UPDATE 10/14/22

TL:DR

I have not updated by paradigm in well over a decade but much of what I wrote then continues to be true. I've been coaching/judging various styles and forms of debate for over 12 years. I am most comfortable judging debates in Policy, Lincoln-Douglass, and Public Forum. I flow and listen to all arguments, so please debate in whichever way you are most comfortable and I will attempt to evaluate it to the best of my ability. That being said, if you have a position that is complicated or difficult to follow, the onus is on the debaters to ensure that their arguments are well explained. I will not vote on arguments that I do not understand or are blatantly offensive/discriminatory. Otherwise, try  to have fun!

My email for chains is: carlito2692@gmail.com

Old Paradigm:

I competed in LD at University High School in Newark New Jersey, I was nationally competitive for three years.. I also compete in policy debate for Rutgers University.

Presumption: I typically presume neg unless the affirmative advances arguments for why presumption should flow aff (i.e the negative team introduces a counterplan/kritik alt/etc.

Speed: I don't generally have an issue with speed, however I do have a problem with monotone speed, unclear speed. I will yell clear if I can't understand you, but it will only be maybe once or twice, if you don't become clear by then, my ability to properly evaluate the arguments may possibly become impaired. Also, your speaks probably won't be awesome if I have to keep yelling clear.

-I would like you to significantly slow down when reading tags/card names so I can have a properly structured flow, but while reading the card you are welcome to go at top CLEAR speed(a few caveats to be explained later)

-When making analytical arguments, please be clear, because it's difficult for me to follow analytics when they are weirdly phrased and also being spread.

-I don't like speed for the sake of being fast, I prefer when speed is used as a catalyst for an awesome case or a multilayered rebuttal with really nuanced responses on case.

Evidence: Despite what happened in the round, I may call for the cites for cards read in round, I'll specify which specific cites I would like to see. I do this for two reasons: to ensure that there was no miscutting of evidence, and because I believe in disclosure and am from the school of thought that everybody in the round should have access to all evidence read in the round. I don't appreciate a denial to share citations, if citations are not readily available, I may choose to disregard all evidence with missing citations(especially evidence which was contested in the debate).

Cross Examination: I don't know how much I can stress it...CROSS EX IS BINDING! I don't care if you present arguments for why it shouldn't be binding or why lying in CX is ok, or any arguments with the implication which allows dishonesty in CX, there is NO theory to be ran to change my mind. Nevertheless, I don't flow CX, so its up to the debaters to refresh my memory of any inconsistencies between speeches and CX answers. On the other hand, CX can be the BEST or the WORST part of a debate, depending on how it plays out. A funny yet not disrespectful CX will score big when I'm deciding on how to assign speaks, while a rude and boring CX will negatively influence how I assign speaks. Clarification questions during prep is fine, but I'm not cool with trying to tear down an argument during prep, if it was that important, it should have been in the formal CX, rather than during prep. Don't be afraid to refuse to answer a non-clarification question during your opponents prep time.

Critical/Weird Arguments: I love well explained critical positions. With the caveat that these critical arguments are logically explained and aren't insanely convoluted. I have no issue voting for the argument. But if I can't understand it, I won't vote on it. Also, I am a fan of interesting debate, so if you have a neat performance to run in front of me, I would love to hear it!

Theory: I don't presume to competing interpretations or reasonability. The justification for either one needs to be made in round. I don't like greedy theory debates, which means that I generally view theory as a reason to reject the argument rather than the debater. YES, this means you must provide reasons in or after the implications section of your shell, for why this specific violation is a reason for me to use my ballot against the other debater. I'm not persuaded by generic 12 point blocks for why fairness isn't a voter, I prefer nuanced argumentation for why fairness may not be a voter. RVIs have to be justified but I'm willing to vote on them if the situation presents itself, but its up to you to prove why you defensively beating theory is enough for me to vote for you.

Prestandard: I don't like having preconceived beliefs before judging a round, but this is just one of those things that I need to reinforce. I WILL NOT vote on multiple apriori blips, and winning a single apriori is an uphill battle, a serious commitment to advocacy is necessary(you devote a serious amount of time to the apriori position.)

Speaks: I average about a 27, I doubt I'll go lower than 25(unless you do something which merits lower than a 25) because I personally know how disappointing the 4-2/5-2 screw can be, nevertheless I am more than willing to go up or down, depending on the performance in that particular round. The reason I average around a 27 is not because I generally don't give nice speaks, its because the majority of tournaments, I'll judge only a few rounds that deserve more than a 28. It's not difficult at all to get good speaks from me. I reserve 30's for debaters who successfully execute the following: speak really well, good word economy, good coverage/time allocation, takes risks when it comes to strategy, weighs really well, provides AWESOME evidence comparison, and adapts well to the things happening in the round. I really enjoy seeing new strategies, or risky strategies, I.E. I am a fan of the straight refutation 1N, attempting something risky like this and pulling it off, gives you a higher chance of getting a 30. Another way to get high speaks is to be a smart debater as well as funny without being mean or making any kind of jokes at the expense of your opponent(this will lose you speaks)

Delivery: I need evidence comparison! It makes me really happy when debaters do great evidence comparison. Also, I would appreciate for you to give status updates as the rebuttals progress, as well as giving me implications for each extension. When extending arguments which rely on cards, in order for it to be a fully structured extension it must contain: The claim/tag of the card, author/card name, warrant from the card, and the implications of that extension (what does it do for you in the round).

Miscellaneous: You are more than welcome to sit or stand, I don't mind people reading from laptops or being paperless as long as it doesn't delay the round. Also, I don't care if you are formally dressed, jeans and a tshirt will get you the same speaks that a shirt and a tie will. :) I also believe its impossible for me to divorce my judging from my beliefs, but I'll do my best to attempt to fairly adjudicate the debate.

