I am a parent judge and vote based on VC and how well you defend any counter arguments. Clarity is better than speed. Please give me your voters in your final speech and weigh.

I am a head coach at Newark Science and have coached there for years. I teach LD during the summer at the Global Debate Symposium. I formerly taught LD at University of North Texas and I previously taught at Stanford's Summer Debate Institute.

The Affirmative must present an inherent problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.

This paradigm is for both policy and LD debate. I'm also fine with LD structured with a general framing and arguments that link back to that framing. Though in LD, resolutions are now generally structured so that the Affirmative advocates for something that is different from the status quo.

Speed
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, super clear tags are especially important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

For policy Debate (And LD, because I judge them the same way).
Same as for LD. Make sense. Big picture is important. I can't understand spreading dense philosophy. Don't assume I am already familiar with what you are saying. Explain things to me. Starting in 2013 our LDers have been highly influenced by the growing similarity between policy and LD. We tested the similarity of the activities in 2014 - 2015 by having two of our LDers be the first two students in the history of the Tournament of Champions to qualify in policy and LD in the same year. They did this by only attending three policy tournaments (The Old Scranton Tournament and Emory) on the Oceans topic running Reparations and USFG funding of The Association of Black Scuba Divers.

We are also in the process of building our policy program. Our teams tend to debate the resolution with non-util impacts or engages in methods debates. Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it.

I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.

Important: Don't curse in front of me. If the curse is an essential part of the textual evidence, I am more lenient. But that would be the exception.

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

Hi there! My name is Andrew, and I'm a current college senior. While in high school, I competed in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for Regis, but I haven't continued with debate since then (besides judging to help out my school when needed).

When I debated, my partner and I were considered staunchly "traditional": We argued the resolution as it was written, spoke slowly, and engaged with our opponents' arguments directly. That's definitely the style of debate I prefer — that said, I understand that that's not necessarily the trajectory of the activity these days, and my experience in LD means I'll probably understand whatever you throw my direction. If you have any more specific questions, just ask me before the round!

Please speak at a conversational pace. If I can't understand your argument, I can't flow your argument.

Prefer quality over quantity. One solid argument will persuade me more than a dozen undeveloped arguments.

When speaking, please introduce evidence with the author’s full name, qualifications, publication, and publication date. This information is essential to evaluating the strength of your evidence. While last name/year may be the minimum requirement per NSDA rules, it is not sufficient to win the ballot. Each piece of evidence should be introduced with a brief pause or by saying “quote/unquote.” This is necessary to distinguish between evidence and analysis.

Please signpost with arguments, not authors.

Please ensure that your evidence supports the claims you are making. Disconnects between claims and evidence will seriously damage your credibility.

LD Debate Judge Paradigm. (Sometimes I judge PF, too.)

Updated for Jan/Feb 2013!

Preferences:

1. TYPES OF ARGS: I will listen to and consider any type of argument, no matter how unorthodox or unusual, so long as it:

a. Respects the format of LD (time limited one-on-one debate related to the bi-monthly topic.)
b. Is not intentionally rude, offensive, or without any easily recognizable redeeming educational/social value*.

If, however, the argument you make is:

a. Trivial, without rigor, or poorly thought through, and dealt with as such by your opponent;
b. Neither topical or LD-theoretical*;
and/or
c. Never justified via warrant/impact/link*...

I am not likely to vote off of it.

*Narratives may fit these categories. Please do not ever read a case that describes graphic crime in front of me. Medical stuff is totally fine. (Review: Domestic violence narrative? bad. Describing MDRTB? fine.)

I like very observant, insightful cases and refutation that presents not just an advocacy, but a carefully constructed world-view. I believe values/standards analysis are important, but I leave it up to the debaters to decide how they wish to handle them. I believe there must be something to which you link and impact back to, however, so that I can sign my ballot one way or the other. I will frequently comment on the quality of arguments made, both in-case and in-round, but I will only vote off material which is actively "in play" in the round. So:

2.STRAT: Establish your position/advocacy. Link. Impact. Weigh extensively. Tell me why I should vote for you. If you do not tell me what to do with a given point "x", I will not vote off it unless there is literally nothing else for me to vote off of. Do not assume that I will auto extend drops, or that I will impact/link/weigh cross applications for you. It's your job to tell me why you win. If something is important to my ballot, please tell me so, and spend time on it.

3. I have never-not-once-ever decided a round on PRESUMPTION, even though I came close once.There's always something better to vote on, even if it's skills. I do try to advance the better debater. 99.6% of the time that's also the winning debater.

4. SPEED is absolutely fine so long as you enunciate card author names. If you're unclear, I will pipe up and tell you so. I use "CLEAR!" as an all-purpose shout of existential angst, though, so it could mean you're stumbling, gasping, too high pitched, or mumbling. If I call clear, you should probably err on the side of repeating a sentence, as I don't/can't shout and flow at the same time. If I tell you you're too high pitched or squeaky, please don't take offense. I took two semesters of graduate speech pathology classes at Columbia. I am as equally annoyed by high pitched female voices as I am annoyed by high pitched male voices. Speaking too loudly at too high a pitch, especially if you're dehydrated, can permanently damage your vocal cords.

5. REGARDING THEORY: I gut check, but I have voted off theory a few times this year, and I am becoming more sympathetic towards well-structured theory. I think our community is slowly settling into a reasonable use of theory following two or three years of really cruddy shells and confusing rounds. The following represents my views on mediocre or bad theory:
98% of the time when people run theory, I find that there is no actual abuse. I dislike people who run theory counter-interps when they easily could have run an "I meet." To me, this constitutes THEORY BAITING. Baiting theory is an ocelot thing to do. Please just win on substance if you can meet the interp! I am sympathetic to "I meet." I am not very sympathetic to ground arguments, unless you explain to me why the only ground left to you is really, really ridiculous. I do think NIBS are for pens, not cases, but I will entertain multiple burdens that equally constrain both debaters. I will gut-check, but if you ask me to gut-check, I will also call cases and read everything super carefully. I am also a super cranky person when I have to read cases before signing a ballot, so invoke my own personal opinion at your own risk. I will accept and evaluate both "drop the debater/RVI" and "drop the argument" debates, but I prefer "drop the argument" and will default to that if you either don't give me a voter or forget to extend it. All that having been said, if you feel you HAVE to run theory against someone or something, go ahead and do it.

On the other hand, I love a good T debate and will happy listen to you guys bat definitions back and forth. Bad T debate is highly discouraged. If you don't know the difference, look up the structure of T shells online.

6. Other thoughts: I might be embroidering ("sewing") during your prep or cx. Ignore this. Busy hands = quiet mind. Try it sometime.

Please don't say, "Aracelis, I've read your paradigm, and you don't like to hear X," during a round. It creeps me out, it probably creeps your opponent out, and it's just... well, creepy.If you want to talk about my paradigm, do it before the round.

I love topic lit. I read large amounts of topic lit to help my team. If you lie about topic lit, I will know, and I'll be unhappy, even if it won't effect my vote. On the other hand, a deep command of topic lit is always impressive, so demonstrating technical mastery + deep understanding is the ideal way to earn yourself higher speaks.

7. Speaks: I don't hand out 30s often. Don't be offended. My typical range is 27.5-29.5. I will go lower for bad behavior. Solid rounds usually earn a 28 or 28.5 tie. Someone who is obviously better can expect a 29. At 29.5 and 30, you're showing me superior time allocation, amazing strategic organization, deep knowledge of the topic, and the sort of transcendent explanation of Truth that causes me to feel like your speech has contributed something to society. You should shoot for that goal, but not be disappointed if you fall short. Annoying, pathological, or just plain old weird vocal/inhalation habits will get you docked speaks unless I can detect that whatever you're doing is wholly involuntary (lisping, r/l/w issues, spasmodic dysphonia, post-infectious laryngitis...) I have a pretty good ear for the difference between voluntary/weird stuff you picked up at camp.

LAST BUT NEVER LEAST,

Please don't be an ocelot. The word "Ocelot" also has limited assonance with a word that describes mean people. In the literal sense, an Ocelot is a small predatory cat. In the metaphorical sense, an Ocelot is what you shouldn't be. Win without being small, predatory, and catty.
And, have fun and make friends. :D

I am currently the Director of Debate at Collegiate School, where I have now coached for three years. Evidently I'm doing something right, because the people at Big Lex awarded me the Michael Bacon Coaching Award this year (2013) Previously, I coached for half a season at Brooklyn Technical High School. I have also previously judged for Bronx High School of Science (but who hasn't?) and as an independently hired judge at various round-robins and tournaments. I taught at a camp for three summers: '04, '05, and '06, and I debated on Long Island/locally in the Northeast for three years: '00-01 to '02-'03. 

I am a non-interventionist judge. I only judge on evidence and arguments presented in round by the debaters. Speed is fine but enunciation is key as are strong tags. Not my responsibility to tell you in round you are not clear. I willl vote on any argument as long as it is justified.

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP
Judging at TOC for: Heights EP, Heritage WT

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. The 1AC should be sent before the scheduled start time, and the 1AC should be ready to start their speech by the start time.

