I am a former speech competitor of 3 years with no experience competing in or judging debate. I competed in INFO primarily and thus am only used to conversational delivery. I will factor delivery into speaker points alone and will not vote against a competitor for delivering at a reasonably rapid speed, so long as it does not prevent me from understanding what they are saying.

I will look for achievable and impactful frameworks supported by specific, relevant evidence, warranting, and clear analysis and will be taking limited notes during round -- limited so I can focus my attention and engagement on the round. I prefer empirical evidence and prefer a few well developed arguments over a higher quantity.

I will not tolerate disrespect during round. Be a good competitor.

Hello! I'm Zach Badain. I am a varsity Lincoln Douglass debater for 3 years at The Meadows School. I have a lot of experience judging novice.

I look for clear, concise arguments backed up by cards, and not just throwing a lot of information and seeing what sticks. I am not a big fan of spreading but will not count it towards or against your speaker points. If you are running against plans ensure that disads are well defined. I dislike bad theory and bad arguments and anything offensive. I am not super critical on speaker points as long as you don't stutter or stumble too much, but if you do want to earn good speaks confidence is key, and speak with inflection and purpose.

You don't need to include me on the email chain as I won't be reading along anyways.

Hello, I am a former Debater I love LD and PF. I did debate for 3 years and attended SWSDI at ASU and take that information as you please :) I am lay debater who will be flowing the round. I am okay with Counter Plans and Plans as long as you are able to support them throughout your case. I am Okay with K's and progressive I just do not prefer it and if you want the best feedback I would try to run Lay. I love a good Value and Value Criterion Debate although I do not want that to be the only thing you talk about during the entire debate. I do not vote on who I think is a better speaker I vote based off who I feel is a better Debater. A great debater is able to flow all arguments and evidences through the entire round,. I also do no not like arguments from the negation saying that affirmation is non topical if they have a unique plan there’s nothing wrong with that and I do buy any of those argument saying it’s unfair. I just want you to do what you need to have a successful round.

Can you please send your cases to this email. Belchf1@unlv.nevada.edu

:)

Hello. My name is Brinley Belding and I will be judging you. I am a senior in high school and have been debating for three years. I am fine with spreading as long as you share your cases with me. I like a good, creative theory arg, but make sure it makes sense. To get good speak from me, please be articulate and try not to drop arguments. Or, I will take $3 a speaker point. Avoid running ks. Thank you.

Hi, I’m Frederick and I debated in both Public Forum and Congress for three years. State champ PF, went to nats in Congress.

Email: fchangho@asu.edu

Overall, pretty standard tech.

The easiest way to win my ballot is by having clear warranting throughout the debate. Evidence is great and all, but please have reasoning for WHY that evidence matters in the round. You need to be able to explain the logical progression in your link chains every time you mention your arguments. Don’t say NYT 19 and move on and expect me to go along with it.

Weigh. But make sure your link chain is intact and you’ve made clear extensions through the round.

Signposting is good. Organization is important.

If you get a concession in cross, bring it up in speech.

When possible, frontline in rebuttals.

No prep time for card reading is okay, but don’t take too long to pull up a card for your opponent to read. If there are card issues that you want me to look at, tell me to call for them too in speech. I will choose to view them at my discretion.

NO SPREADING.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponents. If I need to intervene b/c someone’s consistently talking over another in cross, you’ll be on pretty thin ice. Watch your own time. Watch your opponents’ time. Don’t talk during others’ speeches or make any rude gestures.

Off-time roadmaps are okay, but you don’t need to tell me what you’re doing in your first rebuttal for example.

Clash. Address opp’s arguments and explain to me how yours interact with theirs + why yours are better. Simple way to win.

PF-specific

PF’s intent is to be accessible to the average Joe. Don’t do anything that hinders that.

Generally tech>truth, but please don’t pull up with some nuke war argument that vaguely relates or anything else that requires a significantly unlikely chain of events.

I would rather vote for a well-warranted argument without an impact over a poorly-warranted one with a good impact.

Key voters are great for staying organized, but if you choose to do line-by-line just remember to signpost exceptionally well.

I don’t pay attention during cross. Unless something blatantly wrong happens.

