Speak slowly and clearly. Stay respectful. I encourage direct refutation. Quality > quantity. The number of arguments you have left standing is less important than how well you are able to convey them. Be kind and good luck.

Judge Lorain Clawson
She/Her or They/Them
Freshman at Davidson College

Hello, good people!

A few things to know about me

1.) I debated all four years of high school! I mostly competed in Policy Debate (my main category all four years), but I also dabbled in Congressional Debate and Public Forum Debate. I am best versed in Policy and like to keep my realm there.

2.) I also was a speech kid for three years in high school! I often double entered at tournaments and enjoy some good POI.

3.) I struggle with speed-- in any form of debate. I can handle it, but I willrequire you to send me your files via an email chain this way. If not, I will only flow what I hear. If you don't have clear tag lines... Then please work on making them!

Things I won't tolerate
This is the most important section of my paradigm, so please read it!

1.) I will not tolerate racially motivated statements at any time. If you read evidence that is racially motivated, I expect you to preface these matters before round or to choose a different piece of evidence. This also means I will not tolerate calling a team racist for reading off evidence when the team rejects the narrative personally. Any behavior of such will be reported to tabroom. Please do not define participants via their arguments and please be respectful.

2.) I will not tolerate sexist or misogynistic actions or statements made by the participant. If your evidence has these connotations, I expect you to preface these matters before round or to choose a different piece of evidence. This also means I will not tolerate calling a team sexist or misogynistic for reading off charged evidence when the team rejects the narrative personally. Any behavior of such will be reported to tabroom. Please do not define participants via their arguments and please be respectful.

3.) I will not tolerate cuss words being used in my rooms. I understand that you are a high schooler and I am a college kid, but we will not be using this language. It is not conducive with a semi-professional environment and I do not see it as a way of adding to an argument in any way. Do not use profanity. If you do, I will deduct points from your speaker points.

4.) You will not talk over one another in a debate. If you need to cut someone else in cross, please do so politely and with grace. Most importantly, if you are in a partnered debate, do not correct or interrupt your partner in way that is disrespectful. I will dock points if this persists throughout the round.

Policy Debate Judging Paradigm

Judge Type: Policy-Maker and/or Tabula Rasa.
- You drop an argument, you lose the argument. This includes your case!
- If you are extremely disrespectful in rounds, you will lose and be reported to tab.

Evaluating Topicality: Traditional; Needs Standards, Violation, and Impact of it. I see Topicality as a vital part of Policy Debate, but it is also a time-suck. Extratopicality arguments are normally a wash for me.

Evaluating Inherency: I believe in Structural and Attitudinal Inherency. Either way, you need an inherent barrier for me to buy your plan. Validity arguments are welcomed for Attitudinal Inherency.

Evaluating Solvency: I weigh solvency very heavily. I have seen teams win on Solvency and will vote accordingly. Remember that Magnitude and Time-Frame should be discussed when Solvency is brought up.

Evaluating DAs: Outline your Link, Brink, Impact, and Uniqueness. I accept Generic DAs, but have UQ arguments ready to go on both sides.

Evaluating CPs: Your CP must be nontopical, it must be competitive, and avoid the DAs. I will largely compare in policy making-mode, but feel free to expand CPs to include more if you want.

Evaluating Ks: Tell me what type of a K it is, the Links of the K, and why I should buy the K over an argument or plan. Please only run a K if you know what you are getting into. Outline your K with detail so that everyone understands. Do not use buzzwords and expect people to know what they mean.

Rebuttals: I will not accept new evidence in rebuttals. Please use these to summarize your round and make final, quick arguments. Remember to flow your case through these as well. Use this time to overview the round!

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Head Coach of speech and debate team for 11 years.

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

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

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

PF Paradigm

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

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

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

Please Get tHe email cHain started before start time.