If I'm judging you in Policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy and LD: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

I consider myself to be 'tabula rasa' aka 'clean slate and will vote for anything if there is reason to vote for it on the flow. Weighing and key voters are very important with me. I was an LDer from 2009-2013 and coached from 2013-2014.

I am not a fan of spreading these days (haven't judged or coached regularly for years); however, I am okay if you choose to spread anyway-- it's 'at your own risk'. If I cannot understand you I will say 'clear' once and if you do not adjust I will stop flowing what you are reading.

Feel free to ask me about anything more specific.

I am a former policy and Lincoln Douglas debater. This is my third year of judging on the Arizona and national circuit. The simplified version of my philosophy is:

I will decide which debater's arguments as written on the flow makes the proposition "vote aff" or "vote neg" more true.

The following details may be useful to remember:

"arguments" are well developed links, warrants, and impacts. Assumptions may be implicit or explicit, but there will be less confusion the more explicit they are.

"on the flow" means that if I don't write it down I don't evaluate it. Reasons that something you say may not get written down incude, but are not limited to:

Excess speed / Insufficient clarity. I can handle most speed as long as your speech is clear

Disorganization. If I am trying to figure out where to write it, I'm not writing it. Signpost and minimize repeated switching between AC, NC, Off case, etc.

Confused exposition. Balance between saying too little and too much on each argument

"more true" is the crux of the matter. At the VLD level all debaters are capable of taking a set of assumptions and constructing a coherent argument leading to their desired conclusion. So how to decide between A and (not A)? It will come down which side asks me to make the most fantastic assumption. For example if AFF is asking me to believe that Magic Fairy Dust can supply 25% of the world's energy needs and NEG wants me to believe in Bostrom, I'll vote AFF.

The other thing I have to decide is Speaker points. An average debater at the national circuit level should expect 28 points, leaving me room to reward really excellent speakers. Things that cause me to deduct speaker points are ineffective or obnoxious CX, extreme disorganization, and general unfamiliarity with the norms and practices of LD.

I won't list my defaults for such things as whether I favor competing interps versus reasonability, because if I am deciding based on my defaults neither debater has grounds to be upset at the results.

I'm an open college debater with 4 years of highschool policy debate experience.

In general, I'll be your flow-bot. General preferences include total and consistent clarity, depth over breath, unconditional respect for everyone in the debate, and why not brighten my day with a smile?

Affs/Performance: Consistent roll of the ballot, please - whether that means defending your plan or resisting pseudo-speciation. I'll protect the 2nr from total 2ar recharictarization of the debate. Other than that, run whatever you want. 

Kritiks: I'm decently well read, and this means I'll tend to "do work for you" without even knowing that I'm doing so; that is, I understand the jargon. That being said, I will not do any work for teams failing to apply their K to the particularity of the aff. K debate is about framing the relationship of the impact and the link. 

CP/DA/case: I'm game. Despite that I read and deploy the K more often, I actually prefer this type of debate becasue it almost always inevitably involves more clash. Be creative. Impact calc is a must. I'll read your evidence. Brink threshold and internal link magnitude are important yet unfortunately often absent from rebuttals.

T/Procedural: I'll vote on "stock issues". But for the sake of your speaker points (unless you have topic specific evidence that specicifcation has a quantifiable solvency deficit or theoritcal disadvantage), don't run spec arguments. 

Debate experience: I debate for two years and half years in High School for Benjamin Banneker Academy and about 2 years in college. 

I am currently a sophmore debating for Brooklyn College (CUNY) as JV/Open.

• I am open to any sort of argument that anyone makes. I've had my fair share of policy and I am slowly transitioning into K debate, so I am a bit more understanding and tolerant of Kritiks. That is not to say I don't vote on kritiks. I just feel there needs to be a better explanation of the kritik and what it does, the same goes for policy. You know what? Everything needs good explanation. Period.
• I like to vote on the flow. I don't like intervening as a judge (unless told otherwise). Every argument needs to be explained at least one, so if you're going to just extend a bunch of arguments make sure they're explained! ( Have you picked up on the pattern?)
• If you're paperless or some form of paperless then I do not count flashing as prep. However, if the time it takes to flash becomes too extensive then I will run prep. I also give 10 minutes of free time to fix any proven technical issue you maybe experiencing in the debate round.
• I always prefer that debaters treat each other with respect. There is only a certain level of snarky that I will allow in the debate round before I start deducting speaker points. You don't have to be nice but you certainly don't have to be rude. Cursing is fine, keep to a minimum and if you're going to get up and say offensive things please have a reason. Don't just say offensive things because it's debate.
• Speed is not an issue but if you go too fast or unclear then I will let you know. I would prefer that you read at a consistent pace as oppose to really loud speed reading, but don't let my preference deter you from doing what you do best.
• I really like Impact Calculus. I think it's really important part of the debate. I look to it as a first and last resort in all situations. If Impact calculus isn't really well done then I just need a really clear reason as to why you win the debate round and we can go from there.
• Theory: Theory is really an important issue in the debate especially when you can prove actual in round abuse. If someone runs 6+ off-case then maybe condo is good theory to run. I will vote on theory under certain conditions. 1. There is actual in-round abuse, potential abuse needs more work but I don't buy it (half the time). 2. It's dropped 3. It's debated properly and there are actual reasons to believe the other team is lacking in the theory flow. Often times I will default to not voting for theory if a team makes just enough arguments to drop it...simply: please don't make evaluate theory debates! (My favorite theory arguments: floating pics bad, pref con good and bad, utopian good and bad).
• Topicality: I love a good T debate. I feel that the best part of a T debate is when the negative spins the story really well and they prove that AFF is being abusive not just by how the C/I is bad and abusive but how the AFF causes actual in-round abuse.
• DisAd: I like a good DisAd debate. Seriously, there nothing more that I would like to hear than the aff messing up the status qou. Things are usually fair game. For DisAds, I like a lot of warrant analysis is needed so I can understand how the affirmative cause the status qou to change. I don't count reading a 10000 impact cards as impact calc.
• CounterPlans- These are the worse things in the world. I will vote for them, but the first piece of offense I look forward is the perm. Please perm a CP...make up dribble (make it make sense). I like permutation text, I feel it's a good way to resolve a lot of abuse in the debate round and help teams win the flow better. I don't like voting on net benefit-less CPs (I don't think anyone does)
• Case: This is tricky. If the Affirmative is losing on solvency, I will often feel obligated to give them the the chance of 1% (if that argument is made; this by no means that this is the norm. It is simply under certain circumstances) I'm more often going to depend on the offense/defense paradigm for this. 
• Kritiks: Explain the Kritik to me well. Explain the Kritik to me so well that you think, if you don't explain well enough, that I am going to drop you and vote AFF or NEG on presumption. I am learning how to run Kritiks. They're fun. I like CAP the most. 
  - Not a big fan of linear disads. 
• Framework: Framework debates are good. I prefer state enacting frameworks. Whatever other framework you present is fine also. 

Dear All: As you can tell from judging history, I judge LD sparingly if at all over the last few years. My role in the activity is mostly yelling at people to start their rounds. Take your chances with my abilities to follow what is taking place. I don’t have predispositions to vote for anything in particular. My views that “bait theory” incline me to not want to vote for you if that is your primary strategy is still as true now as it was five years ago. Outside of that, I am open to whatever you can do well and justify that is interesting.

Since I am judging more PF these days:
Clear ballot story. I care about evidence. If you are paraphrasing in your case constructive, you had better have tagged, cited, and lined down carded evidence to support what you say. If you are looking for evidence in your prep time or in cross ex or I have to wait 5 minutes for you to find something before prep time even starts, you are debating from behind and your speaks will reflect your lack of preparation.

CX: Don't talk over each other. They ask a question, you ask a question. Bullies are bullies. I don't like bullies.
If it wasn't in the summary, it doesn't become offense in the Final Focus. Sign-post well. Have a ballot story in mind.

I hate generic link stories that culminate in lives and poverty. The link level matters a lot more to me than the impact level. Develop your link level better. High Probability/Low Magnitude impacts > Low Probability High Magnitude impacts.

Don't be a baby. If you and your coaches are trying to get cheap wins by bullying people with Ks and Theory and hand-me-down shells from your teams former policy back files, go to policy camp and learn how to become a policy debater. Disclosure is for plan texts. If you are running a plan, disclose it on the wiki. If you are not, no need to disclose. Disclosure privileges resource-rich debate programs with a team of people to prep your kids out.

Hi everyone!

I'm a world history teacher at Dover-Sherborn High School. I'm looking forward to hearing some awesome PF debates today!

I have previous judging experience in Varsity LD debate, but that was back in 2019 - so I'm looking for clarity and organization in your arguments, links, and coverage. Please signpost as you go.

Best of luck!

Cassidy Donohue

I’m the Executive Director of National Symposium for Debate, as well as the site director for NSD’s Flagship LD camp. I’m also an assistant LD coach for Lake Highland Prep.

I debated circuit LD for 4 years in high school, and I graduated in 2003. For what it’s worth, I cleared twice at TOC, and I was in finals my senior year. Since then, I have actively coached LD on the national circuit. For a period, I was a full time classroom teacher and debate coach. I have also coached individually and worked as an assistant coach for a number of circuit programs. I coach/judge at 8-10 TOC level tournaments per year.

