required. I typically take way too long making decisions for that.

Questions: Let me know if you have any questions about the paradigm, as I might have skipped something important. Let me know before a round, ideally, and do it respectfully, and I will do my best to give you an answer. I am also hesitant but typically willing to answer questions about past rounds if you ever encounter me, but I will never answer questions if they come off as hostile (especially about a round decision). I leave some rather lengthy comments most of the time, so I understand if you need those clarified.

Conclusion: Enjoy yourself! You deserve to be in the room as much as anybody. Debate helps a lot with future skills, and I’m excited to see them develop. Best of luck!

LD-

I have coached Public Forum and LD for the past 11 years. I am a "traditional" judge that makes my decision off of the value and criterion. For the value you need to show me why it matters. Simply stating "I value morality" and that is all- is not enough. You need to show how your criterion upholds/weighs that value.

Contentions- need to be won as well. Dropping an entire contention and hoping I forget about it is not a good strat. I like to hear contention level debate as well, but I default to framework debate more often.

Voting Issues- I need these. Make it easy for me to vote for you. Give places to vote and provide the reasoning why. As a judge I should not have to do any type of mental lifting to get myself where you want me to be.

I do not listen to K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's. Keep policy in policy. I want to hear a debate about what is "right". For Ks and performance cases- I have very limited exposure to them so I have no idea how to weigh them or how they work in a round. If you run that type of argument you will probably lose that argument on the flow because I do not have enough experience or knowledge of how they work in a debate round.

Flow- I like to think I keep an ok flow. I don't get authors- but I get signposts and warrants.

Speed- I can handle a quick pace. I do not like spreading- especially when you struggle with it. If you are clear and sign post as you go so I know exactly where you are on the flow. I can keep up. When it comes to value debate and criterion- slow down. Kant and Locke are not meant to be speed read. This may be the first time I am hearing this argument.

Flashing- Make it quick.

Oral Comments- I have been verbally attacked by assistant coaches in the room who did not agree with my decision. This has really turned me off from giving oral comments. However, I will address the debaters and only the debaters in the round. will describe how I interpreted the round and what it would have taken to win my ballot. I am not there to re-debate the round with you but I want to offer clarity to what i heard and what I felt was made important in the round.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum for the past 11 years and believe anyone should be able to listen to the round and decide the winner.

I try to keep a solid flow, but I will not get warrant, authors, dates, if you go a lot of points. I want you to boil the debate down to 2-3 major voting issues that are supported in the round with evidence. Closing speeches need to be weighed and if you run framework, you better be utilizing it throughout the debate and not just in the final focus to why you win the round.

I will not listen to speed, (faster than you describing a great weekend debate round to your coach) k's, counter plans, or disadvantages. If you want to run those- policy is available.

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win.

World School: New to event, but have had students compete on college level and help guide.  Currently coaching our team and have done research on the international level about the event.

catherinxliu@gmail.com

Sioux Falls Washington ‘21, Harvard ‘25

Experience: I did LD for 4 years. I now do a lot of APDA/BP. I mostly did traditional debate but am generally familiar with/did some circuit. I was a 2021 NSDA finalist in LD.

update for Harvard:

I do not know any topic-specific jargon. It’s in your best interest to explain things very clearly, no matter what position you run.

Here are my general thoughts about debate. Feel free to ask me other questions before the round starts.

• Tech > truth
• I am fine with evaluating most things, and you should run what you're most comfortable with. I would prefer if the aff is at least vaguely in the direction of the topic—what this looks like is up to you. Realistically, I am probably better at evaluating policy positions and stock Ks/phil than I am at evaluating theory or other Ks/phil, but I also think debaters who are good at explaining how things interact with the round will win anyways.
• Reasonable speed is okay, but my ability to understand spreading is really not very high now, and I will not flow off the doc. Slow down especially on tags and analytics.
• You need to extend the whole argument (warrant + impact).
• I usually find that the 2a/n is more effective when you collapse on fewer things that are well weighed instead of many things. If you don't weigh your arguments, I will have to do it for you, and you may be upset by what I think matters most.
• Most theory is fine, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses. Interpret this how you will.
• I will not evaluate tricks.
• Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed.
• I like clear judge instruction.

