LD Debate

Value/criterion framework is essential. I believe that debaters should prioritize the values and criteria that are most relevant to the resolution and that provide the best guidance for evaluating the arguments presented.

In my view, the value should be the overarching principle that guides the debate. The value should be clearly defined and related to the resolution, and the debaters should use it to frame their arguments. The criterion should be the standard or set of principles by which we evaluate the arguments presented in the debate. The criterion should be logically connected to the value, and the debaters should use it to demonstrate how their arguments uphold the value.

Debaters should present arguments that are relevant to the value and criterion, and should clearly explain how their arguments relate to the overall framework of the debate. I will evaluate the strength of the arguments presented based on how well they support the value and criterion, and how effectively they address the opposing arguments.

Debaters should also be aware of the burden of proof, which rests on the affirmative debater. The affirmative debater must provide a compelling case that upholds the value and criterion, while the negative debater must show why the affirmative case fails to do so. The negative debater may also present their own case, but their primary task is to refute the affirmative case.

In addition, I value clarity, organization, and effective use of evidence. Debaters should present their arguments in a clear and organized manner, and use evidence to support their claims. However, evidence should not be used as a substitute for logical reasoning and analysis.

Public Forum

As a Public Forum debate judge who prefers flowing, I believe that debaters should prioritize clear and organized argumentation, while utilizing a logical structure that makes it easy for the judge to track the debate.

Debaters should begin by clearly defining key terms and outlining their case. They should then present their arguments in a clear and organized manner, with each argument logically building upon the previous one. Debaters should signpost their arguments and use clear transitions between different points.

I expect debaters to provide evidence to support their arguments, and to clearly explain how the evidence supports their position. Debaters should also be able to distinguish between credible and unreliable sources, and explain why their sources are reliable. Debaters should avoid using biased or inaccurate sources, and should be able to defend the accuracy and reliability of the evidence they present.

Debaters should also respond effectively to their opponents' arguments, by directly addressing the opposing team's key points and providing clear and concise rebuttals. They should be able to identify the weaknesses in their opponent's case and explain why their own position is stronger.

In terms of teamwork, I believe that debaters should work together to present a cohesive case, while avoiding interrupting or talking over their opponents. They should also avoid personal attacks or disrespectful behavior towards their opponents.

Policy Debate

As a policy debate judge, my primary goal is to evaluate the arguments presented by each team in a fair and impartial manner. Here are some key aspects of my judging paradigm:

1. Flow: I will be taking detailed notes throughout the debate to keep track of the arguments presented by each team. I expect debaters to clearly signpost their arguments and make it easy for me to follow their line of reasoning.

2. Argumentation: I believe that the strength of an argument lies in its ability to support its claims with evidence and logical reasoning. I will be looking for clear, concise arguments that are well-supported by evidence. I will not be swayed by unsupported assertions or ad hominem attacks.

3. Framework: I expect debaters to clearly establish a framework for the debate. This should include a clear resolution, definitions of key terms, and a set of criteria for evaluating the arguments presented. Debaters should be able to clearly explain how their arguments fit within this framework.

4. Clash: I believe that the heart of policy debate is clash - the back-and-forth exchange of arguments between the two teams. I will be looking for debaters to engage with each other's arguments in a substantive way. Simply restating one's own arguments or attacking the other team's character or motives is not sufficient.

5. Evidence: I expect debaters to cite evidence to support their arguments. This evidence should be high-quality and relevant to the topic at hand. Debaters should be able to clearly explain how their evidence supports their argument and how it relates to the broader debate.

6. Delivery: I believe that effective communication is essential in policy debate. Debaters should be clear, concise, and confident in their delivery. They should be able to adapt to the audience and use appropriate language and tone.

7. Flexibility: Finally, I believe that the best debaters are those who can adapt to unexpected arguments and situations. I will be looking for debaters who can think on their feet and respond to new information or arguments in a thoughtful and effective way.