Email for docs: tomevnen@gmail.com

TLDR rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 1
Policy - 2
Theory - 1
Tricks - 2
T vs K aff; K aff vs T - 1 (I’m happy on both sides of these debates, regularly vote both ways in these debates, and coach both ways in these debates)

Longer explanation of rankings:

Re my policy ranking - Feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them frequently. I’ll admit that I do the least amount of thinking and researching on the policy wing of topics. This probably makes me an OK, but not excellent, judge of policy vs policy rounds. In policy vs something else rounds, the 2 ranking doesn’t affect things much, except see paragraph below.

Re my tricks ranking - Again, feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them (and against them) frequently. I find well thought out tricks that are integrated with the substance of your phil framework or K interesting. I find a lot of other tricks fairly boring. Again, see paragraph below on adaptation.

Generally speaking, I won’t have any objection to what you read. You are usually better off reading your A strategy in front of me than substantially diverging from that strategy to adapt to me. When relevant, you should tweak your A strategy to recognize that I am also open to and comfortable with the standard maneuvers of debate styles other than yours. For example, if your preference is policy arguments and you are debating a K, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume you can cross-apply the aff or that extinction outweighs the K, when contested. Similarly, if you are a phil debater, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume that your phil framework precludes the util tricks (modesty, extinction first, etc.).

Whatever your style, if you have thought carefully about strategic interactions with opposing styles, and you are comfortable winning those debates in front of a judge who does not assume all of your priors, I will be a fine judge for you. If you need a judge who is strictly “in your lane” stylistically, then there will be matchups where I am not your ideal judge.

In terms of my familiarity with arguments: in phil lit, I am well read in analytic and continental philosophy (less so analytic philosophy, except in the area of ethics) and in the groups in between (Hegel and post-Hegelians, for example). In K lit, I’m well read in critical/Marxist theory and high theory, and I’m pretty comfortable (though slightly less well read) with the identity literature. I actively coach debaters on all of the above, as well as on theory, T vs K affs, K affs vs T, and (some) tricks. My debaters read some policy args, and there are scenarios where I encourage that, but I am less involved in coaching those arguments.

Miscellaneous

As a general policy, I don't disclose speaks.

Generally speaking, I'm not very receptive to arguments like "evaluate after the 1n" or "no neg analytics" (you know the genre). I'm fine with these arguments when they are scenario specific, and you can give an explanation why a type of argument needed to be made in a specific speech; obviously those arguments are sometimes true. Otherwise, I don't think these arguments are worth reading in front of me -- I never find myself comfortable making decisions based on sweeping claims that mean debaters generally can't respond to arguments.

I judged LD for the 4 years when my daughter was on the circuit and am now back in the mix with my son. Mostly, I judged in local and regional tournaments, but did a few JV rounds at Harvard, NSDA regionals, and NCFL nationals. I also debated LD when I was in high school (yes, we had LD last century), so I am more old school than new school.

General

- I am pretty big on framework and impacts. Give me a clear idea of how your arguments link to weighting mechanisms, impacts, etc.

- I will not do your job for you. Extend your arguments, draw links to your framework, and make it clear what you think the voting issues are in the round

- I judge strictly on what is presented in the round, but clearly bogus arguments or "evidence" will have little or no weight with me

- Be competitive but cool.

Speed

- I am not afraid of the spread, I can read fast enough to follow when you flash the doc - but during round when you are addressing arguments that are not on the doc, or identifying voters, or telling me why you win - then you need to SLOW DOWN.

- If you are discussing a deep philosophical idea, then it's probably a pretty good idea to slow down.

- Don't try to spread your opponent out of the round if they are clearly out of their depth, again = be competitive but cool

Theory/K

- I can't say I am the most well-versed theory judge ever. If you make a good argument that is well structured, then I am fine with it. That said, there is no way you can skew your opponent out of the round or sneak in some spike that automatically wins the round for you. So, I wouldn't spend too much time on it.

- I like the K and think it can really open up some interesting avenues for the debate. But, be careful of layering arguments that contradict your a priori arguments for why we shouldn't be having this particular debate in the first place.

- Have a STRONG link. I will be sensitive to the argument that the K is trying to grab infinite ground - because without the link, you are.

Speaks

- less than 25 means you were NOT COOL. You will know at the end of the round, or maybe during, if it gets to that point

- 25-29 most of the time, I will give low point wins if your logic/evidence/case was just better at the end of the day

- 30 for the exceptional

I’ve been coaching debate of all varieties for over 20 years now. I love this activity, and believe it teaches some important and useful skills.

What you want to know:

1. Speed is fine. Be clear.

2. Disclosure is preferable at circuit tournaments (I’m less concerned about it locally).

3. Progressive arguments, in general, are good by me. Some caveats:

A. I generally prefer to vote on substantive issues over procedural ones. My threshold for theory is fairly strict, and the abuse has to be pretty clear.
B. Tricks aren’t cute. They’re intellectually dishonest bad faith arguments that I think are bad for debate. Run them if you must, but I’m generally disinclined to reward them.
C. Kritiks based on identity arguments (fem rage/trans rage/etc.) are relevant and important, but if you do not identify with the positionality upon which the kritik is based, and are running the argument for its strategic value, you are doing a really bad thing by co-opting a discourse to which you have no right or claim, and commodifying it for wins. Do better.

4. Good impact analysis is important to me, explain clearly why you should win. Tell me the story you want me to believe.

5. Don’t tell lies. Bad debate math counts as lies. I’m happy to evaluate all arguments, but lies are not arguments. There isn’t room in this activity for intellectual dishonesty.

6. Have fun, be kind and generous and charitable. This is a really rewarding game, even when you take an L. Enjoy it, and help others enjoy it too.

Edit for 2024: This applies largely to high school LD debate. I believe these things in general for all debate, but ask me if you have questions about specifics at a tournament. Thank you!

I debated LD on the local and national circuit for Westlake High School in Texas, graduating in 2013. I coached Scarsdale High School, and currently coach for Walt Whitman High School.

I will vote on any argument so long as the conclusion follows from the premises–my primary aim is to operate under the shared assumptions held by both debaters, so I will avoid "defaulting" on any framing issue at all costs and will detest being forced to do so. I will evaluate arguments as they are presented on the flow, so I will always prioritize explicit over implicit comparison made between arguments. If you'd like me to be on an email chain, send everything to mgorthey@gmail.com.

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Strike me if you plan on trying to be a policy debater in a Lincoln Douglas round.

1. If you don’t sign post and tell me exactly where your argument goes - then I will not do the guessing for you.

2. You cannot just make the statement like "they dropped my argument". You can’t just say extend this or that, you need a warrant your arguments and flush them out.

3. Not a fan of speed. I can handle some but if I can’t understand because your head is down and you are trying to spread and you don’t even notice that I am not flowing. That is on you. LOOK UP - then you will know if I am with you.

4. Don’t have 8 contentions and you only intend to go for 3 - run those best three. I appreciate a good debate as opposed to trying to play the "they didn't address our argument that stubbing my toe will lead to nuclear war". I don't vote on nuclear war. Come on - be original with your arguments.

I PREFER DEPTH OVER BREATH - LET ME HEAR YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR ARGUEMENT EVEN IS.

5. Clearly tell me what your contentions are, your values anything you want me to vote - I suggest you tell me what I need to vote on.

6. Don't get up there and say "oops I brought the wrong case, but I will give it a try" and wonder why you possibly lose.

7. When I give my RFD - arguing with me will get you nowhere - but possibly loss in speaker points.

8. I have many years and experience in the military as a veteran - tread lightly and if you go for some type of argument that involves the military - I suggest you know what you are talking about. 

9. Pet Peeve - do NOT ask me my paradigm at the beginning of the round and then completely ignore it.

10. I do judge the cx – so make it count.

So my summary in a nice little polka dot bow:

I want a good debater. My decisions rest on the value – criterion and the contentions. Be very clear as to why your value is better than theirs. I won’t evaluate theory arguments – and I definitely won’t vote on some random argument that you used to put your framework on steroids.

IT IS UP TO YOU TO WIN OR LOSE MY BALLOT-- HOOK EM HORNS \m/

I started out as an old-school LD debate coach & judge, and that's still pretty much my mindset no matter what I'm judging.
I love debate and view it not so much as a means for one side to beat another, but for all involved to be able to have a broader understanding of the issues that we face in current events. I also hope this event fosters a deeper understanding of the philosophical and theoretical ideas that weave their way throughout the different ways we talk to and learn from each other and that influence how we vote and otherwise act in the world.

I view all debate as a public speaking event first; speed/spreading (which I despise to the ends of the world), speaking with your face in a laptop or other device, sloppy articulation, etc., will tilt me toward voting for your opponent, and will definitely result in reduced speaker points.

I flow all speeches in debates & take notes on CX. My tech-leaning students describe me as a flow/lay/flay judge. I try to quote from my flow/notes/jumble of words to support which side I voted for and why.