I competed for 4 years in speech and debate in Nebraska (I participated in Policy and PF primarily, with some Extemp). I am now the head debate coach at Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD. I was primarily a K debater and have experience with performance affs, however, I adapted to traditional debate circuits in SD, so if you have a K you have been waiting to pull out, now is your time. Using K's as timesucks, however, is a huge pet peeve of mine. If you are running a K, I assume you care about the issue at hand and not just trying to be performative.

-I'm more than willing to listen to any argument you are willing to make, as long as it's done fairly. I love to see creativity in argument and believe that such types of thinking are fundamental to society, so if you want to run something a bit out there, I will hear you out. However, if it's clear that you are primarily using these types of arguments to confuse your opponent, I will automatically drop speaker points.

-I am okay with speed as long as you enunciate! I cannot stress this enough.

-I will be paying attention to what is said, but if there's something you think was said that is important to winning the round, I would mention it in a subsequent speech.

-If your opponents don't attack a point of yours, make sure you extend that in either summary or final focus (if not both) if you want me to consider it. In LD, it has to make it into your rebuttals.

- Weigh!!! As a former debater, I know how hard this can be to do well. Always remember that what makes sense to you and what you see as obvious may not be how others (including your judge) see things! Use your rebuttals and especially your final focus to really paint me a clear picture of why you won the round. I love voters. I'm typically a big picture thinker, so meta level questions and framing args are critical to instructing my ballot.

-Be polite to each other and have fun! Also, I have found I am very expressive in round, so if something does not make sense or I am confused, you will be able to tell. This usually means I need you to really sell me on the link story.

-IF YOU ARE GOING TO CALL FOR CARDS, KEEP SPEECHES GOING UNLESS YOU ARE USING PREP TIME. There is no reason we should be stopping rounds after just 1 constructive speech to wait for 5 cards. If you are waiting on evidence sharing, your partner can still read case while you wait. I don't mind short stops to glance at a card, however, I will dock speaks if I have to wait too long because you abuse time. Too many people are doing this, essentially creating a second untimed prep time for their team.

If you all have any specific questions this didn't cover or want any other additional information about my judging I encourage you to ask me before the round! :)

Email: mercado.angelicaarely@gmail.com

Include me on the email chain: Rnold042302@gmail.com

Speed preferences (Please read):

PF: Should not be a policy speed, but a faster pace is ok as long as you are clear. It is still your job to make sure that you emphasize/slow down on the most important points you are making. Basically, if you want me to flow it, make sure its clear.

Traditional LD: Between pf and policy, National Circuit: See policy below

Policy: 6/10. I did policy for 3 years, so I'm exposed to spreading. However, I would still prefer not too fast of a round. This isn't a traditionalist preference, but more of a matter of general accessibility for me. You can still spread to an extent, but it needs to be comprehensible. I should be able to get your arguments clearly even without the email chain (Although I would like to be on the email chain). If I think you are being too fast or not clear enough, I will try to say clear, but it is still on you to emphasize and make sure I get your key points. Don't worry about this too much, just remember not to go too speedy.

General "TLDR" about me as a judge :

I did policy for three years and public forum my senior year, but I also have some experience with Lincoln Douglass. I am currently a student at University of Alabama.

I am most likely familiar with a wide variety of types of arguments you would likely run in the round, but don't assume you don't have to do the work to flesh out the arguments you present in the round well.

First and foremost- Run what you are best at. I'd rather see a good debate than what I prefer personally. This doesn't mean you have a free pass to run super bad args but don't feel like you have to completely fit the round around me.

I'm basically Tabula Rasa. Give me a framework/Framing and Ill go with it until it is refuted or dropped. That goes for aff and neg. I would say that I minimize my interference in the round and with my paradigm as much as possible, and when I do have to make decisions (especially on theory) I try to go with whichever debate norms presented (aff/neg) maximizes education in the round (I take into account impacts like accessibility, racism, discrimination, etc as a part of education, so don't shy away from these args in theory).

Policy Specific:

Case Debate: I will vote probably not vote on solvency or case-takeouts alone (unless there are link/impact turns read). neg still needs to extend offense, otherwise I'll probably be very open to Aff "if there's a 1% chance..." type arguments.

CP's- I default to sufficiency framing. The cp's viability as a winning argument (barring theory) is essentially a product of how much it resolves aff impacts and the magnitude of the net benefit. On neg, be clear on what the net benefit is and how the cp doesn't link. Also, if it is not 100% clear on the distinction between the cp and the plan, outline the differences for me. This makes it easier for me to resolve arguments on the perm debate level.