I'm an assistant interp coach for the Huron Speech and Debate team. My primary area of experience is in the interps and speech after having competed for Huron in the past. I am comfortable judging any speech round, and I most closely look at the physicality of a piece (how are you using body language, facial/vocal expression, pops, etc. to promote the piece).

I have some experience with Public Forum debate and am able to judge it, but I cannot stand debaters that speak at mach speed. It is difficult for me to follow flow when information is presented so fast that the words themselves blend together. I will flow to the best of my ability during the round, but don't expect me to catch everything if you speak like a Policy debater.

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

As a speech coach, I appreciate poise and precision in your speaking styles. I am not an experienced LD judge, so refrain from any jargon or technical language. Please do not speak too rapidly. I appreciate a typical conversational speed. I am looking for clash and will base my final decision on who gets me to understand their argument and supports said argument the best.

Hello, folks. The TLDR of my paradigm is:

1. I vote neg on presumption if the aff doesn't do their job
2. I try not to interfere in the round unless it's to protect the 1AR and the 2NR from the subsequent speeches

It should go without saying, but I'm a tech over truth judge. I think debate is fundamentally a game and competition. This view sort of bleeds into my number one issue that I have with a lot of debaters being that there seems to be a lack of strategy in the modern debate round. If you want to see more of my thoughts on debate strategy, scroll down and you can see. No matter what, I'm going to give feedback after the round (partly because my handwriting is awful) partly because you should be able to ask questions. If both teams agree, I'll disclose after the round.

When it comes to feedback, I swear that I'm not mean. I just have thoughts. I don't think you get better with me saying "you did so good", "you're a star", and "sEe YoU aT NaTiOnAls!" I think that you get better by judges telling you what they think. Odds are, unless you did really well I won't give you a positive comment in my verbal feedback. It doesn't help that I'm also very sarcastic and constantly look dead inside. That doesn't mean that you're a bad debater, and it doesn't mean that you didn't do something fantastically in round. It just means that I want to share my constructive criticism. I know it's a meme in the debate community to make fun of judges with bad takes on judging, but (hot take here) maybe listen to them. If one judge has a take like "truth over tech" or "speak slower" or even "substantial means 96%" odds are there are others like them. If you want to win, learn to judge adapt. I always sucked at it and never really cared, so I'm saying this to y'all as my warning.

Don't be a shlemiel, just debate good.

UPDATE: Tabroom isn't linking to my other email that I've judged a lot of tournaments with and debated a lot with. Because of that, my records (both judging and competition) are incomplete. If you ask me before round what my distribution has been for the last couple of tournaments, I'll probably tell you.

Include me in the email chain, my email is meyerb@carleton.edu

These next few paragraphs are me ascending the ivory tower and giving thoughts on various arguments, so read at your own risk.

My name is Bax, I use He/His/Him pronouns. I'm an econ major with a Middle East studies and math double minor at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota where I do mock trial, model UN, debate, and I'm the managing director for the school newspaper. I qualified for nationals a couple of times and went to a lot of bid tournaments, but I was from a rural school so I'm pretty familiar with both traditional and more circuit arguments. I did primarily policy throughout high school with a bit of progressive LD in the middle. Now that this biography is done, here's my thoughts on various arguments.

General

Weigh GOD Damn it, Weigh!! It makes my job easier and lets me stick to my TLDR paradigm better. If there's no weighing done I will vote neg on presumption. I know that makes me unpopular, especially in PF and LD, but these are the consequences of your actions for not weighing. I vote neg on presumption because I think it's the most fair and rational way to assess a round where neither side weighed. In the real world, if someone makes an assertion (and can't prove it), then we don't assume that that statement is true. The aff has the burden of proof, and judges should hold the aff accountable to that burden. I think judge weighing is unfair to both sides. For example, I personally default to probability times magnatude with util calculus as the best way to weigh, but that's obviously not fair to K debaters who run arguments that are harder to quantify in certian ways. As is such, I have decided that the most fair way to assess rounds where neither side weighs is to vote neg on presumption. I also will vote neg on presumption if the neg tells me to and gives me a compelling reason of why its decent way to view the round. This is rare, but it has happened in the past.