I understand that no one is truly tabula rasa, but it is an ideal that I strive for. I love me a good, solid framework and clearly articulated voting issues, and a values clash is essential in LD. If you don't signpost, I promise I'll be lost 30 seconds into your speech. I look for claims supported by warrants & data, as well as clearly articulated impacts. In LD, I'll buy logic and clear analysis over stats if the analysis is logical and truly links to the resolution, claim, etc., being addressed.

In PF (and sometimes LD), I feel there is some leeway for judge "intervention" in the NCFL by-law that directs us to ask, "Were the arguments intelligent?" E.g., if a case asserts that prison rehabilitation can lead to nuclear war, I will have a ridiculously low bar for refutation.

I have coached LD and PF for about 15 years now, but I am not a professional debater. I am a flow judge, and I prefer classic debate with clear clash, not jargon-laden spreaders with theory and K shells. I value clash and technical debate, but I will not vote for a blatantly false argument even if it is dropped.

Clear your impacts. I am OK with some speed, but you must be clear. At least slow down through authors and taglines. In the end, if I can't understand you, you will lose.

Extend, don't drop. I will consider dropped arguments to be conceded. Even if the other turn drops a turn, you should extend your warrant. Tell me what was conceded and why it matters.

Weigh your argument. The last two speeches should be about weighing and crystallization, not new arguments or a rehash of old ones. Tell me how to weigh your round, because if I choose the weighing mechanism, you might not win.

Don't make me work. If you tell me, I'll flow it, unless it goes by too fast. The more you link, the less I have to think. I will make reasonable assumptions and discount abusive arguments even if you don't call them out explicitly, but the more work I have to do, the less predictable the outcome will be for you.

Evidence clash is mostly neutral. I don't judge Policy. Trying to outweigh on evidence is not going to go very far for me. In most cases, if you toss just cards at each other, I will call that a wash.

I am on the planning committee for the Texas Debate Collective and the director for NSD Philadelphia I'm a MA candidate in American Studies where I'm working on the intersection between Asian-American and Disability Studies. I coach Loyola JC, Bronx Science YW, and Bergen County EL.

Overview

1. The round belongs to its debaters, not the judge, so it's the job of the debaters to tell me who won, not the other way around. I do my best to evaluate rounds in terms of least intervention, which means I search first for weighing as a means to scale what the key issues are, then examine the arguments thereof. The biases and defaults in this paradigm are meant to help you, not to restrict what you want to do.
2. If you use the word "retarded" as an equivalence to the word "stupid" or "bad" without acknowledgement (that is, an apology upon saying it), I will drop you

Evidence Ethics/ Clipping Cards/ etc.

1. Evidence ethics is an argument to be made in the debate round. I will not stop the round because of an accusation of people miscutting or misusing evidence, for there is a fair academic debate to be had.
2. Card clipping: I will review recordings if available. To accuse someone of clipping cards will cause the round to stop. I'll decide using whatever material I have to figure out if somebody has clipped. If I decide a debater was clipping, I will give that person a L20. If the person accusing is wrong, for I have decided that clipping did not occur, I will give the accuser a L20. I have never judged an accusation of card clipping. I'm not as good at flowing as other judges are, and will invariably give somebody the benefit of the doubt that they did not clip cards.

Speaks:

1. I evaluate speaker points on strategy, arg quality, time allocation, and if you are respectful and nice. When did nice become equated with weakness? I am not impressed by overt-aggression or ad hominen styles of debate. Micro versions of this include "You should've listened in lab more!" or "I have no idea what you're thinking!" Come on. If it's nasty to say to somebody outside of debate it absolutely is in the debate round. Kindness should matter more.
2. What I do not factor in, however, is literal speaking clarity, efficiency, etc.
3. I don't consider the number of times I say clear or slow into speaker points
4. I will not evaluate arguments about "not calling blocks" or what not. Similarly, you can't just tell me to give you a 30.
5. I won't give you higher speaks if you end your speech early- nor will I sign the ballot before the end of the 2AR. I don't know why judges do this. This sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
6. I don't find stand up 2ARs or 2NRs perceptually dominant at all

Post- Round

1. I think post-round discussion is valuable. However, if debater A has just lost the round, and in A’s questioning of the judge, opponent B decides to comment and enter into this conversation, I will drop opponent B’s speaker points and get angry in the process
2. If I sit and you are the winner (that is, the other 2 judges voted for you), and would like to ask me extensive questions, I will ask that you let the other RFDs be given and then let the opponent leave before asking me more questions. I'm fine answering questions, but just to be fair the other people in the room should be allowed to leave.

debated for four years (3 in LD, 1 in policy) and now i coach Greenhill!

the good
- i like it when debaters talk about the tournament topic, however creatively interpreted
- i like policy args a lot, this is a safe go-to strat for me
- i think k debates are my favorite debates to judge so if you have them in your toolbox you should pull them out.
- re k vs T/framework: i love me a good critical aff. but! I also love me a good non-generic framework shell. I'd prefer a critical aff that could be construed as topical (you can tell me what that means though!).
- FYI you don't win just because you said "X thing is rly bad". give me some way to grapple with it. doesn't have to be state action.
- i think T debates are a lot of fun

the bad
- i won't vote on arguments that imply nothing or everything is morally permissible.
- i'm bad for a dense analytic philosophy debate. haven't read the lit, can't really keep up, sorry. 
- that being said I'd prefer if you went for something that you're good at explaining even if it's not my favorite argument, as opposed to reading what you think is my favorite argument and explaining it badly
- i really really don't like theory for the sake of having theory in the speech doc. i don't have a clear standard for what counts as "frivolous" but jobes, use common sense. if you see me pulling a face and shaking my head (i'm really expressive!) you should just say "nvm" and skip to the next thing in ur doc because odds are I will just go "la la la" and pretend i never flowed the argument

misc/speaker stuff
- i'm probably tired and distracted when i'm judging you, so be interesting and emphasize the things you want me to pay attention to.
- if ur debating someone who is obviously less experienced than you are, please don't be mean. slow down and make the debate as fun and educational for them as possible. we've all been there before, and I'll raise your speaks for it.
- sass is great and fun to watch, unnecessary rudeness/pettiness are annoying .
- racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise offensive comments = L0
- plez disclose ("but i'll be kicked off the team if i disclose" i do not believe u. strike me.)

Harvard 2024 Update: Hi! I took time away from debate in 2020 to focus on mental health. It’s been a while, so I may be rusty and have certainly not kept up with new trends and developments in “the meta”. Please start at 70% top speed if it’s round 1-2. And please be kind to each other. I’ve missed debate and I’m excited to come out of “retirement” to judge again.

Background: LD in HS, CX at Cornell, coached for over 8 years in the Northeast.

The short: I want to see you being the best version of yourself in whatever form of debate you're inclined to. I have a few defaults but will generally evaluate the round however debaters would like me to. I don’t inflate speaks. Please be kind. I’ll call for evidence if I need it; no need to put me on the email chain.

Do

• strategic issue selection, i.e., don't go for everything in your last speech
• organization
• clash
• extend the whole argument: claim, warrant, impact, implication.
• thorough evidence comparison
• clear and thoughtful impact calc
• 30s are for people I think are a model of what debate should and can be. It's not enough to be good at debate; be good for debate.
• Circuit debaters should be nice to transitioning debaters from JV and more traditional programs. That does not mean don't do your best or compromise your round; however, it does mean giving clear answers in CX, making efforts to accommodate for tech, and maybe considering 3 off instead of 4 off.
• FLOW. +up to 0.5 speaks for a good flow. If you tell me you have a good flow and show me at the end of the round before I submit my decision, you will be eligible for some game-y speaker points.

Don't

• steal prep.
• play in CX. answer the question.
• have excessively long underviews. Read a better aff.
• read excessively long overviews. If you have a 1min+ long overview, I would prefer you read it at the bottom after you have done line-by-line. I promise I will get more of it if you do that.
• tag things as independent voters; just weigh. Do the work to resolve arguments so that I don't have to. Calling something independent doesn't make it independent from the rest of the reps/performances/args in the round.
• be a coward. Engage. Have the debate.

Kritiks

• these debates are best when debaters have a lot of content/topic knowledge and can make the connection to their theory of power. It seems sophomoric to critique something you have a limited understanding of. A lot of your authors have likely spent a lot of time writing historical analyses and it would be remiss to be ignorant of that.
• high threshold for explanations
• spend more time explaining the internal link between the speech act or the performance and the impact
• Really sympathetic to voting neg on presumption if the aff doesn't clearly articulate how the aff is a move from the status quo.
• please don't read model minority type args

Policy style arguments (LARP)

• love a well-researched position. Do it if it's your thing.
• probably the easiest type of debate for me to evaluate.
• 90% of time you just gotta do the weighing/impact calc.