P.S. I don't like performative contradictions...(just felt like I should throw that out there)

[Same as Ellie Boswell]

I debated 3 years of LD and 2 years of policy on the national circuit from 2007-2012 and attended 3 years of camp at VBI. I judged for my high school (Albuquerque Academy) on the national circuit in when I was in college, but Harvard will be my first tournament this year. My degree is in Middle Eastern and African History with a concentration in colonial and post colonial studies and I also took classes in gender and sexuality studies as well as critical race theory.

Here are some things I think you should know. Sorry its not more organized. If you have any questions after reading this you can contact me before the round at efboswell@gmail.com:

--I can take fast-paced, technical debate, but please, I beg you, for your own good make sure you are clear. If you mumble or swallow your words I will yell clear, but I really don't want to have to. I would much prefer to watch a clear, slow debate than one in which the discussion is muddled just so you can get a few more arguments out there. In the same vein, if you just don't want to spread or it's not your thing, I won't hold that against you. I also really hate to watch debaters being spread out. Please be kind to your opponent, not everyone has the same access to resources, coaching, camp, etc... Finally on this topic: even if you are both excellent at spreading please take your time in sign-posting, overviews, voting issues, summaries, etc...this is how you can ensure that I am following you.

--I will vote on any argument presented in the round as long as you give me a way to evaluate it. However, (and this is perhaps the most important things I will say here) please provide clear analysis on the framework level, including why I should prefer your framework. If you do not, I will be forced to intervene, which I don't want to do, and you don't want me to do, and my ballot may not seem fair because it probably won't be at that point; it will just be me picking whichever arguments I happen to like more on that particular day. I am aware that LD has been shifting towards policy (which was the case when I debated and now even more so.) However, that does not mean you do not have to do work warranting, extending, and linking back to your framework. Likewise if the aff runs a value-criterion framework and neg runs a counter plan text, both debaters need to engage on the the macro level framework debate (ie truth testing vs. policy-making/comp worlds paradigms) to establish what the burdens of the aff and neg are. That way I will know how you want me to evaluate the round!!!

--I enjoy critical debates, but I won't grant critical arguments any more weight in the round than any other. That being said, make sure that you have a very firm grasp on your authors and can articulate their ideas clearly. (Remember I studied a lot of this in college and unlike in high school I now actually know what these authors are saying--so be careful not to run them poorly or fudge what your authors say.) That being said, I really appreciate creativity and if you want to try going out on a limb with a particular author, idea, theory etc...I will probably enthusiastically follow you there so long as you lay out your thinking clearly. I would much rather watch a creative debate with arguments I've never heard before that challenge me and offer something different (even if these arguments have potential holes or problems) than a stock debate with rock solid logic.

--Speaking of stock debates, while I was once familiar with many of the arguments that debaters ran (topic specific and otherwise) I am definitely less so at this point. Even during my years as a debater, I watched the nature of LD change rapidly and I assume that it has continued to do so. Although I have some sense of how it has evolved since, I am by no means as well versed in current trends as I once was. As such, please don't assume that you don't need to explain an argument or position fully just because it is run frequently on the circuit. You should always be giving complete link stories regardless, but especially in my case if you don't want to risk losing me. (Hint: overviews and underviews would be particularly useful for this purpose.)

--If you do run critical positions make sure that you tell me how your arguments are functioning in the round (i.e. pre-fiat, post-fiat). If you run a K make sure you spend as much time of the link story as you do on the alt and make sure that you explain how you are accessing your alt and how it is functioning (in round, out of round, in society at large). I am am not at all opposed to arguments that function in round, in the debate world, or about the use of my ballot as a tool--in fact I'd be really happy to hear a good one. There are a lot of interventions that I would love to see made in the world of debate and am particularly compelled by genuine explanations of how that can happen in a round.

--Try to run theory only if you perceive there to be clear abuse in the round and not as a tactic. I will vote on theory if you win on it regardless, I would just prefer not to watch a theory debate.

--In your 2NR and 2AR be sure to give me voting reasons. This is the best way to ensure a win. Essentially, I want you to write my ballot for me. The mark of a good debate is that I have to do very little work in making my decision.

--Lastly, careful not to make offensive statements. I don't expect this to be a problem, but I will not tolerate clear racism, homophobia, or sexism in the round (obviously). I wish I didn't even have to say this, but I think these interventions are unfortunately necessary in the debate world--as they are in the real world.

As a debater I used to get really incredibly nervous before rounds. If you're one of those please remember that how you do in this round is not a reflection of who you are, how smart you are, or how far you're going to get in life. Trust me. I deeply believe in debate as a form of education, rather than as a sport. Let's please keep that spirit alive in the round!

I try to take the round as a whole when judging.

You should clearly address your opponent's arguments and not simply throw out a source that says your opponent is wrong. Make sure you link the evidence to the point you are addressing.

No argument is perfect so if you are clearly losing a point admit it and move on. Don't spend the whole round trying to defend a losing argument. Concentrate on strengthening your other points. I respect competitors who know their strengths and can admit their weaknesses.

I can mostly keep up with faster delivery, however if you decide to spread just know I likely will not keep up and you risk me missing points in your arguments. If I don't have an argument on my flow I cannot weigh it when deciding a winner.

The real key to winning is making clear, logical, arguments that are supported by legitimate evidence.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Cha%2C+Nathan

I am a traditional judge who coached the Marriott's Ridge High School debate team for four years and I now also coach middle school debate. I have judged over 50 tournaments and I have extensive college debating experience. I judge both on value criterions and contention level arguments. I am willing to hear and consider progressive arguments but I do not prefer them. I do not like excessive speed. I prefer quality over quantity.