For AFF- Perms are the best, but I'm definitely open to other stuff. Theory is good too, condo, specific to the cp, etc., as long as it is warranted out and you provide me with how they violate the theory arguments. Multiple perms are generally ok-ish, but if they are fairly unique or if a perm is similar to a previous perm, you have to highlight the differences otherwise I'm lenient on allowing neg cross-applications of perm answers.

K's-

I am fine with critical debate on both sides, but I need the link story to be clear for me on the flow. Also, pleaseeeeeeee understand and effectively explain the alt. I need to know how the alt resolves the links, solves for the impacts outlined, etc. Too many affs let the neg get away with not explaining the alt well enough. Even if its not "vague", push neg on this.

K affs are definitely chill, you do you. But if neg pushes framework, make sure you have good answers to the TVA. It doesn't have to be a super in depth arg, but I should see something in the 2ac/1ar about why defending the resolution or a TVA of your K aff is bad. Also unless it strictly does not work with your K, please please please try to have some type of /alt/advocacy statement to act as a stable point for neg-testing.

On neg- I'm most familiar with the cap k and wildersonian afropess args, but you are cool to run whatever as long as you explain it well and make sure I understand the story of the K. Don't assume I know your lit. Also, you will likely need to reduce speed on these arguments given my likely unfamiliarity with the specific literature.

T- Default to competing interps but can be convinced otherwise. Also, on aff don't just say "reasonability". Reasonability also requires extension of a counterinterp or you must win we meet bc Reasonability means we meet a reasonable interp of the Resolution. It's not a wishy washy justification of tangentially topical affs.

Theory: I'm open to most all things, but a caveat: I'm not a big fan of generic wiki-based disclosure arguments (unless it is centered around some other impact like accessibility or taken in a critical direction). If I can tell you are just reading generic "Your aff wasn't listed on the wiki so you should lose" I'll listen to it but I will let you know I don't think its a great argument unless it is tied to deeper accessibility or fairness norms (i.e, tell me a story and give me meaningful impacts). You have to prove why this is a reason to drop the debater. Neg has a higher threshold for winning this than T in my eyes.

LD- I'm most familiar with traditional value-framework LD, but Plans are ok on more progressive circuits or if both debaters are ok with it (but then neg also gets full access to cps and K's). In traditional debates, I first decide which value is to be used in the round (based on arguments made), and then look to see which side maximizes that value. Dropping your framework is ok in my book if you can win under your opponents framework.

I'm also open to more critical arguments or circuit debate styles as long as general accessability to the debate is maintained for both debaters. However, If aff takes a traditional ld approach w/o a plan, neg needs to argue why they (the neg) should get conditional advocacies (this is definitely an uphill battle). For more info on my paradigm for progressive circuit ld style, see ^ for policy.

PF-

I default to hypo testing for public forum. The game is one of "resolution: true or false?" This is similar to what you're normally used to in pf so nothing mainly different. The key difference is that this isn't only just squo versus pro world, but instead a test of the resolution as a truth claim. Therefore, con can make arguments that aren't the squo as long as they don't read a specific plan or advocacy. I repeat, No plan statements or specified advocacies!

Please give me impact comparison in the final speeches (Time, magnitude, probability, etc) to help me do an effective cost-benefit analysis on the topic (if that is the framework of the round). I will also admit i'm a sucker for a story. Cohesive impact narratives are much easier to vote on than messy disconnected ideas.

Critical arguments are ok, but no alts/plans. Theory is also ok, but I'll admit personally I'm not a big fan of wiki disclosure based theory args (see policy section for more). That doesn't mean its not a viable option, just you need to show actual in round harms.

Other than that, have fun!

