It is the responsibility of any judge to set aside personal biases, which I strive to do in full during any round of debate.  When I state that I am a traditional lay judge from an area that debates slower, I do not mean to imply that particular cases will be immediately discounted for their criticality or theoretical examinations of the event.  Rather, it is the responsibility of the debaters within the round to convince me of the superiority of their argument.  In determining a round, it should be considered that the entirety of the argument must be coherent and open to discussion on both sides.  In other words: please do not spread in a round without disclosing your case to myself and your opponent.  Debate is not particularly educational at excessive speaking speeds.

For deliberation, I look toward the flow of the debate itself.  While I expect that debaters are capable of tracking arguments and defending their cases, personal remarks or excessively abusive language may have an impact on deliberation.

Email:

beckman@mtsd.org

I've judged a lot of NLD lately but most of this holds true for VLD. Long story short, make sure you're debating LD, not 1-on-1 policy. Don't drop your framework; it's what makes LD so special. You need a criterion; it's your measuring stick. Tell me exactly why you win under one of the frameworks; it doesn't necessarily have to be yours. I very frequently hear a familiar laundry list in rebuttals: "I win on scope, I win on magnitude, I win framework debate...". Asserting it doesn't make it true; explain your reasoning. Use your NR/2AR to frame the round for me.

If you have a "minimizing xyz", "reducing xyz", etc. VC, you have a solvency burden, or at least need to demonstrate some harm reduction.

There is a lot of overlap between "students who want to spread" and "students whom I can't understand since they are stumbling over every other word" -- I'm around a traditional 6/circuit 3 on speed. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you. I am a fast talker myself, but I want to actually hear your case and arguments and feel better-informed after the round. Debate should be open to everyone, not just schools with full-time prep teams.

I am a former LD assistant coach and judge with experience in LD, Parli, and BQ. Clash is critical-- don't talk past each other. If your opponent has the most ludicrous case ever known to humankind but you don't attack it, they're probably winning. Open to progressive arguments for sure but you need clash. Fairly familiar with philosophy. Respect your opponent in and after the round.

I'm from Wisconsin (Go Cheesemakers!) where I did humorous and oratory since my school didn't have a debate program. I went to Penn and did parli debate. Lived in South Dakota for three years and now back in Philadelphia.

I have done LD (both as a competitor and judge) for multiple years. When judging a round, I first evaluate which framework is left standing, and then I evaluate all impacts in the round under that framework. If you don't explicitly link the impact to the framework, then I won't do it for you. You will win the round if you can directly link your impacts to the winning framework and clearly show me, and tell me why, your impacts are better than your opponents.

If something is dropped, you have to tell me that it was dropped, and only then will I actually extend it. If you say something was dropped and it wasn't, I will not extend it, so don't make up drops. I can handle speed, but I prefer you speak at a conversational pace and definitely do not spread. If you do talk fast, make sure you are clear enough that I can actually follow along.

.

.

.

.

"Nah, I'd win"

I come to the debate with a clean slate and imagine I have no prior knowledge on the topic, I expect debaters to be able to allow me to understand the topic by the end of the debate to make a clear choice.

In my opinion, the debate is used to look at both sides of the argument and perspectives of a topic

I expect debaters to provide logical arguments and back them up with evidence.

I want debaters to explain why topics are important and a step-by-step process in their argument leading to a conclusion.

Debaters should not leave gaps in logic that need to be filled to be able to understand how they have arrived at their conclusion

It is also important for debaters to explain why their argument matters and how the implied results of their argument will affect society.

good debater speaks clearly, and uses logical argumentation well, without becoming combative. True and accurate statements are highly valued. Rebuttal phases are used well and good points by the opposing team are all addressed. I prefer speakers to be clear and have a few excellent arguments to those speed speaking and trying to fit in as many mediocre arguments as possible.

For speech rounds, I'm looking for clear, enunciated speech with well-used pauses and intonation to help support the speaker's purpose.

My name is Jackie Hertzel. My pronouns are she/her. I am a traditional judge, in my 4th year of judging. I take my notes on an online flow during the round. I am interested in hearing what debaters have to say so please be mindful of your speed. I appreciate off time roadmaps, calling out dropped arguments and noting voting issues. If one debater’s argument goes unchallenged then I will assume it is valid. I am not a fan of spreading. Good luck and have fun!

debate.ianmackeypiccolo@gmail.com

Your opponents can time your prep, tag team cx is fine, so is flex prep.

Losing to k affs or process counterplans never traumatized me and I have no opinions about debate that need to be enforced on anyone. I'll flow and do my best to vote on "tech". I find basically all arguments charming when they're done well.

When arguments get dropped I think that means I should be as credulous of what was claimed as possible. This means I won't go rogue reading evidence for uncontested claims. Even when claims are contested, I try to based how I read evidence in how that evidence was debated.

Fairness is secondary to external "real world" impacts usually claimed by K teams. If you are going for a fairness-only framework strategy you should prioritize winning comprehensive defense to the K aff impact turns. Usually "no subject formation" is the main piece for this.

Ethics stuff: bad for ad homs against other debaters, bad for ad homs against random debate authors that don't try to be content relevant ("Pinker was friends with Epstein so no food wars defense"...), bad for pearl clutching about wipeout and death good, I think it's important for people to try to use the right gender pronouns for others and it doesn't seem insane for this to be made into a voting issue.

I don't have a consistent methodology for how to make decisions when intervention is required to vote for either team. I might read evidence, decide based on my personal opinions, or try to extrapolate more arguments based on sentence fragments I have on my flow. Hopefully it doesn't come to this!

I am a traditional judge.

I am a parent judge. This is my first year participating. I am a scientist. For me to better judge your performance:

1. Please speak clearly and do not speed.

2. Use clear logic.

3. Be respectful to your opponent.