--This is my first major edit to my paradigm in, like, two years, so ask me questions before the round if there's anything here that doesn't make sense or I forgot.--

I debated four years of policy and one year of LD in high school from 2003 to 2008. I've been coaching LD since I graduated and I've been with Lexington for the past 5ish years. I'm also working on a PhD in philosophy (this doesn't mean what you think it means, see below).

General info/Speaker points stuff

--Email chains are cool, include me on them: hcurtis@albany.edu

--Run whatever you want to run as long as it isn't actively offensive. If you want a K debate, have a K debate. If you're looking for a values or stock debate, that's cool too. The space is yours, do what you want with it. There's stuff that I'm probably less good at judging than other people, but I won't drop you for running a specific type of argument unless, again, it's actively offensive.

--I'm 100% team tech over truth. A dropped argument is a true argument. That being said (and this applies generally as well), the dumber an argument is, the lower my threshold for a response is. So, while most arguments require actual, thought out responses, if you respond to "must concede after the AC" by just saying "no I don't", that'll count. So, don't drop stuff, but don't waste time on really bad arguments. If an argument is given without a warrant, it doesn't need as developed of a response.

--On that subject, warrants are cool too. I hate vague extensions, they bother me and that'll reflect in your speaker points. If you're extending a card, a theory shell, anything really, give me the warrant behind the card. What does the [evidence/shell/value/whatever] say, why is it right, and what does that have to do with my ballot? Better extensions and better storytelling mean better speaker points. Blippy extensions with no explanation require less to respond to because, as above, blippy extensions are bad arguments.

--I'm not the best at flowing. This matters less in a world of speech docs, but for stuff like detailed underviews (like cramming drop the debater, RVI, reasonability, and random evaluate theory after the 1AR spike into the same subpoint) or longer theory shells, slow down. No, seriously, slow down. I won't get all of the details, and then when you're posting me after the round about how I could have missed underview A, subpoint 3, as extended with random other thing on a totally different flow as defense somewhere else, I'll just say I didn't get it on the flow and we'll both be mad.

--I don't like doing work for debaters. Embedded clash is a nicer way of saying judge intervention. Don't make me do it. Offense weighing and comparison is probably the most important thing for me (and key to good speaker points). Don't just say why your stuff is good, say why your stuff is better/more important to my ballot than their stuff.

--Last thing for speaker points, the most important factor for me is strategy. If you make strategic arguments and there isn't anywhere where I think you should have done something different, then you'll get very high speaker points. Strategy is number one for me, but that gets weighed against not being a jerk in round, being funny, and being a good speaker. If you do everything perfectly but you're not a clear speaker, then you won't get a 30, but you'll still get above a 29.5. I'll say clear or slow if I need to, but if I say it a couple of times, then you should know what'll happen to your speaks. If I say clear, don't do that thing where you're clear for a couple of seconds and then just go back to how you were speaking before. Also, general rule of thumb, be loud. I don't hear stuff very well, so the louder you are the better. Don't scream at me, but you get the point.

T/Theory

--At least 80% of my neg ballots when I debated policy were on T. Love me a good T debate.

--General stuff: I default to competing interpretations, no RVI, drop the debater unless told otherwise. Also, general pet peeve, if you're going to tell me drop the argument and it isn't blatantly clear what argument I'm dropping, then tell me what argument I'd be dropping.

--RVIs need a little bit of work for me. You need to convince me why you get RVIs in the first place (RVIs are much more convincing against multiple shells or 7 off strats) and then actively identify what constitutes an RVI and why.

--1AR theory is fine-ish, but when a round turns into shell versus shell, it usually breaks down into incomprehensible nonsense and then I get sad and then I trash your speaker points. If it gets to this point, what makes me happy is offense comparison. This is usually easier if we're weighing between fairness and education voters, but if it's fairness v. fairness, then be super specific about why your opponent is being worse for fairness than you are. Compare offense, don't just extend yours. Alternatively, go meta and tell me why aff or neg theory comes first. Either way, don't ignore the other side of the flow, because then I have to do weighing for you and nobody likes that.

--I'll vote for disclosure shells, but the dumb argument vs. strength of response weighing from before applies here. If there's straight up nothing on the wiki and they're from a school where you'd expect something to be there, then fine. But if it's a small school non-circuit debater and/or your interp is "must disclose all speech docs, past 2NR strategies, and what they've had for lunch the past five days", then a lesser response is required.

--Generally speaking, if there's an obvious win on substance and a more difficult win on T or theory and you go for T or theory, I consider that a less than strategic move and it'll reflect in your speaker points.

DA/Counterplan/LARPy Stuff

--I was a policy debater after all, so I'm pretty comfortable with this kind of debate.

--Impact calc is your best friend. Good impact calc means good speaker points and typically is a tiebreaker if I want to avoid intervening. If I have a better understanding of why your impacts matter more than your opponent's, then you're probably going to win.

--This is a general thing, but I'll highlight it here and elsewhere, but extensions should include storytelling for me. Don't just extend the cards from the disad, explain the warrants and tell me how they link together into the story of the disad. Better extensions, better speaker points.

K/Framework

--So remember how I said that me being a philosophy PhD doesn't mean what you think it means? I study bioethics and general normative theory and have had any knowledge/appreciation of continental philosophy beaten out of me over the last 5 years. So, I'm actually not the best at evaluating super dense Ks, high theory, that sort of stuff. That being said, you can totally run it if that's your thing. However, you're going to ahve to take extra time for storytelling. What's going on in the K, what does the aff/res do that is bad, why should I care, and what do you do to make it better/different? So, don't avoid running Ks if that's your A-strat. Do what you do best. Just be good at it and we're fine. If you've grabbed a K from a teammate that you haven't seen before and don't know how to properly extend and explain, it probably won't go well and you should consider doing something else (this applies generally).