T v. stock/larp

• read it
• competing interps
• RVIs on T are a tough sell in front of me

T/FW v. K affs

• these debate becomes better as methods debates implicating the relationship amongst form, content, and norms
• sometimes these get messy. I need more explanation of the implication of the arguments and how to sequence my evaluation.
• Go slow and collapse early

Theory

• Because I default competing interpretations, I treat these as CP/DA debates unless otherwise argued in round. To win my ballot, my RFD should be able to explain the abuse story, the structural implications for the activity (and its significance), and why your interpretation is the best norm to resolve those impacts. If you are not clearly explaining this, then I will have a difficult voting on it.
• I won't vote off:
  • "new affs bad"
  • "need an explicit text" interps
  • disclosure against novices and traditional debaters
• I am sympathetic to a "gut-check" on frivolous theory
• Good interps to run:
  • condo bad;
  • abusive perms bad (severance perms, intrinsic perms, etc);
  • abusive CPs bad (delay CPs, etc);
  • abusive fiat bad (object fiat, multiactor fiat, etc).
• If I'm being honest, I don't enjoy flowing more than 20 sec worth of spikes/theory pre-empts at the bottom of the AC; just read a better aff
• I don't have many defaults about 1ar theory, but generally think it's a poor strategic decision

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

I did LD successfully for four years on the national circuit for Walt Whitman High School in Maryland, graduating in 2010. I now coach at Whitman.

I will vote on any argument if you win it. Since my principal aim is to avoid intervening, it is very important for you to compare arguments. If debaters are extending arguments for competing claims, I won't do my own comparison between the arguments as long as one of the debaters has explained why I should prefer theirs. Explaining why I should prefer your argument requires giving some argument for why you are labeling it the way you are. I will not vote for you just because you label every framework argument as "precluding everything else" or every link into fairness as "controlling the internal link," etc. -- this sort of thing does not make you the better debater.

Speed is fine, but slow down on short analytics, especially spikes, interpretations, and violations, and complicated cards. I won't vote on arguments I couldn't flow the first time I heard them. I will say "clear" and "slow" if necessary, but that means I already missed something.

I don’t presume either way absent presumption arguments made by the debaters – I’ll vote for the side that requires me to do less work.

I am a parent of a Hunter College High School PF debater. I have judged both LD and PF, with more experience in LD. I can handle speed, but probably not full on spreading.

I can be sympathetic to arguments over frame and theory. But, in my opinion, the main ethical context in a debate round is the round itself. So any arguments about frame and theory, or alleged abusiveness, should be shown to be rooted in the resolution itself or in the conduct of the round being debated.

Signposting can be either implicit or explicit. Dropped arguments are more of a factor when they are shown to be important arguments rather than tangential ones. A coherent account of voting issues is very useful to me as a judge, as is weighing of impacts.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

While congressional debate is most certainly an argument, this debate event takes the form of one long and continuous coversation that is more akin to a socratic seminar than to a structured debate. Entering the conversation where it is is the most important skill for any congressional debater. It is from that point that I expect each speaker to begin and then to advance the argument. Referencing the speakers who came before and their contributions to the conversation is integral to fully placing new points or extensions of points already made. While summary and crystalization has its place later in the debate, rehash has no place in a well presented congressional speech. I also look for gracious behavior at all times focusing on the strengthes and weaknesses of other arguments but no the speakers themselves. I have no patience for speakers who try to elevate themselves by putting down others.

Individual Events Paradigm:

I have coached speech and debate since 2010, but in recent years my coaching is focused on speech. I see every speech event as an argument, so I am in search of an important message, explicit or implicit, in every performance or speech I judge. Beyond message, I look for a coherent argument whether you have crafted this with your own words with original oratory, responding to a question in extemporaneous speaking, or making your argument in a program or performance in interpretation. In Informational speaking, I am looking to be exposed to relevant informaition around a topic of importance in society but without a position, an advocacy, or solutions. In all of these forms, I expect to be engaged and compelled to listen to what you are saying. This is speech where how you say it matters just as much as what you say. And, while I love creative and edgy pieces that take me from my comfort zone, every single word should work to convey and elevate your message and do so at no one's expense. I will not reward hurtful, harmful or thoughtless words or actions.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am a traditionalist and expect that the value and criterion will be buttressed with a philosophical underpinning.

I do not appreciate spreading. Speak at a normal speed.

In PF debates, I do not stop time for a team to ask for evidence from an opponent. I expect each team to supply the requested URL or source in a timely manner within the requesting team's prep time. In short, I expect good sportsmanship on both sides, but "time outs" to ask for evidence slow down the pace and let the air out of the debating balloon, so to speak.

In PF cross-fire, I do not appreciate long prefacing before the asking of a question.

I competed for four years in Lincoln Douglas debate, graduating high school in 2013. I debated on the national circuit.

As of Columbia 2019, I have judged once in the past two years, so I will not be up to date on recent trends in debate. I do not evaluate embedded clash. Arguments must be clearly warranted and impacted. I enjoy strategic debate. I do not have a preference for a particular style.

See my Judge Philosophies wiki

Background: I was a policy debater for Dimond High School in Anchorage, AK; in college, I debated in CEDA 4 years for Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa, ID. I have coached policy, LD, and I.E.'s at Meridian High School in Boise, ID, Sammamish High School in Seattle, WA, and currently with Eastside Catholic High School in Sammamish, WA. I have had two textbooks on competitive debate published by National Textbook Company (now McGraw-Hill): Moving from Policy to Value Debate and Debating by Doing. I have coached LD competitors at the 2015 Tournament of Champions and at several NFL Nationals tournaments. I have judged many policy and LD high school debate rounds locally in WA and at national circuit tournaments.

Approach: I see competitive debate as a strategic activity where both sides attempt to exclude the other’s arguments and keep them from functioning. As such, I expect both debaters to argue the evaluative frameworks that apply in this particular round and how they function with regard to the positions that have been advanced.

My Ballot: The better you access my ballot, the more you keep me from intervening. You access my ballot best when you clearly and simply tell me (1) what argument you won, (2) why you won it, and (3) why that means you win the round. Don’t under-estimate the importance of #3: It would be a mistake to assume that all arguments are voters and that winning the argument means you win the round. You need to clearly provide the comparative analysis by which arguments should be weighed or you risk the round by leaving that analysis in my hands. I will not look to evaluate every nuance of the line-by-line; it is your responsibility to tell me which arguments are most relevant and significant to the decision.

Let’s use Theory RVIs as an example. Some judges disfavor these arguments, but in front of me, they are perfectly acceptable. However, the fact that you beat back a theory position from your opponent does not, in and of itself, provide you access to an RVI. To win an RVI posted against a theory position generally requires that you demonstrate that your opponent ran the argument in bad faith (e.g., only as a time suck, without intent to go for the argument), and that the argument caused actual harm in the round. When it comes to potential abuse, I tend to agree with the Supreme Court's view in FCC v. Pacifica: "Invalidating any rule on the basis of its hypothetical application to situations not before the Court is 'strong medicine' to be applied 'sparingly and only as a last resort.'" You certainly can argue for a different evaluative framework for the RVI, but you cannot assume that I already have one.

Think, before you start your rebuttal(s). Ask yourself, what do I have to win in order to win the round? Whatever the answer to that question is, that is where you start and end your speech.

Paradigm: The most important thing I can do in any debate round is to critique the arguments presented in the round. As such, I consider myself very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative about how you do it. What that means for debaters is that you can run just about any argument you like, but you will need to be persuasive and thorough about how you do it. If you run theory, for example, you will need to understand the jurisdictional nature of theory arguments and either provide a compelling argument why the violation is so critical that dropping the debater is the only appropriate remedy or a convincing justification as to why theory should have a low threshold (competing interps). I try very hard not to inject myself into the debate, and I do my best to allow the speakers to develop what they think are the important issues.

Additional Items to Consider:

1. Speed is fine, but don’t chop off the ends of your words, or I will have trouble understanding you. Rapid speech is no excuse for failing to enunciate and emphasize arguments you want to be sure I get on my flow.

 2. Argue competing paradigms. This is true in every form of debate. I am not married to any single framework, but too often, the underlying assumptions of how I need to view the round to give your arguments more impact than those of your opponent go unstated, much less debated. Tell me WHY your argument matters most. It’s okay to shift my paradigm to better access your impacts; just tell me why I should do so and how.

 3. Presumption is a framework issue but is given short shrift almost every time I hear it argued. My default position is to be skeptical of any proposition until there is good and sufficient reason to accept it. That means presumption generally lies against the resolution until the affirmative presents a prima facie case to accept it. If you want to shift presumption so that it lies in a different position (with the prevailing attitude, in favor of fundamental human rights, etc.), then be sure to justify the shift in mindset and clearly explain whether that means we err on the side of the resolution being true or false.

I debated Lincoln-Douglas for Newark Science and graduated in 2012. I am currently a counselor for Newark Public Schools. I have been in and out of debate, mostly out, since graduating which means I understand the structure and argument styles in debate and commonly used literature. That being said, I don't flow every weekend like many of you, or even once a month. Especially if it's earlier in the tournament give me some time to catch up with ya'll. Don't run frivolous theory in front of me. When I debated, i ran critical arguments/Ks, and thus am open to and enjoy them. Just make sure the role of the ballot is clear and communicated throughout your speeches. Speaker points are determined usually by how well i'm able to follow your speech and whether I'll be bored during the round.

Otherwise, have fun and feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

E-mail: norberto.romero.r@gmail.com

About Me: Graduated from Scarsdale High School in '09, and coached for the team for a few years after that. I now judge at 5 tournaments a year max.