If I'm judging with Caleb Stewart, we'll probably vote the same way. We were a team and keep roughly the same paradigm.

BIAS

Look, we all have preconceptions or things we have thoughts on. I don't want you to think that I believe that my way of the debate is the only right way, because I think there are many different interps. I do want you to know that I'm an ex-debater who has reentered this event on the otherside of the ballot. As is such, I have thoughts on basically every argument and strategy. You can totally try to concince me otherwise, but know that my thoughts on some of these arguments means that you might have to put in substantial work to make me think that they're legit or not. I'm totally open to this, but I think everyone needs to recognize that no judge has 0 bias. If you want to try to convince me that dispo advocacies are bad for policy debate, go for it. You just have to understand that I already have my thoughts on the matter and you'll have to put in more work than your opponent who is trying to defend it. I mention this because I think it's unfair for judges to not disclose their own thoughts on relatively common strategies and arguments used in the debate space and expect debaters to just know what they mean. A lot of these are issues that could come up in round and I have the most thoughts on. If you really feel strongly about this, run a theory shell (might be hard for number 2. I guess that one is more of an FYI).

1. "CX is a speech"- Chris Eckert. Things you say are binding. CX isn't an excuse for severance. With that said, CX is for you as a debater to understand what you're debating against. So, I clearly won't use your CX as a way to judge the final round, but CX is binding. For example, if the other side is running a weird framework and you start poking holes in it in CX and they straight up concede the whole round, you need to tell me that in your next speaking slot. I'm not going to just write that down during cross. Their answer to the CX question is totes binding though.

2. please sign post. I can handle spreading, but sign posting makes it so much easier. Also, sign posting is not "they said λ, but we say ℵ." I'm flowing. I know they said that, where did they say that? Where am I flowing this? Why does what you say matter if they said that? Just say "on the DA" or whatever if you really have to. Nothing makes me more upset than the whole "they said; we say" writen on the flow. It's bad strat and just irks me.

3. Tech issues are to be expected, if it went well it wouldn't be debate.

4. I think flex cross is totally a thing that debaters should be able to use. Ideally you should use your whole cross, but if you'd rather take some of it and put it to prep go ahead or vice versa.

5. I prefer Tag-team CX to traditional CX. If you and your partner want to do this in PF with a Grand Cross for every individual cross I'd be ok but it's up to the other team.

6. Stealing prep is cringe

7. I tend to like Condo and dispo*. I think that the aff should be able to defend itself against multiple different angles. The only reason that I (*) dispo is because I think that it is almost situational. Like, if it's LD and you run a dispo advocacy that's clearly there as a time/strat skew with two seperate condo advocacies I'm going to have a harder time voting for you. I think it's a legit strategy, it just makes you seem like a crummy person. I mention this because I did have to vote for a kid who did this and it made me mad for the rest of the tournament. If it's policy though, I probably won't buy your dispo bad arguments. Saddle the heck up and deal with it, that's why you have 8 and 5 minute speaches with ("somewhat") competent judges.

8. T is an a priori issue. I think this should be obvious, but I guess it needs to be said. If the aff is untopical, it's untopical and shouldn't win. There's no way around it. I remember one time I tried running a RVI on T (so sorry to Cheyenne GL for that) and I sit and cringe at that to this day. The aff shouldn't win just by showing that it's topical and a non-topical aff shouldn't be allowed to win. I won't vote you down on the spot if I think your case isn't topical and no one calls you out, but I will probably mention it after. This should give you a hint that I think RVIs are something of a bain to the debate community.

