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

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

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

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

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

Public Forum Paradigm

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

****EVIDENCE SHARING****

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

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

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

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

Extemp Paradigm

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

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

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

Have fun!!!!

Policy Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Personal Info]

Pronouns: She/Her

I do Lincoln Douglas debate, did public forum for 3 years, I’ve done congress, and then big question (very very poorly) for a hot second, so you don’t have to dumb down jargon for me.

Email: savannah.j.kloster@gmail.com

My ballots tend to be mainly evaluation specific to how you did in the round and I get very hyper-focused on personal comments that I usually forget to write RFDs, unless they are online ballots, then as soon as I leave the school I fill them out; If you didn’t get an RFD or need clarifications from me just email me and I will give you an RFD or the clarifications you need to the best of my abilities.

I don’t disclose rounds, so don’t ask me to or try to persuade me into disclosing, you're just wasting time.

I know what it’s like to have to carry teammates in a debate, and just how excruciating the whole thing is so I have zero tolerance for it if I see it in round.

Also I make faces when I think about things which makes me look very angry and like I’m scowling, ignore that I just have a RBF it doesn’t relate to how you’re doing a majority of the time.

If you know Martin Kloster, yes I am the communist’s sister

[General]

/Evidence/

PF:

If you want me to take the evidence you have into consideration in voting you have to carry it throughout all your speeches; you can’t give evidence in Rebuttal, drop it in summary, and then try and bring it up in Final Focus because that means you dropped it so I won’t flow it. If someone asks for a card, give it to them, if you say no and you have access to it it’ll be very sketchy (plus bad debate etiquette) and I’ll drop the card from the flow and I might ask to see the card after round

LD:

it’s the same as stated before just change the speech names.

/Speed and Performance/

I don’t like spreading because it’s hard to understand what the person is saying but also don’t go too slow because it’s just as bad as spreading. My preferred speed is a moderate pace. Just make sure you speak clearly as far as performance is concerned.

/Time/

You need to use up your speech time, I hate it when there’s a minute or more left on the clock so try your best to get as close to the set time as possible. If you can’t think of anything else to say about your opponent's case, go over your own case and explain why it stands or your framework, something to fill your time if you have no more evidence to read. I will time your speeches, I will also time your prep but I tend to get distracted during prep so don’t tell me a set amount of time. If you want a set amount of prep then you can time yourself and then just tell me when you're done using prep and I’ll stop my timer. I recommend having a timer up with you so you can see how much time you have left, it makes giving speeches much easier in my opinion.

/Speaks/

Speaks for me is not only how well your speeches were but if you were actually trying and showing interest/know what you're talking about; in other words not just speaking pretty but being confident. Just for a bonus for reading my paradigm if you tie Mike Wazowski into your speech I'll give you an additional .5 speaker points.

High: you did your best and you tried and gave good speeches, I will only give you a 30 if you are absolutely perfect on everything you do and have a good amount of debate etiquette but you are also assertive and don't let your opponents walk all over you.

Low: You went silent for a majority of the speech, you had an abusive argument, you showed disrespect/lack of care. If you are abusive to your opponents you will get as close to 0 speaks from me as possible without getting a full 0, and if you make your partner carry you the entire round and do nothing you will instantly get the lowest possible speaks from me.

/Framework/

PF:

If you're going to use a framework and want me to vote under it then you need to bring it up in all your speeches so you don’t drop it. If your framework outweighs your opponents explain to me why, same goes with why it completely goes against your opponent's case and why you win under it. Although I don’t like it if you only drop your framework in rebuttal but carry it through your summary and final focus I’ll vote under it, but only if you use all your time up in rebuttal.

LD:

I AM BIG ON FRAMEWORKS!!! PLEASE tie this into what you’re saying in round and have it actually make sense, this is the thing that really differentiates ld from pf. If you’re running a framework it should never be both deontological and consequential, that’s not how frameworks work. Just carry frameworks through the round as its a main thing that I use to vote in the round.

/Case/

With cases just make sure it’s understandable and set up in an organized manner. When I say this I mean state your contentions and subpoints so it’s easier to flow and judge the round. I prefer off-the-clock roadmaps so I know which case you're going down and so it’s easier to flow and judge on what you’re saying. If you’re using an off-the-clock roadmap then actually follow it.

/Variation/

For novices, I completely understand that you are new to debate so I’m more lenient on things that I wouldn’t allow, from Judging a practice round for Varsity for example. I tried to make my paradigm all-level friendly so it doesn’t matter what level you are.

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

Specific Issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

random things:

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

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

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

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

pronouns: she/her/they/them

General debate preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln Douglas:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Forum:

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

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

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

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

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