--Framework v. framework debates are almost as bad as theory v. theory debates in terms of incomprehensibility. So, do active weighing work. Why does your framework matter more? If your framework precludes, why? If they say their framework precludes, why doesn't it. If both frameworks preclude each other and I have no in-round way to determine whose actually does, we're all going to be upset.

--Role of the ballot/role of the judge is probably the single most important layer of the flow. I mean, you have the power to tell me what my ballot does. Use it to your advantage. If you win that the only thing I should care about is whatever the role of the ballot says I should care about, that's kind of a big deal. Use it to your advantage. On the other side of the flow, you really should spend time here if you're responding to a K.

--Totally fine with performances, but, and this also applies generally, weighing pre versus post fiat offense and why the performance itself matters is pretty important. This is another area where the role of the ballot is your best friend.

--Like I said, I'm usually pretty good about ethics frameworks since that's kind of what I do for a living. That being said, debate phil is 99% of the time waaaaaaayyyyyyyy different from academic phil. This is especially the case for K authors like Foucault, but also for Kant, Mill, Rawls, etc. So, you'll have a little more leeway with explaining evidence for something like a Kant framework, but you still need to do actual extensions and explanations.

Other miscellaneous stuff

--Again, if this is your thing, this is your thing so do it, but I'm generally not a fan of tricks. Most tricks arguments fall into the camp of bad arguments I describe above where a response of "nuh-uh" is sufficient. Again, if this is what you do, then do it, just be super clear about where stuff is located, both when you're reading it and when you're responding to stuff in c/x. Nothing is more infuriating than shifty c/x responses. Saying stuff like "lol I don't know what an a priori is" when it's pretty clear you do is an easy way to get your speaks docked. Don't be that person.

--In that regard, unless you legitimately don't know what the person is asking about, don't say "I don't know what that means". If you've been to camp or the TOC or on the circuit at all, I assume you at least have some understanding of what terms like pre-fiat or spike mean. That's being shifty and wasting c/x time and it's annoying.

--Flex prep is fine. To a lesser extent, so it using c/x time as prep if you want. It isn't a good look, but c/x time is your time to ask questions and use it strategically. Asking questions is generally better than not. Also, both c/x and flex prep are binding.

That's all I can think of for now, I'll try to be better about updating this more regularly. Again, if something here isn't clear or if you want to know more, find me at the tournament and ask or ask me before the round starts.

I am the judge/coach/parent for the Stone Ridge team and have been judging for over 7 years on the local and national level.  

I am very traditional.  Presentation and sign posting are very important.  Strike me if you feel the need to speak slightly faster than normal conversation, run a K, or multiple T shells.  If I don't understand you, you didn't say it.  I prefer quality over quantity and I believe that policy debate DOES NOT belong in Lincoln-Douglas debate.

Let me repeat: If I didn't understand you, you didn't say it!

--> It is also very important that you sign post on your opponent's case, I want you to summarize what you are going to say and where on the flow you are going to say it before you say it. 

If you want to win a round with me the most important part is crystallization.  Just a summary at the end of your speech saying what you arguments are, why they stand, and why you win is enough for me.

I debated for four years at Saint Thomas Academy/Visitation in Minnesota from 2010-2014. I competed on the national circuit for three of those years and went to the TOC my senior year.

I would like to think that debate is for the debaters to argue the topic the way they want and thus would like to think i'm a pretty tab judge. I'll do my absolute best to decide the round based on the flow and leave my opinions out of the round. That said there are definitely some preferences I have that could potentially affect the way I decide the round.

I mostly evaluate the round on a truth-testing paradigm, I'm open to you convincing me otherwise, but am probably best at evaluating under this way.

Speed: Speed is fine, I've yet to hear a debater I can't keep up with as long as their clear, but the faster you are the more clarity is necessary. I'll yell clear as many times as necessary but I might get pissed and dock speaks after the first few if youre not improving. Slow down for tags, author names and, anything you think is really important.

I'll call evidence if there is conflict over what the evidence means or if a debater asks me to call it during a speech.

Theory: I debated theory a lot while i was debating and have no particular preferences for any specific theory positions. I'm fine with theory being run as a strategic tool, but i'f you run it poorly i'm probably gonna be mad. I default competing interps, drop the debater, and no RVIs.

Kritiks: I ran a lot of kritiks especially my senior year. I love a good kritik debate. That said i'm not that well versed in some kritikal arguments so you'll have to clearly explain the arguments. As with all arguments if i don't understand them I wont vote for them. Ones I am familiar with are Foucault, Agamben, Kappeler, Nietzche, Security, Terror Talk, Neo-colonialism, and Cap Ks. Just because I'm familiar doesn't mean your arguments don't require full explanation. If I don't think someone could understand your argument solely based on your explanation in the round, I wont vote for it.

Policy Args: It's 2014 go for it.

Presumption/Skep/Permissibility: I default presuming aff but very rarely do I think there is no risk of offense on the flow, I will vote on a risk of offense. Skep/permissibility run as either positions or triggers are fine. I actually find some of these debates interesting if done well. (Well done skep triggers are not the typical "they proved my framework wrong/raised a procedural issue with my framework so therefore skep" but actual skeptic challanges that prove the impossibility of ethical theories.)

Other things:
I believe the round exists for debaters, so have fun! If you're having fun, whether thats extremely competitive debate or laid back discussion, I'll probably have fun and be more likely to give good speaks.

Be nice to each other. I understand debate is a competition and it's your job to win so I'm totally fine with you being aggressive and competitive. I trust that you're mature enough to know the line between being competitive and being mean. If you're mean to your opponent im gonna be mean to you.