LD-specific

Before I ever judged LD, I had only ever seen 3 LD debates. I’ll be able to follow along with your arguments, but progressive will be relatively difficult for me to evaluate in the scope of the round unless your warranting is pristine (which it should be anyway). Disads, CPs make the most sense to me. Topicality shells and K’s, somewhat. High risk, low reward if you run theory.

I will be considering based on quality over quantity arguments and prefer a conversational pace and the avoidance of overly technical debate jargon.

1. Conversational pace: A good pace for a conversation is one that allows for all participants to comfortably express their ideas and thoughts, while also engaging in active listening and responding to one another.

2. Quality over quantity arguments: It is important that arguments are well-reasoned and supported by evidence, rather than simply being lengthy or repetitive. I will consider the depth and thoughtfulness of the arguments presented, rather than the quantity.

3. Avoidance of debate jargon: Using jargon or specialized language can create barriers to understanding and hinder effective communication.

Overall, I will consider the balance and flow of the conversation, and how well the participants are able to effectively communicate and engage with one another in a respectful and constructive manner.

Public Forum:

I flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions and framework. Framework is very important to your case. Make sure you are clear in your contentions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem. You are there to convince me why your team wins-explain the impacts and weighing, FRAMEWORK and explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Be respectful of your opponents and let them talk during cross fire. You should be able to provide your cards, evidence quickly. You should be organized and have them quickly to provide competitor if asked. I will reject any extinction impacts. I will look at climate change and increasing threat of war, but the huge numbers used will not be counted. I do like when teams collapse to one or two best contentions and not the laundry list. Give me the impacts, weighing and why you win.

LD

LD is a speech form of debate and I need to understand your case and reasoning. Spreading is very common today, but it does not mean you are an excellent debater, logical or can convince someone to your side of the argument. You need to convince me, your contentions, framework and the reasons why you won the round. I will flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions, values and criterion. Make sure you are clear in your contentions, definitions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem for you. You are there to convince me why you win-explain the impacts, logic, reasoning explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Debate the resolution and topic. Some LD topics are more like PF but keep to the resolution. Plans and counterplans need to fit the resolution and debaters need to keep to the resolution.

Congress:

Make sure to advance the debate and there are differences betwen first, middle and ending speeches. Do not use debate lingo as please affirm is not done in Congressional debate. Do not use computers and read your notes. Make sure you have credible sources and know your topic. Be able to debate both sides of the topic. Two good/great speeches are better than 3 average/poor speeches so in other words, less can be more. I want you to particpate but quality is very important. You are there to persuade the members.

IE:

Impromptu: Biggest ranking is did you answer the question or prompt. Do you understand what is being asked. Make sure you are organized, confident and always each reason/point relates to the prompt.

Extemporaneous. Use good sources of material. Economic would be The Economist, Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times. New York Times is better than Arizona Republic but make sure you have good credible research. The topics are very advanced and in many cases specific so answer the question. You are to use persuation and logic, with your sources to convince me the answer-keep to the question.

I am a Varsity Lincoln Douglas Debater from Las Vegas. I enjoy judging debates and love hearing new arguments from different perspectives.

I don't love stupid theory arguments or K's but will hear them out if you want to run it

I personally do not mind considering abstract arguments as long as you can provide warrants and reasonable explanations. Maintaining a nice flow in your speeches and following your "road maps" would make it easier for me to flow your speeches.

I also appreciate good humor or any creativity in your speeches.

Please talk clearly, I don't mind if debaters spread but if I cannot understand what you're saying, then your points will not be recorded.

I will give extra speaker points if you bring me an iced caramel macchiato

My email is andrewlvds@gmail.com

I am a parent judge. I very much prefer the traditional debate format and appreciate clear and concise arguments. I also find roadmaps and guidelines very helpful.

Spreading: I do not appreciate spreading. I do, however, understand that spreading is sometimes necessary, like, e.g., when rebutting a long list of contentions. I will read the speech document to assist my understanding of the argument but feel strongly that it is contingent on the debater to make a clear and compelling argument during the debate.

Cards/references: I most appreciate debaters citing peer-reviewed publications, less so for media publications. I'm grateful of the debaters who clearly state the legitimacy of their references or the unreliability of their opponent's references.