Staking the round on ev ethics Loser gets 26 Winner gets 29.2

Post-Rounding is Good

Update: -0.5 speaks if you say “Russia/China don’t commit human rights abuses”

I am a Junior from Lex and have debated on the National Circuit for Two Years. I mainly read policy arguments and some theory.

I'll disclose speaks unless if you ask not to

1 - Policy/Larp/Util, T/Theory, Trad

2 - Stock K's, Kant, Tricks

3 - Other Phil

4 - High Theory K's

lexingtonrldebate@gmail.com

This trend of not highlighting warrants in cards is not something I will go along with

All of these are not based on my personal opinions on certain arguments but rather my understanding of the argument.

Tech>Truth

If I don't understand an argument, I can't vote for it

I will drop you if you are bigoted in any way

I will drop you if you defend horrible leaders such as Assad, Putin, Xi, Gaddafi, etc. (It is fine if you say China Heg good, if it prevents extinction, but if you say "the uyghur genocide isn't real" or "Assad didn't actually use the chemical weapons")

Novice/Trad

I am a "tech" judge and will evaluate the round base don who is winning on the flow. Ethos will not count for me in determining the decision. Make sure to weigh under the winning framework and do not have a pointless framework debate if they are the same framework ("maximizing well-being" vs. "consequentialism"). Make sure to collapse.

I will give a 30 if you say "evaluate the debate after the 1ac/1nc" and it is dropped by your opponent. I will stop flowing if it is dropped. However, I will give you an L 27 if you forget to extend it through every speech, since I won't have flowed the rest of the debate and that's on you.

Policy

This is the type of debate I do the most, and am most comfortable evaluating.

Most evidence in LD is really bad, you should point that out

That being said, you still have to win on a technical level. I think good technical debating can overcome any disparity in evidence quality.

Disad turns case isn't an offensive argument unless if you win uniqueness.

I'm not too experienced with in-depth competition debates.

I don't think new 2nr evidence is legitimate unless if they are directly responsive to the 1ar.

Topicality

I've read a policy-style T and answered it a lot, so I feel comfortable evaluating these debates

Make sure to actually read voters, this trend of not reading voters and paradigm issues is kind of stupid.

I am fine if you read Nebel T, though it probably isn't the most strategic argument.

Theory

I have read theory, especially a lot of disclosure theory, and it's pretty intuitive to understand. You can read any shell in front of me.

I am fine if you read friv theory.

You should disclose. Including round reports

K's

I haven't really read K's much but I've debated against K's a lot, and I understand how the debate works.

I understand the literature of stock k's like cap, security, setcol, pess k's, etc. High theory K's will need a lot of explanation.

I probably am subconsciously biased towards the policy side of larp v k debates, cuz i have mainly been on the larp side. That being said, if you are winning you will still win

I will vote for arguments that many in the debate community will disagree with. That includes arguments such as hegemony good as an impact turn, arguments for why alts would be unethical, etc.

I am a mainstream Liberal who thinks things like Hegemony and Capitalism are good. Winning on a technical level will go 1000x farther then trying to persuasively grandstand.

Phil

I really don't understand anything that well other then util or kant, but I'll probably b enable to understand it if you explain it well

Please implicate your arguments well and weigh especially for these debates.

Tricks

Make sure they have warrants - in the first speech they were read.

These are pretty easy to understand but if it's incoherent in the first speech and then explained in a later speech I'll probably give the other side leeway for new responses.

Trad

I will evaluate the round technically - I can evaluate trad rounds but I don't like the style of debate. If it's a tech vs trad round the tech debater will most likely win.

Speaks

I will not give higher speaks for arguments I like. Your speaks will solely reflect the quality of debating. I won't deduct speaks for reading tricks, but if you collapse on a dropped eval argument, that means your argument quality was not as good. However, if you extend and weigh between different tricks in a high quality manner you can still get high speaks (you should probably still extend other arguments even if eval is dropped for example).

I am a proud great-grandparent of 27 children. The only argument I'll vote for is extinction good.