(Any questions on my paradigm? Feel free to email me or ask before the round begins)

Other Notes:

-Feel free to use all of cx even if you don't have more great questions. It's free prep for your partner. I won't dock speaks for this unless it is egregiously bad.

hihi i’m good with speed i’m probably like a 7/9 i did pf and ld 2 years each so i’m kinda familiar with formats

BUT i have terrible organization for rounds and i focus super hard on rebuttal. if you smoke someone in rebuttal you basically win unless u really clearly summarize points at end of round i am super lazy. mostly i prefer line by line but i’m ok with voters.

i’m more familiar with traditional debate so please explain kritiks, counterplan, theory args (i get the gist of them but please clarify)

random things:

tech > truth because i think truth judges kinda do the work for debaters sorry, but if your opponent says something blatantly wrong just give me 2 words on it like "this is untrue call for card" i will call for card and flow that through.

i said i’m good with speed BUT only do speed if u need to (not the drug lol). what i mean is dont talk fast for the sake of talking fast like “ooh i’m so good at reading args quickly oooh” like i don’t care about that, i want u to show me that you know the argument you’re running not just reading off cards. if you use speed to just try to disorient your opponent i think that’s smelly.

Sioux Falls Jefferson LD and IE Coach

"Sauce Boss"

Debate Rounds Judged: A lot (130+ish i think?)

General -

Aberdeen Central ‘21

Tech>truth

Tabula Rasa Judge overall

For the love of god please make evidence sharing short and sweet, It does not need to take 5 mins of time to share it, please do not have it take that long.

I used to disclose but after arguments with debaters as to why I am wrong has turned me off to wanting to do it. More likely than not I am not going to. showing up to the debate round last minute on purpose is pretty annoying, if you are near the room, go in so we can start the round.

New in the 2 = Dumb. Do not make new args in non constructive speeches. I am a 5-6 on Speed as well. I have a very high threshold when it comes to the argument of In Round Abuse happening, to me it is an all or nothing argument, not a time suck. I have a high bar when it comes to me voting on RVIs, Condo/Dispo. If you bring 17 arguments to the flow I expect them to be answered by your opponent but you also need to extend and properly handle them. Running Disclosuse Theory with me as a judge = 0 Speaks, A Loss, and me being annoyed for however long the debate is. Stop being a baby and debate, you do not need all of your coaches to do the work for you and prep out a case.

Word usage to avoid with me as your judge -

Racial Slurs, Excessive swearing (a well placed curse is okay once and while),

Circuit Stuff (1-5, 1 meaning i like the arg)

Tech>

1 -

Trad LD
T vs K Affs (hard for me to not vote of it when it is ran, i really do not buy the whole in round education matters more than the round itself)

2 -

Speed (SIGNPOST TAGS, SLOW DOWN ON TAGS PLEASE)
Theory

Res Based Ks

3 -

Phil Debate, In round abuse args

4 -

K Affs (will vote if the Alt is the good)

5 -

High Theory

Non Res Based Ks

LARP

CP, PICs

Strike me -

RVIs good, Death Good Ks, Kant, Queer/Trans Violence against ones self (mentions of self harm = not good for me as your judge)

Strike me AND seek help -

Disclosure Theory / Open Source Theory, Tricks (Cringe)

How I give Speaker Points

I think speaker points are possibly the worst thing about debate since there is not a universal system on what makes a "good speaker". You should not get 25 speaks because you talk fast to a lay judge or get 30 because you spread to a circuit judge. So here is how I give out my speaks and what each means.

23 and Below- Did something in the round that was out of pocket and probably not ethical (IE: -isms, ists)

24-26 - Below Average speaker, you get up in the round and make some arguments but not ones that sound good. Needs serious improvement in more than one area

27 - Average. This is what each speaker starts out in the round for me, you go into the round with 27 speaker points by default

28-29 - Above Average to Elite Speaker - you make some great arguments and have a great flow along with signposting, doing good line by line, and being clear while also formulaic when you speak

30 - The Best Speaker I have seen all year - I do not think I have given out one 30 in all of my judging maybe ever, so this is a high bar. You will need to be perfect to get this. You need to not stumble once, be razor efficient with words and just dice your opponent up.

Ways to get more Speaks in .1s in the Round

Being Funny, Smart, and being a bit sassy in CX is ways to get you some points with me

Making an argument I was thinking of and then saying, shows a high level of talent.

Ways to lose Speaks with me as the Judge.

Running Disclosure Theory, Speed Ks, or just paraphrasing things in general.

Being not nice

IEs
I think that IEs should be based how well you can give me whatever information you have. Oratory, Inform, Interp etc are not my thing even though I have competed in all of those events. If you have me in non extemp, just talk good, and if you have me in Extemp, just know I could really care less about how good you talk and if you give me fluff, I will be to tell if you are actually saying really anything substantive. Content and analysis is way to get the one with me in the back.