Debate strategy

I think debate strategy is totally underused in more traditional circuits. It's become what I've commented on most in recent tournaments. I'm not going to give you my entire thesis on debate strategy, but I think that a lot of teams (in both PF, LD, and policy but especially LD and PF) tend to hit a point of diminshing returns with their arguments. Running 13 off may be great (please don't I'm trying to cut down on the amount of paper I use), but I miss the days when people would only go for one arg in the 2NR. I know a lot of more experienced folks might be confused by this statement seeing as it's obvious due to the time economy, but newer people seem to lack this skill. My honest advice to everyone is when you get to the neg block (or equivelent) in the debate, take an honest look at the flow. What arguments are sticking and which ones aren't? Never go for everything, kick something. If you're doing it right, by the end of the 1AR (at the latest) it should be obvious what the neg is winning. Kick everything else and just go for it. Clearly, it's better if this is off case, but this works for on case too (sometimes). Obviously, this is situational, but don't go for everything. Time-skew is real, use it to your advantage, but don't let it become a catch 22. For aff strategy, it's honestly all in the 1AR. We all know that the 1AR in both policy and LD is the hardest speach in debate. You have 4 or 5 minutes to respond to 7 or 13 minutes of neg talking ground. If the neg is going for an a priori argument, clearly start with that and then move down in order of arguments that you're winning. The best 1AR that I've ever seen in my life was a policy team that broke to semis at nationals. Go for T, Case, off-case turns, everything else. When you do those, it's harder to loose on T and you can leverage the case and turns to outweigh the neg off. The aff needs to be looking to the 2AR in the prep for the 1AR. How are they going to weigh and how are they going to cut the neg ground down a size? On soft-left affs, framework should be way way up there in terms of aff priority, but that should be clear.

TLDR: neg strategy should always be "what shouldn't I run?" and aff should always be "when should I run this?"

Policy

Most of this paradigm is focused on Policy just because I enjoy policy the most. That doesn't mean that I don't like y'all PFers and LDers, I just need to give my policy friends some attention ;)

Kritiks:

I love a good K on K debate or even a policy on K debate. I'm pretty caught up on cap and set col lit, but everything else I've fallen out of touch with. Keep me up to speed on the lit, and I'll be down. My one note is that I think most Ks have a glarring weak spot: the alt. Keep your alt simple and clear, it should be a lot of fun.

Topicality:

I'll vote on T if the Neg goes for it, no matter how bad it is. Hot take: If you're varsity and you can't beat a T shell easily in the 2AC, your aff is probably not topical.

Theory:

My tolerance for theory is a lot higher than most judges in policy, maybe because I did some LD. In my opinion, theory is a legit tactic that's very underused. That doesn't mean I want to watch 90 minutes of debate about debate for 6 rounds, but I think that some debaters let small abuses go unchecked. Theory to me is just like any other a priori argument: if you want to make it a law in the round, basically run the abuse like an inround DA. Interp of what you think the rule should be, why they didn't follow it, why your rule is better than no rule, and why the rule matters. The only difference is that your impact is competition or fairness or whatever.

Fiat:

I'm not a big fan of multiactor fiat, but if you can run it strategically I'm down. "Fiat is durable" shouldn't get you out of basic circumvention arguments, but if it does because of opponent incompetence, mazel tov I guess.

LD

I like progressive LD, but a good traditional LD debate will always have a special place in my heart. With that said, i generally default to the same policy rules when it comes to progressive LD with more emphasis on theory. I definitely love a good LD debate where theory is made a big issue.

Value and VC clash is big for me too, framework makes the game work (or something quirky like that.)

Plans in LD:

I'm chill with a plan in LD if the resolution is open to it. Action resolutions should always have some debaters running plans, but truth-testing resolutions is where it gets a little dicey for me. For the violent revolutions topic a few years back, I ran a plan about Eritrea and I still laugh at it. I'm obviously not going to vote you down just for running a plan on a truth-testing resolution, but if your opponent brings it up just know that my preconceived biases make it more likely that I'll buy their arg.