Hi! My name's Sierra (she/her) and I'm a sophomore at UPenn studying Comms or International Relations and Consumer Psych in Wharton. I competed in PF and LD for 3 years in high school but primarily did LD. I also dabbled in extemp debate, big questions, extemp speaking, and congress. I have experience with local and some circuit debate and I've competed at the state and national level.

Debate:

General Stuff:

• Please do not spread your max speed in LD or PF. I can comprehend a faster than normal pace but if you reach full speed I will not be able to follow. Try to go 60% of your max speed if you're someone who spreads every round. Pleaseeee slow down for taglines/author names
• Please signpost and give roadmaps
• I truly believe debate should be a safe place. If you need any accommodations or feel uncomfortable in a round please please please send me an email (smarelia@sas.upenn.edu)
• If you plan on reading heavy content in round please give a CW and let us know before the round starts. I'm ok with basically all heavy topics but a cw is always appreciated
• If you run/say anything racist, homophobic, or ableist you will not win my ballot
• I know debate can be stressful so just try to make the experience as pleasant as possible and be nice

LD:

I mainly did trad debate in high school and always appreciate a solid trad line by line debate with solid fw BUT it is cool if you run other things. Just keep in mind I am not as well-versed with K’s, narratives, theory, etc. so just make sure you explain what you’re doing well-- I should not have to fill in the gaps for you. Also, if your opponent clearly has no experience with progressive debate and you know this and still run something progressive your speaks will reflect that. Debate should be as educational as possible and when the round has a clear imbalance from the start it makes this hard.

• Tech>truth but things need to be warranted. If there's something that has 0 warrant and is just blatantly incorrect I won't vote on it
• If you and your opponents FWs are different give me a clear reason as to why yours is better BUT if the FW debate is close make sure you explain why your side can still exist and win under your opponents FW. This is sooo important because in order to determine the winner I will first go off of who won the fw debate and then who has the most offense under that framing
• I will keep a detailed flow and probably will pick up on dropped arguments. If your opponent drops evidence extend it in the next speech if you think it's critical to the round
• Giving clear voters at the end of the 2NC and 2AR is something I like and think helps a lot. Make my job easier and give a clear reason why you won the round
• If your 1AR is really poorly spaced but you pack a lot into the 2AR this probably won’t help you so just try to pace well (I know this can be hard). It's hard for me to evaluate off of a 4 second response to an entire contention

PF:

• I will flow the round and will miss dropped args
• Use cx to your advantage, it shouldn't be dominated by one side. I hate when people ask questions that start with "Do you agree that..." ask an actual question that pokes holes at ur opponents case plsss
• I value weighing throughout the speeches, not just at the end. This should include weighing impacts, harms, etc.
• Please crystalize the round at the end. Explain why you won and key things you won on

I’m probably forgetting stuff but if you have any questions just ask me before the round. If you have any questions about the ballot post-round feel free to email me or just ask then if you want if I’m allowed to disclose. Good luck!

Hello!

I am Esther Olamide Olayinka, a graduate of University of Ilorin Nigeria. I am an advanced level judge and debater with over 2 years involvement in debating. In these years, I have experienced/ participated in over 200 rounds of debating in BP, LD, WSDC, AP, PF and Policy Debates.

I have no conflicts and you can always contact me through olamideakanbi2000@gmail.com

Simply, I value and take note of arguments that are well analysed and impacted. I don't really have a preference for speaking styles or speed as long as you're comfortable with it and your arguments doesn't violate equity policies. Please within rounds, ensure you keep to time, abide by the tournament's policies and respect both I and other speakers in your room.

Finally, I find comparative arguments to be very persuasive. Good luck in your rounds. Thank you!

UChicago '14

Beginner judge. I will be looking for clear and concise arguments and sound rebuttals. Speak clearly and stay respectful. Please no spreading. I will try my best to flow the round and evaluate it off of that. However, I value persuasiveness and how well you can convey an argument.