Public Fourm

I want offense offense offense, that's how you win with me as a judge in the back, I want to see offense or you will not get my ballot. Do good weighing, Warrant analysis, and clobber your opponent into the ground, and you will get my ballot at the end of the round. While I do not coach PuFo directly, I will most likely have some what of an understanding of the topic but go easy on lingo based in the topic unless I state otherwise. I do not like paraphrased when I am your judge, I think it allows bad debaters to get an advantage. I will not vote you down simply for the fact that you have a case like that but I will be very inclined to listen to Paraphrase theory and that you should vote down the other team for it. But once again, you will have to read that theory argument for me to vote the other team down on it. I think public forum debate can be very lizard brained in the fact that everyone runs the same argument and it gets very boring. I will love to see you run arguments that have sick warrents and great links, I will be much more likely to vote on that compared to a not well thought out case. I am a 6 for speed and prefer tech debate to anything.I default to a CBA FW unless told otherwise. Generally speaking your 2AR/NR should just be voters and why you win the round by framing in the context of the debate (IE: Impact Calc, Solvency)

Do not ask if you can have first question, if you spoke first just start CX. Do not say, "off the clock roadmap", just give me an order. Just say, "Everyone Ready" instead of asking each person in the round, asking everyone wastes my time and yours.

LD

I think i am about as big of a mix of Trad and Circuit judge that you can have. I Coach this activity and I have come to believe that this should not become policy. While I was a policy debater, I think LD should remain mostly sperate from policy. That being said I will be fine with Ks with link to the res. Reading plan text in LD should be in the context of the res itself. I am going to have a very high bar for the evidence that you send me or that you read, if you say that there is a warrant in there that isnt, I am probably not going to eval it as a valid argument. Keep speed to like 5-6, I am fine with speed but PLEASE slow down on your tags, if cant hear or understand you, i am not going to flow. Tech>Truth. Reading the 50 States CP is probably not a good idea with me as your judge. Reading DAs is fine but your links better be good and not just generic Ev. Same with PTX Cases, specifics or i have a high bar for any argument that you make. Overall, keep a good flow, make a good arguments, and youll get my ballot. FW should not always be the most important voter in the round but you should not just drop it after your first speech. AFF has FIAT but I think the neg is going to have a hard time convincing me post res that any of their arguments based X Action happens so that means x actor will do this, you will need to do a lot of convincing me in the link debate to do this.

Policy -

I am a 8 on speed, signpost and you will be just fine, if you do not sign post. I will be slightly annoyed and make faces to show as a such. As someone who practiced their speed and mastered it, I like seeing those who mastered it aswell, that being said, if you cannot clearly spread, don't, I will not dock you if you do not talk fast enough, but I will dock you for talking too fast. I will vote not anything that is - Condo/Dispo, some inround discourse Ks(aka Speed Bad etc), Meme arguments, and Actor CPs. I flow CX and think it is important for argument developing and using it as a tool in your arsenal to clown your opponents.I am not a fan of PICs at all, think they are abusive and leech off aff ground. I tend to lean on a good CP with a mutual exclusivity NB with a sick DA, T, GOOD discourse Ks (IE - Security), Stock issues, politics DAs. I want offense, offense, offense.

Notions I carry with me into the round -

Presumption = Neg. Trying to change of this idea is an uphill battle and you will have an easier time trying to convince me that JR Smith is the greatest basketball player of all time. Do not waste your time on trying to dispute this.

Death is (probably) bad

BQ

Refer to LD and Pufo for framework and weighing arguments. Be the better debater and I will vote for you. I have minimal experience and do not care about this event nearly as much as I do the others.

TL:DR - Tech>Truth. I will vote on Paraphrase theory. Offense wins my ballot. Please signpost and do proper line by line. Disclosure Theory, or Bad Ks = dumb. There is no 3NR/AR

Policy

I still believe debate is a communication event. I do not like rounds consisting of throwing as much as humanly possible at the proverbial wall and hoping that something will stick. Debaters should focus on well-reasoned arguments that actually apply to the case being debated. If I can't understand what is being debated because of speed or because it isn't clearly explained, I will not consider it in my decision. I do not prefer kritiks or other random theory arguments. I will vote as a stock issues or policy maker judge.