If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or e-mail me at seandohertypowell@gmail.com

I competed in LD debate from 2005-2009 for the Bronx High School of Science. I attended the TOC as a junior and senior, and cleared during the latter year. After graduating I coached at the Bronx High School of Science until approximately 2014. At least some coaches/debaters from that era should know who I am and be able to give some additional color on my paradigmatic views for anyone who finds the below unsatisfying. Unfortunately I have not judged since 2014, so while my views on certain arguments (and debate generally) may not have changed materially, I suspect norms in the community have. Therefore, what I write below may not be entirely useful (or sensical) to an LD debater competing in 2019.

Generally, I think debate is a forum for students to learn how to read and think critically in a competitive environment with relatively low stakes. Therefore as a judge I place no limits on the sorts of arguments you can and cannot make (theory, Ks, counterplans, narratives etc.). My default view is that the winner is the side that demonstrates there is a greater utilitarian benefit associated with voting for their respective side of the resolution, however this is a relatively easy presumption to rebut - either side can choose to make the standard/framework for evaluating impacts whatever they want (e.g., if their is some side-constraint or other overriding consideration that is more important than generic utilitarian impacts I will obviously listen without hesitation).

A few general notes: (i) I am stickler for substantive impact comparisons (the winner is likely the debater that does the better weighing/comparative analysis of the offense in the round) (ii) I don't think speaking speed is an issue, but clarity can be - if I don't hear an argument/understand it I cannot vote for it, and if I don't understand you in a speech I will visibly be disengaged (pen down, not flowing, etc.) (iii) extensions need to contain warrants.

While I try to adjudicate rounds in a tabula rasa manner, please be aware that your tabula rasa assumptions may differ from mine. Feel free to ask me specific questions before the round. Please note that I will try to answer them to the best of my ability but I genuinely may not have an answer for some depending on the level of specificity.

As an aside, I really value original thinking and cleverness in debate - your ability to do either in round will probably result in additional speaker points.

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 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.

Affiliated School: duPont Manual High School in Louisville, Kentucky

Experience:

I have judged the LD varsity division frequently since 2012. I was a judge at 2013 & 2015 NSDA Nationals and 2014 CNFL Nationals.

Overall, I prefer more traditional arguments but can handle progressive elements such as speed when you maintain a strict clarity. Weighing, collapsing down the the important issues in the 2AR/2NR, and generally refraining from a messy debate will both help me decide the clear winner and help you as a debater. In terms of speaker points, I will award you extra speaks if you are humorous or entertaining; in general, be polite to your opponent (rudeness of any form is strongly discouraged) and ---especially because debate is a speaking event--- present your arguments well to earn more speaks.

If you ever have further questions, feel free to talk to me either before or after a round.

Speed:
I prefer for you to speak relatively slowly when possible, but I can understand spreading if you're clear. If I am unable to understand your arguments, then I will not be able to vote on them; when appropriate, I will yell "clear".

Flowing:
I am not the world's greatest at flowing. However, I may ask for your case after the round.

Theory:
I will buy theory only if there is actual abuse, and I will know when your case is really abusive. I believe that running superfluous theory is abusive on its own, so please, run theory only when appropriate and keep the theory debate clear (I'm not fond of evaluating messy theory debates). I do not believe that there is an implicit interpretation if a case is abusive; in general, I am not prone to voting for extremely abusive cases.

Framework:
I am not a philosophy major, which means that if you want to run a complicated framework, you must explain to me the meaning of your framework in rhetoric that a non-philosophy major can understand. As long as I understand the arguments, I can vote for you.

Arguments:
In general, make true arguments that are well-warranted and logical. I prefer if you keep your contention-level arguments actually relevant to the topic, since I believe that the topic was chosen so that you can debate about the topic, not something else.

Kritiks:
I am not extremely familiar with K's, and from my understanding of them, I do not recommend that you run a K in front of me. However, if you do wish to run a K, you must explain it to me well; if I don't understand it, I won't vote on it. Especially if your K can be run on any topics, I won't vote on it.

Disads:
I will buy disads as long as you have a clear, logical link chain.

Plans:
As long as you run them well, plans are fine.

I hope that you both can have fun while you debate; good luck!

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.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Kulman%2C+Bradley

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

Updated Yale 2018

On Ks

Don't read them. I've been robbed of too much education through listening to non topical and or critical cases. If both you and your opponent read Ks I will flip a coin and reflect my displeasure through appropriate minimization of speaks.

Background

Debate is a game and it's a game I really like which is why I have enjoyed and continue to enjoy it. I debated Lincoln Douglas for four years at Sammamish High School in Washington State, debated Policy for three years at NYU, and coached on the side. I'm a recent graduate and currently work as a consultant in DC which means 1) please ease into your spreading speed slowly and 2) run cool new arguments in front of me if you're testing something new and still working things out. Debate is a learning community; having me as a judge means I can give you as little or as much feedback as you like and we can bounce off as many or as little ideas as you like too. That being said, often times, running a solid stock case is often more impressive and more strategic than a shoddily thought out new idea, so choose wisely.

Judging Preferences:

General Advice:

Use blocks. Don't suspend logic when using blocks. Spread out your opponent with arguments from many different angles. Be strategic. Debate well.

ROB/ROJ/Theory:

I see debate as a game. I buy that everything can and should be justified because I presume nothing walking into the room.

This means, when reading a standard like "reducing xyz" or "maximizing abc", you need to justify why reducing xyz/maximizing abc is good. Don't get lazy with your warrants and don't assume I will know 1) that xyz/abc are what you think they are, 2) why they are what they are.

This goes double for extensions; even and especially if your opponent drops your argument, you need to extend claim, warrant, and impact of your argument or else you've dropped it as well (notice the and <--). Second, this means I will likely not be persuaded by ROB/ROJ whose premise or internal link is assumed or largely relies on a justification outside of the debate room.