Email: michaelsh.pang@gmail.com

Hello!

I am Dominic Stanley-Marcus. I am a debater, a judge, a debate coach, and a classroom teacher. I have a bachelor degree in Educational Psychology from Rivers State University, Nigeria.

As a judge, I make it a mandatory objective to ensure a safe space for everyone to debate. This comes with establishing the rules of the house with clarity and candor and reporting any sort of violation of the set rules and regulations to the respective equity team. This isn't included in my metrics for assessing the winners because I also understand that my position as a judge is to be a non-interventionist average intelligent voter. I have been trained to be unbiased and objective as a judge, yet, being disciplined enough to call out wrongs at any time seen within a debate round.

The criteria for winning my ballot as a judge include but are not limited to the following: the persuasiveness of argument, style and delivery, clarity of purpose and logical engagement with the contending themes in the debate and confidence in both speech elements and burden of proof. On a basic level, I want debaters just show to me why their argument (s) is true and why I should care about whatever the arguments seek to achieve. Being an ordinary intelligent voter, I believe this metric is such that is fair for all, an advanced debater or a novice debater.

In terms of my personality traits and how they come into this paradigm. As a certified educational psychologist, one crucial personality of mine that can be exploited in a debate session is my listening skills. I am a very good listener. This also means that I pay close attention to speaker's speeches and not just judge accents, speech impediments or whatever could be their speech disabilities. This is an important quality for me as a judge because it makes me create room for everyone in a debate space such that speakers aren't marked down on my ballot because of problems beyond their capacity to control. By being a good listener, I ensure that fairness is upheld and metrics for winning a debate round ensure that individual differences are factored in.

Another quality I can boast of is being a mentor. I believe that part of my job as a judge is 'pointing people right'. By this, I ensure that my oral adjudication and feedbacks are as educating as necessary and possible. I thoroughly show the teams why they win or lose, yet, commend them on areas that they did great and where they also have to improve on. In the same vein, I show them why they should care since the debate is about growth and intellectual development. This makes debaters learn both in their victory and their defeats.

Lastly, I am open to challenges as a judge because that also presents an opportunity for me to grow and evolve. This is why flexibility remains my watchword to enable me to learn new things as quickly as possible and still deliver equally as expected.

Thank you.

send speech docs

2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there

I flow

please add me to the email chain - cwhaldebate@gmail.com
he/him
Order is policy, then PF

Do not trivialize, commodify, or deny the Holocaust.

Are you a high schooler interested in debating in college? If so, you should contact me and ask about it. If you are being recruited by or are committed to UNL, please conflict me!

I graduated from Patriot High School (VA) in 2022, having done WACFL PF for a year. Currently, I'm competing in NFA-LD (election reform, nukes) at the University of Nebraska. I usually judge as a hired gun of sorts for Ivy Bridge, as well as various schools on the Nebraska circuit.

Outside of debate I'm pursuing a Bachelors' of Science in Agricultural Economics with a minor in Agronomy. I'm also a tutor, a research assistant, and an intern with the state extension agency. I mainly research risk management (price volatility) and anti-trust policy (amongst other things).

Evidence sharing should not be complicated. I'm generally pro-disclosure. I don't care if you sit or stand during your speeches. I'm fine with observers so long as both debaters are.

My flow is generally pretty tight. I tend to prefer the line-by-line, and debaters who are able to stick to it tend to do better in front of me. Obviously like (almost) everything in this paradigm this is a default, so try to change it however you like. I am not persuaded by team clout, verbal abuse, or threats. If you won, I am willing to take the heat and I do not care about the community’s reaction. I have friends outside of debate and I have my dogs.

That said - if you have questions (about the round, my judging preferences, college apps, econ help...) - feel free to reach out!