Hello,
I have competed in Lincoln Douglass for 2 years during highschool. I currently still often engage in Lincoln Douglass debating at ASU where I attend. I would consider myself a tech judge. However, in order to truly gauge your performance and debating capabilities. I will purposely refrain from flowing any rounds. The purpose of this is in order to be able to fully engage myself in what you and your opponent has to say, to be able to be attentive to good solid logical progressions, proper line of reasoning, and most importantly your ability to properly keep track of your arguments and recall arguments which have gone in your favor, I will refrain myself from flowing. If this is a problem I sincerely apologize, however I can assure you with the utmost certainty that I am not a novice when it comes to debating. I will not be disclosing any of the rounds I judge, sorry.

No spreading. I am a parent judge and prefer Traditional debates. If I can't understand what you are saying, I won't consider those arguments. Don't add me to email chains.

I won't time you, please time each other. You can complete your sentence once time runs out, anything new will be dropped. I will deduct 0.5 speaker points for bad time management.

I prefer evidence based facts from credible sources over individual author opinions or emotional appeals. While I do consider logic in decisioning, those arguments needs to be well supported.

While I consider cross ex in my judging, make sure you address anything significant in your subsequent case or rebuttal. Otherwise I will drop those from Judging consideration.

Speaker points: I score in increments of 0.5.

General rule of thumb: One of the best debaters: 30 points; Above average: 29 points; Average debater: 28 points; Below average: 27 points

Excessive Spreading: 25 points; Offensive or outrageous: 20 points.

Hey! I'm Leighton Liu. I am a varsity debater for The Meadows School.

I expect both debaters to be polite and respectful to each other and have a clean fair debate.

Other than that, I will listen to most arguments as long as the evidence and explanation is sufficient. Please do not run theory.

Put me in the email chain, my email is ll856@icloud.com

I did policy debate for three years in high school, but I am not doing college debate so I am not familiar with the topic. I am ok with Kritiks, but please explain VERY thoroughly. I am ok with speed in the constructive speeches, but in the later rebuttal speeches, I would like for you to slow down so I can flow easier. I would also like to be included in the email chain, my email is teresanguyen143124@gmail.com

My name is Sujatha.

I am a first time judge for Policy debate. My judging will be based on logical approach and impacts presented in the round.

I ask that you speak with strong confidence and with clarity. As for speed, I ask you to speak at a conversation pace.

Be respetful during your rounds and act kindly.

Good luck

Updated 4/11/24 for the Chance National Qualifier - GOOD LUCK TO ALL competitors

I admire and appreciate your skill, ability and preparation. As Adam Smith articulated in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I work from the assumption that you are all praiseworthy. And, like Aristotle, I view our time together in this activity as a journey toward the good.*

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Congress

1. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, PO, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't.
2. I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos"the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
3. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

4. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

   https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

   http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

5. Members of our community who have taught me a great deal:

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

No spreading. I look for clear and concise arguments backed with evidence.

Haaaaaaiiiii<3333 (づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ

My name is Oliver Song. I'm a varsity debater at The Meadows School. I'm not super picky but there are things I WON'T VOTE FOR.

I do not like spreading!! Sorry! ლ(ಠ益ಠ)ლ

I will never NEVER, vote on RVIs. Never again. If you say the words "RVI" I will sit and stare at you with a disappointed face and write down nothing on my flow.

Please be nice !!!!! (✿◠‿◠)

Other than that the usuals. Have a clean fair debate. Keep in mind humor can sway me. Be respectful of your opponent. I will listen to almost any argument as long as you have adequate evidence and explanation

Lets all have fun and debate LIKE A BOSS! (⌐■_■)

Hi,

I'm Symphony Wang, a Senior Varsity Lincoln Douglas Debater from Las Vegas. I enjoy judging debates and love hearing new arguments from different perspectives. I personally do not mind considering abstract arguments as long as you can provide warrants and reasonable explanations. Maintaining a nice flow in your speeches and following your "road maps" would make it easier for me, and I would enjoy your speeches more. Finally, please keep in mind that we are a respective community, treat your opponents, and judges how you want to be treated!

Please talk clearly, I don't mind if debaters spread but if I cannot understand what you're saying, then your points will not be recorded.

Stay enthusiastic and have fun! :)

**NOVICE ONLY

I competed in speech and debate in high school mainly competing in congress but tried a couple other events as well. When judging congress, clash is important to me, I want to hear rebuttal in your speech. I don’t like canned speeches, I want to hear you responding to arguments. It’s important to me that everyone plays fairly as well and is respectful to their opponents.