Voters:

I think debate is a game. This means in order for me to vote for your ROB/ROJ/theory shell, you need to explain the actual abuse in the round and how your strategy specifically was affected. E.g. why is "fairness" a voting issue, what is it and what does it mean in the context of this actual room? Will new recruits really hear about this round when considering whether or not to join debate and after hearing that this debate round was unfair, decide not to join? Is it more about the principle of fairness? I've found that the most persuasive justifications tend to be those most closely linked to the very debate you've having and the very strategy you're employing (e.g. I couldn't read my nuke waste disad and that destroys my education because nuke waste is being voted on in XYZ county and we need to test out the implementation mechanism so we're better informed and I can be a more informed voter. I am very persuaded by such intelligent and contextualized arguments.

T:

I am very persuaded by good T args. I largely agree with Scott Elliott's paradigm on T which you should definitely read here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6943.

Speed:

1. If you're spreading, please don't lower your voice; I will yell "louder" and this generally means "clear" but indicates you need to speak up too

2. I'm more impressed by debaters that speak at 60-70% of their actual speed but fill that time making good responsive arguments.

3. If you read incoherently in order to jam in more args I will not be able to flow your args, I likely won't be able to vote for you, and will reflect the argument presentation's incoherence in your speaks.

Plans/Ts:

There is not a position/argument I'm not comfortable with you reading, that being said if I haven't heard your argument, or even if I have but it's especially dense, slowing down and explaining it to me like I'm 10 will only help you (and your speaker points) in the long run.

Speaker Points:

I award speaker points based off your entire debate performance meaning your speeches and cross-examination and general demeanor. Masters of cross examination are generally great debaters because they see the cross ex as a performance and use it to set the tone of the rest of the debate.

Fun:

This paradigm sounds serious only because I want you to understand what my expectations are in order for the round to proceed in your favor, but if you're not having fun, you're not debating properly. :-)

Email:

If you have any additional questions or are including me on your email chain please use email esk378@nyu.edu. Thanks!

Background: I competed in LD for four years, finishing in TOC finals. I actively judged/coached/taught at debate camps from 2014-2018 but since then have been less active.

General:

I'll vote for the side that requires me to do less work. When flowing, I try to get down as much of your original rhetoric as possible; when giving the RFD I'll try to reference and directly quote as much of that as I can. So comparing/weighing/impacting arguments will go a long way.

The round belongs to you! So please run arguments that you're excited to talk about, rather than content you think I'll prefer. In any case, I'd suggest you err on the side of over-explaining jargon (debate-specific, academic, or otherwise) and making sure arguments have been warranted in-round.

A few other points:

1. I don’t need super formal extensions. If your 5-card extinction scenario is conceded, briefly summarize the argument and move on to weighing. Just signpost carefully if your extension is short.
2. I'll give an argument the function you tell me to so long as (a) there's a warrant for that function, and (b) I understand what the function means. An example of (b) I don't understand is when a debater says "this turns all arguments" - you're better off labeling it as pre standards or an impact turn to X, whatever it may be.
3. If I have to call clear, I’ve probably missed something.
4. If you have questions regarding specific arguments, feel free to ask prior to round. I’m most likely “okay” with evaluating whatever argument you bring up, and I’m happy to comment on how to run it better.

Speaker Points:

Mostly based on (execution of) strategy and effort in giving a clear decision calculus. Especially creative arguments and high-clash strategies will also be rewarded. Here are some other things you can do to get higher speaks:

• Make the round enjoyable to judge
• Use little prep, and/or extemp significant portions of speeches
• Give clear and concise overviews in final speeches
• Compare/indict evidence effectively
• Neutralize silly arguments efficiently

Ask before the round if you want more suggestions.

Tips:

1. Slow down for advocacy texts, theory interpretations, and other short arguments, such as lists of weighing arguments or paragraph theory.
2. If you’re affirming, make permutations and ask the status of counterplans, when applicable. (Do ask if you don’t know what either means.)
3. You should verbally emphasize parts of evidence that you think will be important later on. Slowing down in rebuttals to re-explain or state an important line in evidence is also appreciated.

I am an experienced LD judge and former coach. By all measure, I am a traditional judge. I want to see clearly outlined value structure and clash between opposing values. I expect you to link your impacts to your warrants. Crystalize your voters and remember; it is your responsibility to show the judge why you have won the round. I believe flow tech is vital. It is the responsibility of the debater to extend dropped arguments not the judges'. I have no issue with speed. I will vote on any argument as long it functions within the structure of Lincoln Douglas Debate. Also, never forget this is a public speaking event; if you are speaking you are standing.

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.

Background
I debated for Hunter College High School from 2010-2014 on the national circuit (focused in the Northeast) and attended the TOC my senior year. I am currently a student at Columbia University. 

General

I will try to judge based on what debaters do in round, rather than on my own opinions. But, I do have some preferences that will affect your speaks and, inevitably to some degree, my evaluation.

I won’t disregard impacts based on an arbitrarily narrow standard, such as a “minimizing war” standard that is just justified through util. Also, you can’t drop spikes and then respond in the next speech, but you can respond to the way the spike interacts with your case. This also goes for theory interps in the AC. Lastly, I will not default to presuming for one side in particular – if there is no presumption argument in the round and I find myself with a truly irresolvable round, I will vote for whoever I feel did a better job, as this seems less arbitrary to me than automatically presuming aff or neg.


Theory

I suppose I default to competing interpretations in the sense that I will compare offense and defense on the theory debate to evaluate it, but I do not really have any strong feelings about this. If you are running reasonability, though, you need to have a standard for what it is to be reasonable, not just assert that I should gutcheck on theory.