I think about debate pretty similarly to (in no particular order) Ayyah Al-Jibouri, Zach Thornhill, Justin Kirk, Adrienne Phillips, and Sarah Stevenson-Peck

Case debate - The best. I will almost never not vote for a solid 2NR case collapse, if you pull this off in front of me you will almost certainly get 30 speaker points no questions asked. I'm not entirely sure what a "risk of offense" even is and will readily pull the trigger on presumption if it's won.

DA/CP combo - Yes and yes. Run your cheater counterplans in front of me - almost anything goes so long as it's in the topic lit and you can do any additional justification. PICs are (almost) always good, consult/QPQ is fine on IR topics, and delay/miscellaneous conditions is illegitimate.

T v. Policy - Was my bread and butter during the elections topic. Using T to set up other off-case positions (either you're non-topical or you link to this DA, etc) is always a good time. I default to competing interps and don't need proven abuse.

Theory - I default to reject the arg, not the team in most instances. Most neg theory save for T/FW, test case (chef's kiss) and vagueness (my beloved), are probably frivolous. The only reject the team argument in terms of aff theory (save for condo) is probably object fiat. If you argument is best described as originating from circuit LD (cough cough three tier method cough cough), then I'm not the judge for you.

T-USFG - In a bloodbath, I wouldn't consider myself a hack - that said, I'm pretty receptive to the TVA. Do with that what you will.

K - If you know what you're doing, go for it.

Up my alley: Cap, Orientalism/Terror Talk, Militarism, Miscellaneous Ks of Economics (if you run Cybernetics and do it well I won't be able to shut up about it)
It's a wash: SetCol, Biopower, some Psychoanalysis (the nukes topic is wild)
Not my forté but I can follow: AB/Afropess, Fem IR, Queer Theory, most other arguments not listed (if you have specific questions ask)
Please don't: Heidigger, Agamben, Nietzche

PF specifics

1. For WACFL tournaments (this is important!!), the best case scenario is that I get approximately 5 minutes to make my decision before the tabroom starts busting down my door. Please be time efficient.
   
2. Only way to get a 30 is to share speechdocs with unparaphrased evidence (policy-style cards).
3. The line-by-line and keeping a tight (and clean) flow are your friend.
4. Tag team crossfire is welcome. I don't flow crossfire but I do pay attention during it; if in doubt, anything you say is binding.
5. I don't tend to jive with PF jargon (quantify, scope, de-link, terminal offense, etc).
6. First rebuttal should not extend their own case. Doing so guts any advantage you get from speaking first. On the flip side, second rebuttal is expected to attack and defend.
7. Please don't steal prep.
   

Name: Bradford “Ross” White

School: Martin County High School Speech & Debate Team

Personal Email: white.ross@icloud.com

Specialization: Congressional Debate

Experience: 1-5 years judging Congressional Debate, 3 years of competing in Congressional Debate (numerous 1st and 2nd Place finishings at local tournaments, and appearances at national ranking tournaments such as those held at Harvard University, George Mason University (semifinalist), and the University of Pennsylvania (finalist), but also a lifetime of debating my family at the dinner table.

Paradigm:

As a congressional debate judge, it is my obligation to objectively evaluate debaters by purely the fluency of their presentation, the credibility of their points, the ethics and relevancy of their data, the quality of their clash and cross-examination, their influence and charisma in the chamber, and something too often overlooked unfortunately which is their personification of an actual congressperson in the United States Congress.