CPs/PiCs:

Yes, yes, yes. Non-Pic Cps in LD are so underused and it makes me sad to see.

Kritiks:

K debates are fun, but don't be that one kid who runs 5 conditional ks on a novice just because you can.

LARPers

I could honestly write a book on debate strategy and spend half the time talking about LD. LD strat is (in general) absurdly cringe. That's partly because the way LD is set up has made it the bastard lovechild of 2016 policy debate and 2019 PF debate for one person. This leads to a lot of people that policy debaters have started affectionately calling "LARPers" (Live Action Role Players). They want to be policy debaters, but they bring it into LD. I won't stop you if you want to run a plan in LD. I won't even stop you if you want to run a K. I won't stop you if you want to run a dispo aff plan with an RVI cherry on top. If you want to pretend to be policy debaters, I will judge you like policy debaters. This is both an invitation and a threat.

PF

My thoughts on progressive PF can be summarized by my favorite Scrubs quote:

"Bad, bad noobie"

-Dr. Cox

Progressive PF to me leaves a vacuum that requires the judge to intervene and that sets a dangerous precedent. This changes if both teams are competent, but as I've gone around the less I believe there's such thing as 2 competent progressive PF teams hitting each other in a prelim. I'm not saying don't spread or use some specific policy lingo, but if you're running a DA try to do it right.

Traditional PF debate is good, I'm generally a fan. I tend to think that traditional pf (where it's two sides fighting for truth, justice, yadda yadda yadda) is unrealistic. Trad PF, just like every other form of debate, is a competition. Treat it as such.

Debate In General

Be Civil.

I prize good clash and Clear Arguments. I dont like speed.

Framework in PF is moot to me.

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. Value and Criteria Clash are paramount. Criteria should be ethos driven and provide a clear road to achive the value and measure the achievment of the value

I dont care for progrsssive LD.

Evidence in LD is lesss of a concern to me than reasoning.

Cross Examination is also very important to me.

I am a flow judge, so if you want it on the flow, speak clearly.

Obervations are moot to me.

This is my 3rd year as a Coach for Debate and I competed in high school for 3 years in Public Forum Debate. I am familiar with LD but have never competed in LD. I work as an AP History teacher, understanding the context behind the topic is paramount.

I flow all rounds and look for carefully constructed arguments that have a logical explanation that is clear and concise with impact. "Connect the Dots" for me to prove your logic and understanding.

Knowledge of the topic is essential to the debate; debaters must show they understand the topic and all the points they make themselves. Debaters need to be able to address all attacks on their case and provide logical defenses while also being able to address all arguments made by an opponent.

Speed- Speak at a rate that is easy to understand.

No flexible prep time- use the designated time allotted.

State impacts clearly, when making claims of fact support with evidence, avoid Fiat cases- looking for clash.

I competed in International Extemp and Public Forum debate for five years at nationals and as state champion and state runner up respectively.

For PF, I am looking for good clash (direct refutations, challenging your opponents directly, whole nine yards!), arguments that are logical (even if your evidence doesn’t directly say something, if you can provide reasonable analysis that’s totally fair game for me!), and which team can control CX the best (asking hard-hitting questions, getting the most out of your time, the gist!). Of course, with all that in mind, I am flowing as well and will be judging off how well you uphold your arguments/knock down your opponents, as a good PF judge should!

For Extemp, I want you to have some fun with it! Extemp can be so boring if we all just speak like news reporters! Tell a good little story that ties well into your topic! Lead with a joke and carry it through the round! Whatever! Just spice up this amazing event a little! If that’s not your style, don’t worry! I won’t vote you down just because you prefer a more traditional method of Extemp speaking. I certainly prefer a more conversational style as I find that judges are more engaged with this method, but do your thing! Personally, I’m not going to be judging you against your fellow competitors based solely off how many sources you use or how well you can remember a direct quote from a New York Times article from 2017 from so-and-so. Those things are great! But I think purposeful evidence that fits nicely into the speech, even if it’s paraphrased, is the much better alternative. I can probably guess if/when you’re making up a source but if it’s convincing enough, then I don’t mind to be honest, that’s just the nature of Extemp when you’re put on the spot. Extemp is my favorite part of speech and debate as a whole and I hope you enjoy it too! Have some fun!