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I like to hear a value and contentions that apply to the value and the resolution. Communication is important to me. Debaters should weigh arguments and tell me why they should win the round.

Public Forum

Debaters should communicate and run arguments that clash with those of the other team. I flow arguments and do consider drops, but debaters need to point out which issues are most important. The final focus for each team should be where the debaters frame the round and tell me why I should vote for them. I expect debaters to be polite.

Hello debaters,

I approach debate with a focus on substance and argumentation, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and effective case development. Here are key aspects of my judging philosophy:

1. Flow-Centric Evaluation:

   • I prioritize the flow as the primary tool for decision-making.
   • Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
   • I appreciate organization and signposting to enhance the flow.

2. Impacts Matter:

   • I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
   • Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.

3. Technical Proficiency:

   • I value technical proficiency in debate. Solid understanding of debate theory and effective cross-examination will be rewarded.
   • However, I do not automatically vote on theory. Make sure to connect theoretical arguments to tangible impacts on the round.

4. Clarity and Signposting:

   • Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
   • Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.

5. Adaptability:

   • I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategy based on the flow of the round.
   • Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to adjust to your opponent's arguments will be recognized.

6. Framework and Weighing:

   • Framework is essential for framing the round, but it should be applied in a way that enhances substantive clash.
   • Effective weighing of impacts is crucial. Explain why your impacts are more significant in the context of the round.

7. Disinclination towards Theory Arguments:

   • I am not a fan of theory arguments. While I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash, relying heavily on theory arguments may not be as persuasive to me.

8. Respect and Sportsmanship:

   • Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
   • I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your speaker points.

9. Evidence Quality:

   • Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
   • Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide, and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.

Hi I am Duer (He/They)

General

Racism, Homophobia, Transphobia, and other problematic things will make me stop the round and you will be voted down.

LD

I am the current LD Captain for Jefferson High School. CONNECT YOUR CONTENTIONS TO YOUR FRAMEWORK, if you don't do this I will not be happy.

PF

I dislike you (jk I love u) Will look towards clash in contentions and seeing who has the bigger and better impacts.

Anything else

has fun

checking if you had read my paradigm. tell me how yours days going and you get .3 speaks

I'm an undergraduate student at Middlebury College where I compete on the debate team in British Parliamentary. During my high school debate career, I placed top 4 at nationals in Lincoln Douglas, and I'm a two time Lincoln Douglas state champion. I also attained state champion for United States Extemporaneous Speaking, and I competed for two years in Public Forum.

email (for chains ONLY): honeydew.kira@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her/they/them

General debate preferences:

Tech > truth, I focus on the arguments made in the round. I won't make the arguments for you. I hate interfering my thoughts in the round, you should be doing the work for me.

I'm okay with speed, but don't be abusive. I can understand fast speech (probably 8/10), but I think that if you are speaking fast, you have to be making good, purposeful arguments. I'm personally not a huge fan of using it just to try to confuse your opponent.

I think this goes without saying but don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Hate does not have a place in debate.

While I am not necessarily a flow judge, I still think flowing is important. If your opponent drops something, point it out and blow it up. A response that hasn't been interacted with can create an easy path to the ballot.

I want warrants for cards; don't just tell me to extend your evidence. A clearly warranted card will always mean more than telling me to prefer your article because the person who wrote attended a prestigious school. If you ever say "I don't know know, that's what the study/card says", it's probably a bad sign. Also, I mostly don't flow card names, I often miss them in constructive (unless you emphasize in later speeches) because I focus more on what you're arguing than what the source is. Thus, saying "extend Washington '22" doesn't really mean anything to me. You have to do more work than that.

Weighing and voters are never a bad thing, don't be afraid to use them.

I will read cards if you ask for me to call for them. Otherwise, I probably won't unless it is very important in the round. If you know that your opponent is misusing evidence and tell me to call for that card, I will. If I find that someone is blatantly abusing evidence, depending on the severeness, I will consider voting them down just for that.

In my opinion, debate should always be a productive space where competitors can learn and grow and thus treat their opponent with respect. If you violate this and are explicitly rude, I will be very hesitant to vote for you. Even if you are going against someone who is competing in varsity for the first time, you should treat them with kindness and respect.

I DO NOT WEIGH NEW ARGUMENTS MADE LATE IN THE ROUND. Of course, extending arguments or explaining why your original argument/response still stands is fine. I think that new arguments made past this are inherently abusive because 1. the function of those latter speeches is not to continue to make new arguments 2. it's unfair to your opponent because they cannot respond efficiently/effectively that late.