In regards to “the fluency of the debater’s presentation”, I look for a multitude of different factors in my evaluation of your delivery.It is of utmost vitality that you express your thoughts through the utilization of elegant rhetoric and easy transitions. I highly frown upon speakers whostand behind podiums or lecterns, as this useless barrier separates you from your audience (of which being not only your constituents in chamber, but also your judges). The "triangle" should be utilized if you feel comfortable. For the triangle, visualize you begin your speech at "Ground Zero." If you are not comfortable doing the triangle, standing in one place is acceptable. Shifting weight and fidgeting is not acceptable. Try to look at your audience, even if you are using notes for your speech. Pacing is bad. You're not Jesse Jackson, and this isn't a theatrical performance. Don't walk back and forth in front of your audience while speaking. I will write this on your ballot. You don't want this on your ballot! Swaying back and forth is also bad. Some refer to this the "Dramamine Effect," because swaying makes them seasick. Judges will write this on your ballot. You don't want this on your ballot!Don't use exaggerated or unnatural hand gestures. Don't put your hands in your pockets. Don't hide behind your folio or clipboard. Don't face the ground when speaking. The floor is not your audience.Don't read off your notes word-for-word. Eye contact is always a good thing. I preach to the novices Itutor that I need to see loads of enthusiasm from them. Thus don’t only talk about the subject; convey your belief in your viewpoint and ideas through emotion and passion. I want to see that you genuinely care about what you are debating. Solely reading off of a legal pad in a monotonous tone only conveys to me that your participation on the legislation is near arbitrary as the opinions of those who actually care for the subject matter will be scored higher. I want to see that you are trying to the best of your ability and thus not indulging in intellectual laziness.

In regards to “the ethics and relevancy of their data”, there are once again many things I am looking for and not looking for. This is the most simple and rudimentary point I will make in my paradigm which is why it will be my shortest paragraph. I am looking for data that is as relevant as possible to the actual day of debate. I need to see unbiased sources presented that are credible in their field of research in regards to the subject area. I also request high clarification of the sources author and validity, this being correct citation. E.g “Brookings 2018” does not cut it for me, as it is not only lacking relevancy, but also lacking author qualifications and it is simply just a throwing out of an overused trusted name in an effort for judges to believe whatever is followed by the author citation.

In regards to “the quality of their clash and cross-examination”, there are numerous factors that I am scoping out. Every speech after authorship should counter opposing arguments and/or rebuild arguments on the same side. This is referred to as ”clashing” with prior speakers. Whether your point stems off of and/or corroborates with a prior speaker’s point, or your point is in complete negation of an aforementioned contention or prior speaker’s answer in cross-examination, there must be both truth to your corroboration/contradiction and effective delivery of that truth. I do not like however when debaters think they can disrespect, bully, talk rude to, or scream (has somehow happened before unfortunately) at their constituents for intimidation purposes in order to win or throw them off. Do not get me wrong, I do love the sassiness, sarcasm, curtness, and shade of it all (which is essentially my entire personality merged into one), but there is a way to do it with tact. Refer to the broad themes/threads established throughout the arguments. When the chamber becomes "one-sided," a summary speech “crystal” is a welcome respite. Reconnect everything to the larger picture of the discussion.

In regards to “their influence and charisma in the chamber”, I am simply looking for debaters that stick out to me. When debaters make a plethora of motions, and influence their constituents in the chamber to follow a certain rule or agree to a certain premise, I see someone who has taken charge of the chamber, and thus someone I will likely rank quite high. When I see from the get go that this legislator is setting dockets, making PO nominations, opening and closing the floor for debate, asking plentiful loads of successful questions to peers, and establishing the rules of the chamber as they see fit, I am enthralled to rank them higher than those of an equally sound presenter that does not partake in such influence.

In regards to the “personification of an actual congressional representative in the United States Congress”, this is something that many fellow debate judges underscore and don’t pay much mind too. This however could not be the further antithetical for my approach to evaluating congressional debate. I interpret the scene unfolding before me as an actual session of United States Congress, witnessing genuine elected officials representing the constituents of their residences in an effort to pass or fail the legislation presented before them. Thus your demeanor, level of argumentation, nuance, and rhetoric should rise to the occasion. Your analysis should be easy to follow, well-developed, and logically coherent. Your attitude should mimic that of an actual United States congressperson.

Overall, the most important things for me when judging are being able to follow the logic of your arguments and refutation/clash of opposing points -- why are your points important and why do they outweigh the most important arguments from the opposing side. I also appreciate good delivery, though that is secondary to me to solid logic and argumentation.