SPEED: Do not go exceptionally fast in front of me. I don't like excessive speed, and I cannot flow it. I will say clear when i am 100% unable to comprehend you. That means just because I am not saying clear, it does not mean I am getting everything you are saying. If you want a 29 or above, you need to go slow enough to be persuasive. Things like tempo, enunciation, and flavor of speech affect how I will treat an argument, and will affect your speaks.

THEORY: Don't run frivolous theory. I'm not a huge fan of the shell form. I prefer arguments like this, "On his definition of X. Prefer my definition because (1)...(2)..." over arguments lodged in shell form.

RVIs: Go real slow and be persuasive on the RVI debate cuz I cant deal with the pile of one sentence blips that RVI debates usually consist of.

EXTENSIONS: Extensions in front of me MUST INCLUDE a warrant and the EXPLICIT implication of the argument in the round. If it's not there, I probably wont grant you it. I lower my standards slightly for dropped arguments, but not much--certainly the implication must be clear either way.

DISCLOSURE THEORY: I intervene against disclosure theory. You can take a gamble and run it in front of me anyway, just know that I will only vote for it once I, Oliver Roth, personally believe it is a good standard for the activity. If you fail to convince me, you will lose. 

TRICKS: I love them. Smart, substantive tricks are great. Dumb tricks...less great.

MULTIPLE POSITIONS: It is fine to run multiple offs/theory shells (though, remember, I advise against the shell form) in front of me, but know this: If there are more than 5 positions (Cases, Offs, Interps, Counter Interps) in the round, I will be very unlikely to sift through them to resolve the debate. Your job is to make my decision easy. If I have to sift through more than 5 sheets of paper to determine the winner, you have not done your job. I will exclude positions based on my preference if i have to in order to consolidate the round if there are more than 5 positions.

SPEAKS: My speaks are based on fluency and strategy. If your arguments are clear, fully developed, and you have a good in-round strategy, I have no reason to give you low speaks. Adapting to my paradigm as outlined above will help you get good speaks. I will probably give you no less than a 25/26 unless you are for some reason actively offensive, or you literally say nothing in round.

OUTROUND PANELS: I am inevitably the odd-judge-out on sone occasions (where the other judges are more open to speed, theory, etc). I understand that in these cases, it may not be strategic to adapt strictly to my paradigm. That being said...if I am the odd-judge-out on your panel, throw me a bone. If the round is becoming a theory shit-show, give me a way to vote without sifting through the shit. You WILL win my ballot if you heed to this advice. Spend at least 10-20 seconds in each speech pandering to me. If you do, I will ignore whatever atrocities are going on elsewhere on the flow, and will focus on the issues you throw my way. 

Any questions to clarify, expand on, or add to my preferences are welcome to be asked before the round.

I am a traditional judge. Please don't include LD jargon in your cases. I am a Public Forum purist. I value clear and concise arguments that include compelling evidence coupled with strong analytical reasoning. Since this is real world debate, at the end of the round I decide what kind of world I want to live in - pro or con. Paint the picture for me. Be persuasive. Be competent. Be kind.

I would like to be on the email chain, my email is jpscoggin at gmail.com

I am the coach of Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I also own and operate Premier Debate along with Bob Overing. I coach Nevin Gera. I prefer a nuanced util debate to anything else.

Arguments

In general, I am not a fan of frivolous theory or non-topical Ks.

High speaker points are awarded for exceptional creativity and margin of victory.

I am fine with speed as long as it is comprehensible.

Procedure

If you are not comfortable disclosing to your opponent at the flip or after pairings are released it is likely in your best interest to strike me. If the tournament has a rule about when that should occur I will defer to that, if not 10 minutes after the pairing is released seems reasonable to me.

Compiling is prep. Prep ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed from your computer.

I've been judging LD for several years and am familiar with the common positions and arguments. Please keep your speed at a moderate pace and slow down for taglines and author names. If your strategy relies on your opponent missing a blip, then I'm not the judge for you.

Theory and T is fine, but I will be sympathetic to your opponent if your shell is clearly trivial.
If you read an alternate role of the ballot, please make it clear how I should evaluate the round under your ROB. All extensions need to be clearly warranted. Add me to any email chains.

I debated LD for 4 years at Brookfield East High School (WI), and judge a couple of times a year these days.

My Ballot

• Set a rule for me to use and weigh through it. You can set a V/VC, standard, or some other kind of weighing mechanism. Define it well so I know how to use it. I'm not voting on who sets the criterion. I'm voting on whose impacts are the most relevant through that criterion.
• I default to using my ballot to evaluate who best accessed the criterion. I'm willing to use my ballot as a tool if and only if I get a clear ballot story from you. Don't expect me to be convinced by a shallow critical argument about how affirming or negating have out-of-round impacts, especially when .

Your Arguments

• Show me something interesting, or an argument you're proud of! That doesn't mean the weirdest case -- a well-warranted stock case is an achievement too. Run whatever case you want, but remember to give some sort of standard and be ready to justify your approach. I'm open to arguments that your US-spec case doesn't normatively affirm or negate. If you run an atypical case (e.g. a PIC) without telling me how to adapt I'll have a hard time squaring your advocacy with my baseline conception of affirming and negating.
• I'll flow speed, but I can't flow spread. It's been some time since I was active. I'm also not a fan of speed used to obfuscate your arguments or spike your way to victory. If you get too fast, I'll drop my pen and stare at you. I won't shout 'clear' or 'slow'. It's on you to notice and adjust.
• I'll vote on theory, but only reluctantly. My experience with theory is that it represents a barrier for debaters who want to enter the circuit, and is often used to sidestep substantive debate. If you want to run theory in front of me (especially if I’m supposed to vote on it), there had better be an egregious violation that you’re criticizing. Articulate theory clearly. I'm only loosely familiar with the formal structure of a T-Shell, so it's not in your advantage to shout "Interpretation!" and blaze onward. Tell me (1) what sort of debating norm I should be endorsing, (2) why, (3) where the violation happened, and (4) what that implies for the round or my ballot. I am extremely unlikely to vote on the risk of offense coming from a T-Shell. Strong defense on a T-Shell can be enough for me to disregard it; I'm also very open to dropping arguments instead of debaters; you'll need to convince me that your opponent is doing something so wrong that I need to reject not just that practice, but them as a debater.

Background: I am an authorized representative and volunteer for the Liberty Christian School debate team in Argyle, TX.

I have judged novice/varsity LD, PF, Duo Int, Duo Acting, and IE.

For LD and PF, I am NOT a fan of spreading and I am VERY traditional! If I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you. I do flow the round so if you try to extend without merit or say opponent dropped and they didn't, I will not vote for you. I prefer current cards unless they are philosophical. Not a fan of progressive arguments. Debate the resolution and the argument not your opponent on a personal level. Solid voters are highly encouraged.

elijahjdsmith AT gmail.com

My General Thoughts on Debate

Debate is what you make it. I have an extensive history in circuit policy/ld and college policy debate. I care about education more than fairness, good cards over the quantity of positions, and quality arguments over the number of arguments in a debate.

An argument has a claim, warrant, and impact in a single speech.

The role of the affirmative is to affirm and the role of the negative is to negate the affirmative in an intellectually rigorous manner. However, I would personally like to hear the affirmative say we should do something. I would prefer to hear about an actor outside of the folks reading the 1AC (Nonprofits, governments, the debate community as a whole, etc) do something but that is not a requirement. Most of it sounds good to me.

Please don’t say racist, sexist, ableist things or things that otherwise participate in -isms . Sometimes these are learning moments. Sometimes these are losing moments.

If there was an accessibility, disclosure, or other request made before the debate that you plan to bring up in the debate please inform me before the debate. I would like to evaluate the debate with this information ahead of time. More personal issues/things that someone did last year are difficult for me to understand as relevant to my ballot.

I decide debates by figuring out 1. framing issue 2. offense 3. good defense 4. if the evidence is as good as you say it is 5. deciding which world /side would result in a better outcome (whatever that means for the debate in front of me)

These thoughts are fairly general yet firmly how I think about debate.

My RFDs have been less "little c, little d mattered to my ballot" and "let's talk about the conceptual, big-picture things that both sides missed that will help you win the next debate". If you want the small line-by-line issues to matter as much you have to give them weight in your final speech. That requires time, investment in explanation, and comparative claims.

LD***

Tricks, silly arguments, etc. Please skip. I haven't read your ethics phil but I've voted on it when it makes sense. 4+ off is grounds for a condo debate. K links require longer than 15 seconds to explain.

Public Forum****

If you already know what evidence you are going to read in the debate/speech you have to send a document via email chain or provide the evidence on a google document that is shared with your opponents before the debate. Those cards have to be provided before the speech begins.

You don’t get unlimited prep time to ask for cards before prep time is used. A PF debate can’t take as long as a policy debate. You have 30 seconds to request and there are then 30 seconds to provide the evidence. If you can’t provide it within 30 seconds your prep will run until you do.

The Final Focus should actually be focused. You have to implicate your argument against every other argument in the debate. You can’t do that if you go for 3 or 4 different arguments.