For every other event, I’m not gonna lie and say I know all the ins and outs of your event of choice. However! When it comes to speech (Inform/Oratory/POI/etc) events, I’m just going into it as an audience member looking to be captivated by the most well performed pieces! In LD or anything adjacent, mostly the same as for PF, but I’m not really up to date on all the jargon, so go easy on me here!

PF Clash and complete citations on the initial read. If you don't present , I will not weigh in the round.

All voting issues, drops and evidence challenges need to be called by competitors. I will not insert myself unless egregious violations occur. I will also occasionally vote for the most passionate debater, the debater who shows the greatest desire to win. CX wins debates.

LD Clash and application. I rarely vote on criteria, but often on HV.

CX is the highlight of the debate, own it.

My 1st year judging any type of Debate was 1962 so it is rare when I am not the "old guy" on the panel. When I first started judging, there was only one type of Debate, Policy. I have always tried to stay current with the various "new types of Debate" and regularly follow the various discussions published by NSDA and the various HANDBOOK PUBLISHING COMPANIES and I consider myself to have a good knowledge of the possible approaches that I may encounter in my assigned rounds.

PF:

Former PF debater. Spreading is fine. Open to any K or theory except disclosure theory (disclosure theory will result in an instant loss).

Time with whatever you want. I start CX timing when the first question is asked. I'm okay with off-clock roadmaps unless I state otherwise (only for cases where we are on a time crunch).

I won't weigh an impact unless you tell me to. I'm not getting paid to think.

LD:

If you somehow get me for LD, may god help you.

WS:

As far as WS goes, I competed at Nationals once, and judged once, and that's all of my experience with the event. As far as the structure of the event itself, consider me a lay judge. As far as args go, run whatever you want, go crazy.

My background is largely in policy debate; however, I have been judging Public Form and LD since 2001.

My preferences:

1) I do not need a roadmap. If you have one, I prefer it to be on the clock.

2) I prefer moderate to slow speed; if the whole round is fast, I will gladly keep up, but I prefer the competitive edge to come from stronger arguments and not from a faster speaking style.

3) Tell me why arguments matter. I would like all rebuttal speeches to include weighing. If you tell me how to evaluate the round, but the other team doesn't, I will default to your framework. If there is competing arguments, whoever can best explain and carry through an explanation of why their argument is better will likely win that argument.

4) I prefer realistic impacts to outlandish, daisy-chained larger impacts.

5) In LD, I want a strong focus on value and criteria as well as a slower to moderate speed.

I've competed in Oratory and Inform, Inform most recently. I was 9th in the nation for Informative Speaking, and I lived and breathed my individual event all four years of high school. Considering this, I do have a high expectation, however, I will be judging you based upon you and your performance. You need to show me that you care about what you're telling me, because I know for a fact that I'm not going to care if you don't. This is your speech. Show me what you can do.

I have judged and competed in Public Forum before, so I know what's going on. I base my decisions heavily on the flow and arguments made in round. Having evidence to back-up your analysis is a huge plus. Try to pull through your arguments through the round. Don't ignore what your opponent says against your case/evidence, respond and provide evidence that your case/argument is still valid in the round.

All of this being said, even if your case and evidence is top-notch perfect, I will not vote for you if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponents. This is a learning experience, and should be a good experience for everyone in the round. Do not make me vote you down for disrespecting competitors.

I did debate for 2 years and participated in novice, junior varsity, and varsity public forum. I am currently a freshman in college. I prefer a moderate speaking speed. I will be basing my vote off of who had the biggest impacts with the most accurate evidence.