If you include a reference to K-pop in any of your speeches, I will give you +0.1 speaker points :)

I have specific comments on the types of debate I am most familiar with below, if your type of debate is not listed, please refer to general preferences above. My specific preferences ONLY apply to those types of debate.

Lincoln Douglas:

I'm fine with K's and most other miscellaneous policy arguments as long as you can explain them and why they are preferrable to vote for in round. Don't run a Cap K and say to vote for it just because capitalism is bad. HOWEVER, I normally don't like counterplans. This is just a personal judging preference; I think it can be an unfair burden for the affirmative to have to attack a bunch of alternatives that the neg can come up with because it heavily skews the debate towards the negative (since there are tons of other things that could potentially resolve a problem). I find that they are often provided without warrants and thus not competitive. While it not abusive in all cases, I think that it often can be. Just because one alternative might be good doesn't deny that the resolution could also be beneficial to pursue; if you want to use a CP, you have to warrant why it is preferrable, not just why it can also resolve the issue. I am okay with a different option being used to show that it has higher effectiveness than the stance the aff takes as long as it is warranted. If you are just listing off a bunch of alts, that's probably a bad sign. But since it is a nuanced topic, depending on the way it's run/attacked, I might be fine with it even if you don't run it in the way I prefer. STILL, I WILL NOT VOTE YOU DOWN JUST FOR HAVING A CP. BUT if your opponent argues in the round why the CP is abusive to the burden of the affirmative (having to argue against too many random solutions, not focus of topic, etc), I am likely to buy that.

I'm a strong believer that solvency doesn't necessarily need to be discussed in Lincoln Douglas debate since it is based on morality. HOWEVER, if you are running an argument that relies on solvency (ie: the affirmative is moral because minimizing environmental harms reduces oppression), it is not something you can get around. In my opinion, some degree of solvency towards (in this example) reducing environmental harms has to be guaranteed, otherwise it doesn't make sense to vote for the affirmative without access to impacts. As long as your case doesn't revolve around solvency, you do not need to show that everything is solved for me to vote for you.

I'm also a strong believer that the job of the negative is to disprove the affirmative, not outline a counterplan or solve for the issues that affirmative outlines. How each negative debater can go about disproving the affirmative is up to the interpretations provided in the round, but the default for the negative is not to advocate for the opposite of the affirmative or solve for the aff's issues.

I will never vote someone down because they use a philosopher that committed some irrelevant harmful action/ideas. I believe that philosophy can be separated from the philosopher because, after all, philosophy is based on random bodies of thoughts on human action, not just one person. Even if Locke said or did something harmful, that doesn't change what his moral theory said or change that it has been beneficial, creating a whole body of philosophy still used in modern day. (But general criticisms are fine, just not ones saying that a philosopher said something sexist)

I absolutely LOVE value/criterion turns. If you can find a way to turn your opponent's framework, that is a wonderful way to outline your path to the ballot.

Value criterion debate is huge part of what makes Lincoln Douglas special compared to other types of debate. Please don't forget about it in the round; I am a huge fan of a well-functioning framework.

Public Forum:

WAY more than Lincoln Douglas, warranting is incredibly important for me in Public Forum. Especially if both sides have evidence which disagrees with each other, I want you to provide analysis not only on why your evidence stands more but also on why your opponent's falls. I will not do the work for you. Weighing is also incredibly important since Public Forum defaults on a cost benefit analysis framework. Thus, if one side can show me more benefits/harms it becomes far easier to vote for them.

Avoid hyper-specific topic jargon if I am in the back of your round. Although I competed in two years of Public Forum, I spent the bulk of my time involved with Lincoln Douglas Debate. While I will most likely be familiar with the basics of the topic, I will not know all of the lingo.

I outline most of the rest of my preferences in my general debate preferences, so refer back to those.

If you have questions about a specific preferences, feel free to ask me at any point.

TL:DR - Don't be abusive with evidence or make new arguments late in round. Be respectful. Use weighing/voters and warrant your evidence. Ask me to call for cards you think are abusive/need to be read. I am not a fan of using speed just to confuse your opponent.