I am a parent judge and prefer traditional LD debate.

I am slow on flowing, so please don't go too fast and speak clearly.

Topical arguments have more voting weight for me than theory and kritiks.

Most important datum: As of Minneapple 2018 (for which I'm writing this paradigm), I haven't seen a debate round or thought about debate since TOC 2017. I was never particularly great at understanding or flowing fast debates, and I can only imagine I've gotten significantly worse in the last 18 months. Also, whatever new fads or jargon have emerged in that time, I'm completely unaware of them.

Background: I debated LD for two years in high school (2003-5) and coached for about 12 years after graduating, mainly for schools in the Midwest. I'm now an academic, with a background in analytic philosophy.

"Paradigm proper": My default view of debate (which I'm open to revising in round on the basis of argument) is as follows: (1) As the judge, I adopt a "neutral prior" for purposes of the round -- an assignment of probabilities to the various propositions that might play a role in the debate that assigns the resolution a 50% probability of being true and assigns probabilities to other contentious propositions that reflect a neutral/conservative (conservative = erring in the direction of 50/50) balance of reasonable opinion. (2) I update those beliefs based on the arguments and evidence presented in round. (3) If, after those updates, the resolution is more likely true than false, then I affirm. If it's more likely false than true, then I negate.

Presentation/delivery preferences: In principle, I have no problem with speed. But, like I said above, I've never been especially good at understanding or flowing it, and I'll try to be very strict about not voting on any argument that I didn't flow the first time around. If you're clear, but I'm just failing to flow you because you're fast and I'm old, I'll yell "slow." If you're sufficiently unclear, I'll yell "clear," but after I've yelled "clear" once, I don't promise that I'll yell it again any time you're unclear. It's on you to adjust, significantly and permanently, to become clear. If you're unclear enough that individual words are getting lost, I won't do very much interpolating for you.

Argumentation preferences: I'm open to anything, but (a) I'll only vote on an argument if I understand it, and I think I have a higher standard for what it means to "understand" an argument than a lot of judges -- specifically, I should be able to identify premises and conclusion in what you said (without interpolation) such that the premises reasonably and significantly support the conclusion; and (b) I'll weight arguments, to some extent, by the prior plausibility of the premises. (If an argument depends on an apparently implausible premise, then that premise ought to be supported by an argument of its own.)

In more nuts-and-bolts terms: (1) I tend to think that most "critical" arguments are just a mix of banalities and absurdities dressed up in obfuscating and poorly defined jargon, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise in any particular instance. (2) I don't particularly like theory debates, and I have a pretty high threshold for abuse claims. (3) I'm very skeptical of very long, very specific causal link chains. (4) I'm somewhat skeptical of normative frameworks that don't care at all about consequences.

The best way to get my ballot is a deeply justified and prima facie plausible normative framework coupled with contention arguments that, where they rely on empirical claims, are justified by high-quality empirical evidence that you know backwards and forwards, and where they rely on predictive/causal claims, are robust in the sense that they don't depend on a lot of very specific and jointly improbable assumptions.

Updated 12/24/13 

Conflicts: Harvard-Westlake (CA), PV Peninsula (CA). 

General:

• I strongly prefer positional debating. Ideally, have a thesis, avoid defensive arguments and spikes in constructive speeches, connect arguments back to the thesis, and be reasonable.
• I don't prefer any particular criterion/burden structure, but I'd rather the neg be something other than “not the aff.”
• I am generally opposed to voting on defense.

Speed/Clarity:

• I likely have a higher threshold for clarity than most judges.
• I'll yell clear, slower, etc.
• I will not give you leeway on arguments I didn't flow just because you have lots of bids.
• I don't think I'm a worse flower than the average judge, but I do think the average judge overestimates his or her flowing ability.
• Seriously if you don't pause after author names or if you ignore me when I tell you to slow down/be clearer you are not getting above a 28.5 even if your speeches are otherwise perfect.

Theory:

Theory defaults:

• Competing interps
• Reject the argument

Topicality defaults:

• Competing interps
• Reject the debater
• Comes prior to other theory

Other:

• I dislike frivolous theory. There's obviously no brightline for this, but trying to bait a theory debate or run theory against a reasonable, stock aff will hurt your speaks.
• Fairness and education are reasons to at least drop the argument.
• Winning "fairness is a larger impact than education," just like winning "terrorism is worse than civil war," doesn't mean I will ignore one of the impacts. It depends on the strength of link.
• I don't think the neg has to answer aff spikes until they are applied. Same goes for theory arguments in the AC without a violation.

Framework:

• I strongly prefer frameworks that facilitate a discussion about the topic. This doesn't mean I prefer a "policy" style framework, it just means you should try to engage the topic literature how actual academics (philosophers, researchers) would.
• I dislike attempts to avoid framework debate (such as triggers and AEC/AFC).

Ks:

• Same treatment as any other argument.
• I am skeptical of pre-fiat positions, especially micro-politics, but saying things like "the judge can't vote on this because the judge has to vote on the topic, it's jurisdictional etc etc" is unpersuasive. You need to give a counter-advocacy or different way of evaluating the round.
• I am sympathetic to the idea that it's unreasonable to force someone to debate an issue on which they would normally agree with you.
• Please don't complicate your arguments/rhetoric on purpose.

Speaks:

I will not disclose speaks.

Higher speaks for debating positionally, being clear and pleasant to listen to, engaging arguments, being open/honest with your opponent, disclosing cases online, making the round an educational experience for younger debaters, etc. Lower speaks for being evasive, unclear, rude, crushing a novice, doing things that make me mad, etc.


Past speaks: 

Average: 27.8
Low: 26.8 
High: 29.3 


Tournaments included: Blake 

Miscellaneous:

• I will not vote on any argument that the debater defending it agrees justifies or does not condemn awful things like genocide, rape, racism, etc.
• I will be very annoyed if you use dirty tricks. Don’t make your cases unreadable. Don’t mislabel arguments on purpose. Don’t steal time.

Experienced judge, I have judged at local and national tournaments.

In a round I expect to hear well developed cases with strong and logical arguments as well as credible references.

It is always helpful to summarize your case at the end and convince me to give you the win.

Enúnciate and Project your voice so I can Clearly hear and understand you.

10+ Year Coach and 500+ Round Judge

Traditional LD Judge

HS LD Debater

---

I enjoy a substantive framework with well-supported contentions that clearly link.

I will consider off-case positions but am reluctant to vote off of them.

Don't spread. If I don't flow it, I won't evaluate it. Be clear throughout the round.

Don't make new arguments/applications in final speeches. I will only consider original lines of arguments/turns.

Be passionate and believe in your arguments. I will reward you with speaker points.

Be respectful. Don't insult your opponent at any point.

---

Frameworks: Choose ones that respect human worth. I'm not tabula rasa. Human extinction is not good.

Arguments: I like specific examples, real-world comparisons, and solvency. Statistics can be spurious so make sure you know the studies for your arguments to survive (what they measured, time-frame, methodology).

Critiques: Not likely to vote off them, but read clearly we'll see.

Counterplans: Be specific, have solvency examples.

DAs: Link them to some framework or else.

I competed in LD debate for four years at Westlake High School in Austin, Texas. I debated on the national circuit my junior and senior years, qualifying for the TOC with five bids during the latter. I’ve taught at VBI, NDF, and the Texas Debate Collective. I graduated from Swarthmore College in 2013. I previously attended New York University and was the Co-Director of LD Debate at the Bronx High School of Science from 2009 to 2011. I did Policy my freshman and sophomore years of college, and APDA/BP my junior and senior years.

HARVARD 2014

I default to viewing the resolution as a statement the debaters ought attempt to prove true or false. I am open to all arguments instructing me to evaluate the round differently or to use my ballot toward some other end. My favorite debates are those that involve executing a well-thought-out strategy. While I am not opposed to a more "brute force" comparison of utilitarian impacts, it doesn't get me quite as excited. I am fine with critical and pre-fiat positions or arguments, so long as (a) it is made very clear how I evaluate the debate under whatever framework you advocate for and (b) the argument or position does not rely on a mere appeal to intuition. I will vote on theory, but often find it annoying. I will find it less annoying if you have interesting, unique things to say about fairness or education. I will find it more annoying if you act as if theory catchphrases can take the place of warrants. I do not assume fairness to be a voter absent arguments from a debater demonstrating that it ought to be one. I enjoy good RVIs and creative approaches to answering theory.

I cannot flow as well as I used to, since I don't judge high school debate very much anymore. You can go fast, but top circuit speeds are definitely beyond me now. Also, I am a bit disconnected from the circuit, so if there are any terms or arguments that have become commonplace in the last two years, make sure you explain them fully and don't assume too much prior knowledge on my part.

Please feel free to ask me any other questions you have before the round.