Sidenotes:

1) Due to the proliferation of generic theory spikes in ACs such as "CX checks meets all theory interps" and "neg must quantify abuse", know that speaks will suffer if you rely on these to win the theory debate and do not do a good job of addressing the specific abuse story. Additionally, be sure that the spike explains exactly what happens if dropped (i.e. should I drop the shell, vote them down etc.) 
2) I will give the neg leeway on these spikes, meaning that if I'm not sure if their 3 responses really answer back your 1 sentence assertion, I'm going to ignore your spike. 



Kritiks

I don’t think I will be the best judge for a K debate. I am not familiar with the literature, and I often find them flawed. Additionally, I find that many K impacts do not link to a justified framework, and I will not vote for those arguments. Lastly, I find pre-fiat or micropolitical voters uncompelling.

Speaks and Stuff

If I think you should clear based on your performance in this round, you will get a 28.5 or higher. These are based on your strategy, argument quality, and technical skills as well as your actual speaking skills. In terms of in-round behavior, I would prefer that you have real cross ex (not just prep the whole time), but you can stand or sit to do this. Asking questions in prep time is of course fine. Try not to be mean to your opponent, and if you are way better than your opponent, please don’t beat them down – make it an educational and enjoyable experience for them. I do not mind if you sit during speeches. I am happy to call clear if I cannot understand you and I am willing to call for things after the round.


Good luck and feel free to ask me questions before or after the round!

I did LD debate when I went to high school (2010-2014). I used to judge consistently but stopped in 2017. Since then, I've only judged once before this tournament.

I prefer the debaters speak slowly. I also prefer if they make arguments through creative thinking rather than just reading prewritten stuff. Weighing is also important because each side invariably wins some arguments, so I need to know which arguments are the most important.

That being said, you should debate however you prefer and I'll do my best to evaluate the round based solely on the arguments made in the round.

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.

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

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.

Martin Page

Assistant Director--Debate

Ridge High School

Updated for TOC 2016

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm (Scroll Down for PF)

General Update 4/2016: I much prefer rounds where specific interactions happen rather than rounds where the strategy is to extend dropped arguments and blow them up without really addressing the other debater's position(s).  This is particularly true on the negative side--I FIRMLY believe the 1NC should spend time SPECIFICALLY addressing the AC on the AC side of the flow.  This is not to say that I won't vote for you if you don't do this, but debaters who do this will get higher speaks.  Also, please stop assuming I understand dense, uncommon positions--you need to be clear in your explanation.

Overview: I've been judging circuit LD for a while now and actively coach it, so I am familiar with many different types of arguments.  Please make sure it is clear to me how your arguments function in the round/how you are interacting with the other side.   I can't think of any arguments I won't evaluate (except the offensive "rape good, racism good, etc." arguments which I will drop you for running)--my goal is to not intervene. Please make sure it is clear to me how all arguments are functioning in the round.  Slow down on tags.  Overviews are much appreciated.

Some important notes:
1--I find myself incredibly uncomfortable with frameworks that explicitly use religion as a justification (evidently called the "God" case). I will attempt to evaluate them as I would any other argument, but if you're attempting to argue that God exists in front of me and that's a reason to vote one way or another, I'm not going to be very receptive to the argument. I respect every person's freedom of religion, but I struggle to understand the place of religion in the debate space.
2--I really struggle to evaluate rounds where there is no weighing, a lack of crystallization, or limited argument interaction. Please make the round clear to me. Crystallize in the 2NR/2AR. Weigh or explain why your arguments are a prerequisite or pre-empt to those made by the other side. If an argument is dropped, don't just tell me it is dropped--implicate the drop and tell me why it matters. The more work you do telling me how arguments function in the round, the easier it will be to evaluate the round, and the lower the chance that I accidentally intervene/have to play "argument roulette" and pluck something off the flow to vote off of because no one told me how to evaluate the round.
3--I am not very receptive to arguments saying that your opponent does not have the right to speak on a certain issue. This does not apply to theory arguments that say "debaters must not X" or "speaking for others" kritiks, which argue that NO debaters should do a certain thing (they don't leave one debater allowed to speak on an issue and another not allowed to speak on the issue). But I am not very receptive to "My opponent comes from X background, so she shouldn't speak on this issue, but I can because I come from Y background." If this argument has no carded evidence attached to it, I will not evaluate it. If it does have carded evidence attached to it, I will evaluate it, but I consider it an ad hominem attack and will have an extremely low threshold for responses to it. However, I am fine with (and even like) arguments that say authors of evidence are less qualified to speak on issues because of their background; this type of argument discusses how out-of-round discourse is shaped, so I'm fine with it. 
4--You really need to slow down on the tags and implications of evidence in less common, phil-heavy frameworks, especially if they come from the analytic tradition or are not very common in LD. I am not as familiar with these frameworks, so make sure you are especially clear in explaining how they function.

5--I'm really bad at keeping track of blippy cross applications when you're on your side of the flow; for example, if you're extending out of the AC on the AC side of the flow and also say "cross-apply this to X card on the NC flow" the chances are I miss that or something else right after it. So I prefer these cross-applications be made when you are making arguments on the side of the flow you are applying them to. 

Speed: I'm basically fine with speed--though the very, very fastest LD rounds might be slightly out of my comfort zone. I’ll say "slow" if you’re going too fast, "enunciate" if the words are garbled, and "louder" if you're too soft. If you're going fast on the evidence, please make sure the tags and analysis are slightly slower and are clear.  My issue is most often with enunciation and lack of vocal emphasis on important points in the case, not actual speed, so please make sure you are enunciating as clearly as possible. 

Kritiks: I really like them, including narratives/performance arguments. I enjoy role of the ballot arguments and micropolitical positions, both pre- and post-fiat.  I do not care if you are topical as long as you JUSTIFY why you are not going to be topical.  This doesn't mean you are immune from losing a T debate; it simply means I will evaluate non-topical positions.  Please make the link story clear on the negative side.  I'm better at evaluating ks and other policy arguments than I am at dealing with heavy and uncommon philosophical positions, but I will vote off the flow. 