LD Traditional/Classical - I prefer a good strong metaphorical argument over slews of evidence. Anybody can google. A winning LD Debater, can convince me of their point of view through logic but not through brute force of evidence read at break-neck pace. Use Examples. Use philosophy. Use something your grandfather used to say. Evidence is always good, but parallel examples often assist to illicit the "feel" of a point. Furthermore, I'm from a traditional camp. I expect to see a value, clearly stated on which your position readily adheres and criteria (criterion if singular) that clearly explains how your value is achieved in context of the resolution. Lastly, it is much easier for me to determine the significance of a point if it is labeled in some way or another. Call it a contention, call it an argument, call it a point (1,2,3), whatever you want, but make sure I know to start a new line on the flow and that you're changing gears in some way.

It's also probably worth mentioning that most Theory Shells and K arguments carry less weight with me than an argument that clearly and strictly relates directly to the resolution. I'll consider them, but to me it feels like the debater is arguing against the NSDA's resolution selection process and not their competitor.

Most importantly, regarding that person you're debating, they are your opponent, not your enemy. There is big a difference. If you're not using debate as an opportunity to meet new people, grow current relationships, and make lifelong friends, you're missing one of the most valuable deliverables of the activity.

I realize that as a judge, I'm a bit of an outlier here, but one of the coolest things I heard in a speech was "Christopher (the other speaker), you're a dear friend and I respect your perspective, but you're clearly missing the point of this argument" The whole concept of debate is predicated on differing viewpoints and respecting those viewpoints. This exchange was informal, which I'm fine with, and respectful while remaining necessarily contrarian.

For Extemp, I enjoy seeing parallelism in your points. If your first area of analysis is Nickel, and your second point is Dime, your third point had better be "Quarter". Unless of course you're trying to make a point with it being "Albuquerque" or "Snorkel", as in the first two are necessarily incompatible with the third. Your breakdown of a question needs to be thorough, complete and parallel. I also enjoy a good, metaphorical AGD. Don't just find another way to answer the question, give me something relatable to get me thinking in your direction. If the answer to a question is up and down, maybe a yo-yo. If the answer is "unstable", maybe a house of sand or standing up in a canoe. Have some fun with it!

General - I will vote on whichever arguments I buy more. ALWAYS explain the why behind your arguments. I love hearing the phrase "here's why this matters" after you make a claim or present an argument. If I don't buy your evidence, I will call for it. I keep a pretty decent flow so don't be scared to refer to the flow and the points made/dropped. Make sure to tell me where you're at on the flow as well. In every final speech of every style of debate, please give me clear voters. A final general piece of info, please do not be super rude in your rounds. There is a CLEAR line between confidence and just being mean. If you're being mean, I'll find a way to vote you down. I'm all for a little salt every now and then, but make sure it is justified.

Speed - You can go as fast as you want as long as you can articulate well. I was a policy debater for three years so I can handle speed. I won't flow what you're saying if I don't understand you. Additionally, do not go fast just to go fast. Make sure what you're saying actually applies to the debate at hand. Don't read me a disad that has absolutely no link as a timesuck.

Theories/Ks - If you want to read these, go for it. I'm all for hearing it IF it actually applies to the round AND the topic. I will not vote for something that has nothing to do with the topic. I will vote for the other team if you read a K that has absolutely NO link. Debate is supposed to be educational. Therefore, I expect to be educated on the topic. When it comes to specific theories, make sure you explain what they are and WHY you're running them. Your voters better be excellent if you want me to vote on it. I have voted on theory before because of really good voters.

LD - I weigh framework over contention level in the debate. Please for the love of all things do not run a random framework just to run a random framework. It needs to make at least 75% sense in the context of both the topic and the debate. That means you should probably be explaining a clear link to me. Please do not turn LD into a policy or pufo round. They are separate debate categories for a reason.

TOPIC SPECIFIC - If you're going to trash the United States military, please be aware that I am marrying a man in the military and I find it extremely offensive when competitors say ALL US soldiers are bad. For example - please don't tell me that ALL US military soldiers are complicit in human trafficking. Additionally, if you are going to discuss the Israel/Gaza war, please be considerate that all people have different views and that's OKAY!!! Debate is an educational space and I expect everyone in the round to be RESPECTFUL. If I am being screamed at or I feel uncomfortable because you say something offensive on either side of the debate, I will vote you down. Not appropriate for a high school activity.