MY OLD, MORE DETAILED PARADIGM (CIRCA 2011)

BRIEF OVERVIEW (IF YOU'RE TOO LAZY OR RUSHED TO READ MY FULL PARADIGM): I'm a truth-tester by default, but argue for whatever conception of the resolution and I'll listen with an open mind. I can flow pretty well, but top speeds on the circuit tend to be just beyond my comfortable flowing speed. If you go too quickly or are unclear I'll say slow/clear once. Prestandards are fine if you develop them well and clearly explain how they function in terms of each debater's burdens. Critical arguments are cool, but should be run more slowly. If you run critical arguments, you should be extremely diligent about being understandable and approachable. I prefer that debaters stand during the round. I like well thought out strategies and positional cases more than evidence-heavy util clash (although util scenarios are still fine). I don't like theory, and am easily confused by complicated theory debates. I'll still vote off theory though. I like RVIs, turns on theory, and unique criticisms of theory.

GENERAL: I default to viewing the resolution as a statement to be proven true by the affirmative and either false or not true by the negative. This conception of the round (both as a general paradigm and in terms of the burdens entailed by a given paradigm) is by no means static, and I’ll willingly adjust the way I evaluate offense if compellingly instructed by the debaters to do so.

BURDENS: In lieu of compelling offense by either side, I will vote for the debater that I believe did the better job. For this reason, it is in your interest to give me explicit burdens analysis so I’m not forced to subjectively intervene.

PRESTANDARDS/A PRIORI: I have no issue with “a priori” arguments. However, there are a few important issues to keep in mind when running these arguments in front of me (or virtually any judge). First, you must very clearly tell me how the argument functions prior to the standard. Too often debaters just assert “and therefore the resolution is meaningless and you negate.” This is not at all sufficient. While I would still vote off of this argument if it were dropped (and likely ONLY if it were dropped), your speaker points would suffer. Second, if you are running multiple a priori arguments you need to explain how to prioritize the various arguments. This is important in the event that, for instance, the affirmative turns a negative a priori which claimed that morality doesn’t exist (perhaps by using a regular stock argument establishing that the negative has the burden of proof). If the negative still has a priori arguments that, say, definitionally prove the resolution false, I have no idea what to do now. Don’t let this happen. I will disregard the arguments and dock your speaker points. Third, don’t run multiple blippy a priori arguments. While I have a high threshold for theory and will certainly not automatically disregard such arguments because of “fairness,” you will still piss me off and lose speaker points.

CRITICAL/K: I really enjoy good, understandable critical or K debates. I am not particularly well-read (though I have read at least a minimal amount of critical philosophy), but I like to think of myself as relatively competent at grasping complex ideas. So, if you can run a critical position in an understandable and compelling way, such that I believe the argument and have learned something new or begun to look at the world differently as a result of your position, I will reward you with speaker points. Conversely, if you just spread through your policy debaters’ nonsensical Zizek Cap K (not to say I hate Zizek Cap Ks… I just need them to be good ones that you wrote and understand), your speaker points will suffer.

SPEED: I debated much faster than I think that I am capable of flowing, and I didn't even go that fast compared to current speeds on the national circuit. I was atrocious at flowing in high school, and not much has changed. I CAN NOT adequately follow rounds at the current top speed of the national circuit. I have started flowing on my laptop, which has helped. If you are clear and slow down for author names, justification numbers, and important things like the standard or contention labels it is unlikely that I will actively punish you for speed. I will try to get as much down as possible, but I won’t vote off of arguments I couldn’t understand. If you are unclear, I will say clear once and if you continue I will just get annoyed and dock your speaker points.

CX: I used to demand that people stood for CX, but it seems to be increasingly the case that no one really cares for that. I will say, however, that I steadfastly believe that a dedicated period of cross-examination time is essential. I am fine with flex-prep in that I think questions during prep are acceptable, but I do not think it is okay to remain silent for large portions of CX in order to prep or to simply merge CX and prep. Also, you should know that I don't really pay attention to questions asked during prep time, so make sure that if there's something you want ME to hear that you ask it in CX.

SPEAKER POINTS: I think I’ve talked a lot above about how I award speaker points. I will start at a 27 for an average/adequate performance, and you will get more points for fluency, good strategy, and being interesting. You will lose points for being unnecessarily confusing, sloppy, making bad/blippy arguments, or being offensive. It is unlikely I will reward below a 25 unless you actively offend me or are a blatant asshole. If I give you a 30, it means that I feel I have learned something from the round, that it kept my interest, and that you executed a compelling strategy with technical proficiency. Also, at larger circuit tournaments, I tend to (rightfully) give 25.5-26.5 range speaks to debaters who might have received a 27-28 at a less competitive regional tournament. The reason is because I just don't think you deserve to clear. It's not that you're a bad debater, at all. The competition at these sort of tournaments is fierce, and the field is stronger— as such, my overall range of speaker points increases dramatically. At a lot of regional tournaments I tend to stick between 27 and 28.5, where a very large, more competitive tournament may see me give out ranges of 25-29.5 (and rarely a 30).

THEORY: I don’t particularly like theory. I fundamentally do not think that fairness matters, and believe that theory has a chilling effect on interesting arguments about the truth of the resolution. I can think of few arguments I consider truly “abusive” (maybe delay counter-plans). If you run under-warranted theory that isn’t specific to the case or that lacks a reason why fairness is a voter, your speaker points will suffer a lot. If you run a well-developed theory shell against “clear abuse” that is specific to the case, I won’t dock your speaker points. I tend to have a lower threshold for responses to theory. Do not, however, assume that you can make one response against theory and be done. Make sure you handle it sufficiently, just as you would any other argument. Also, I really like turns on theory. Run them. I will vote off of them if your opponent can’t sufficiently deal with them. Perhaps more important than my philosophical views on theory is my basic inability to non-arbitrarily evaluate complicated theory debates. If a theory debate becomes extremely nuanced and fast, I will likely not be able to follow it. Keep that in mind. Also, "Aff Framework Choice" as a reason to automatically choose a particular substantive ethical framework or metaethical principle is absolutely, unequivocally idiotic. I will not listen to AFC arguments of this sort (I'll listen to AFC role of the ballot arguments though). You will receive no higher than 25 speaks if you run it in front of me.

PERFORMANCES/NARRATIVES/ASSORTED CRAZY STUFF: So, I have no inherent objection to people approaching debate rounds in novel ways. Usually my objection to these sort of positions is that I have virtually no conception of how I am supposed to evaluate the round. If you run something crazy and don't clearly explicate how I make my decision, I will be frustrated. If you do the same thing but I understand what I'm supposed to do with your narrative/dance/rap then I will vote off of it. I have one specific remark about narratives. It seems that most of the literature about narratives essentially says that it's important to couch our analytical arguments in stories that are relevant to people's lives. That indicates that presenting a compelling narrative should be a prerequisite to entering the analytical discussion, NOT that the narrative should replace the analytical discussion. If you're not going to have regular arguments in addition to your narrative, make sure your evidence justifies doing so and, again, that you clearly tell me how to evaluate the round.

OTHER: If I am judging you early in the morning, slow down a little. I am not a morning person. This sounds silly, but I am being very, very serious. I tend to be sloppier in my decisions when I'm tired in the early hours of a tournament. Please adjust accordingly. Also, I think net benefits standards are dumb because they beg the question of what constitutes a harm or a benefit-- that is, after all, the question that the standard is supposed to answer. Make this argument, since every round involves net benefits these days, and I will be happy. Also, I like grand strategic gestures. That is, I will always prefer a strategic AC activating its cool nuances in the 1AR or a layered, interesting NC over a really good clash of util scenarios. I don't actively dislike the latter, but I find the former more exciting. I also think it's nice when debaters begin their final speeches more slowly and give a very compelling overview of the ways and layers in which they will be winning the round. It gives me something of a frame or story that helps me better conceptualize the rebuttals and the round. It also makes it more likely that my RFD will precisely mirror your vision of the round, and clues me in to the fact that you understand the nuances of argument interaction on a macro-level, which is good for speaks.

PLEASE, if you have any further questions, feel free to email me at waks.andrew(at)gmail.com or ask me at a tournament or anywhere else you can get a hold of me. Have fun debating!

LD debater for Ridge High School for 2008-2012. Have judged across CX, LD, PF.

Speed: I judge sporadically, so keep that in mind when spreading - clarity is important regardless of the speed. I will yell "clear" twice, after that it is up to you to determine if I am flowing.

Casing: No preference in the type of argumentation (K, Theory, LARP, stock) you run in front of me, however, if you are running something that skews away from the stock, please spend the time to explain the argument, interactions of the argument on the flow, impact, and weighing.

Theory: If no justification, I assume competing interpretations. However I am open to whatever framework that is justified in round (e.g., reasonability, RVI). Just be clear on how you want the ballot to function.

Feel free to ask specific questions before the round - I tend to find that more fruitful.

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

Normally an LD judge so I can be a little analytical in my approach to speech events. I value clean diction, clear distinction between characters if applicable (voices, position etc) and a clear link to the topic/subject.

I would like you to really focus on communicating with me rather than just on saying what you have to say. Use common examples and make sure that I can really understand what the impacts mean to me or could mean to an individual in the world.

I am looking for you to really focus on prioritizing the arguments and impacts that matter most. Many arguments aren't completely won or lost as there may be harms and benefits to both sides. It's your job to tell me why those specific harms or benefits are impactful enough for my vote.

Use overt organization. Signpost. Be cordial.