T/Theory: I would rather hear a substantive debate, but I don’t have a bias against evaluating theory, and I am growing more comfortable and familiar with it. Please be sure to give me a clear sense of how the shells and theory strategy function in the round and interact with the other side. I prefer theory be read at a slower pace than other positions, and PLEASE slow down on interps and implications.  I understand that theory has strategic value beyond just checking abuse, but PLEASE note the following:

--I prefer (and sometimes even like) T debate to theory debate because I find it more interesting and relevant.

--I default reasonability and drop the argument.

--When a shell is missing links or poorly explained, or if I find the theory more abusive than the abuse itself (more than 4 shells in the NR, for example) I'm going to have a lower threshold for responses.

--If the neg position is actually abusive, unlike many judges, I am receptive to theory initiated in the 1 AR, but only against an actual abuse.

--I find AFC and theory that is run against an out-of-round abuse (i.e. disclosure theory) or an abuse that is not related to content (apparently "wifi theory" is a thing?) annoying, abusive, and bad for education, so I have a lower threshold for responses on these as well, and speaks will be low.  Running these things won't get you more than a 26.9.

--If there is no voter extended in the 2AR/2NR I will not vote on it unless it is the only offense in the round.  I default to voting on substance if the theory debate is muddled and lacks a voter in the final rebuttal.

Tricks and Other "Abusive" Arguments:

I am not a fan of "tricks" and struggle to evaluate these strategies, so if your strategy is to go for extensions of blips in your case that are barely on my flow to begin with, whether those arguments are philosophical or theoretical, I am going to have a lower threshold for responses, and speaks will be low.  However, I am somewhat more receptive to skep (though I certainly don't love it) and tricky philosophical arguments that are extremely well-developed--if you are running these arguments, you need to slow down.  Running skep or well-developed analytically philosophical tricks that I understand when they are argued in the AC will not negatively affect you're speaks.

When I say "lower threshold for responses" it means I think these are weak arguments or abusive strategies, so while I will always vote off the flow, I don't like these arguments to begin with, so I'm very open to logical responses to them.

Extensions: I like extensions to be clearer than just a card name; you have to extend a full argument, but I also value extensions that are highly efficient.  Therefore, summarize your warrants and impacts in a clear and efficient way.  Most importantly, please make sure you are very clear on how the argument functions in the round.  

Policy arguments (Plans, CPs, DAs) are all fine.  If you're running a DA, make sure the link is clear and you're weighing, but in general, I like policy arguments and am probably better at evaluating them than I am at evaluating heavy and uncommon philosophical positions.

Speaker Points: I start at a 28 and go up/down from there. Please note that in addition to what is listed below, I also give some consideration to clarity of spreading (enunciation especially) and word economy. If your words are incredibly garbled, I'm not going to be particularly happy--this usually makes a difference of .1-.2 speaker points. 

26-26.9--You have a lot of work to do OR you ran AFC or disclosure theory.

27-27.9--You did a decent job, but I do not think you have a chance of breaking.

28-28.9--You will probably break, but you aren't interacting arguments enough and are not making strategic enough decisions.

29-29.9--You are one of the better debaters I've judged at the tournament.  You're clearly signposting, weighing and/or explaining how arguments function in the round.  Your strategy might have a misstep or two, but on the whole, you've executed extremely well.

30--You executed your strategy in such a way that I wouldn't reasonably expect better from a high school student.

 Some Notes on Public Forum

I've judged more LD this year than anything else, and I struggle to find out what that means for those off you who have me as a PF judge.  I will say the following: I vote strictly off the flow, I aim not to intervene, and I will call cards in PF only if there is dispute over evidence in the round or if something seemed off to me when you read the card (i.e. if you cite the Washington Post saying 90% of Americans are Democrats or something).  Some specifics:

1--I do not care how fast you speak.

2--Turns are offense.  Implicate and use them as such.

3--The summary should respond to your opponent's rebuttal against your case and generally focus on your side of the flow (i.e. focus on your offense, not defense on their case--but remember, turns are offense).  Since it's usually impossible to respond to everything that was said in their rebuttal, be strategic about which arguments you go for and please weigh. 

4--Please crystallize the round in the final focus.  If you don't weigh arguments in the summary and final focus, it will be very hard for me not to intervene, which makes everyone sad.

5--Frameworks and observations are important and should provide me a way to weigh the round. 

6--In the absence of weighing, I tend to look for clear offense (things that were dropped and clearly extended) rather than doing weighing for you.

Feel free to email me at martin.d.k.page@gmail.com if you have questions.

Traditional Style

High school debate team, third year debate coach.

I keep a strict, continuous flow throughout the round.

I like to see strong V/VC pairing and have those concepts flow throughout the round.  A debater who simply has a V/VC because it is "expected" but does not uphold them throughout the round is a debater who will have a difficult time receiving a win from me.

Logic and evidence must support each other ALWAYS.

Always be polite!

Most importantly, ORGANIZE.  There needs to be some sort of method to attacks and defenses.

My background is in PF, so as far as LD goes I’m a traditional judge. I like to see well-supported contentions and a strong framework debate with good clash.

First and foremost, don’t spread. Debate is fundamentally about communication and thus a lay observer should be able to follow the speed of your arguments. Speak at a conversational pace; I will not hesitate to drop you if you go too fast.

Certain elements of more progressive debate are okay: CPs are fine, as are DAs if the impacts are reasonable. I won’t vote for big impacts just for the sake of outweighing on magnitude; there’s no reason a privacy rights resolution should impact all the way to nuclear war.

Don’t run Ks or theory. The debate is a question of the resolution’s merits and should stay firmly within the bounds of evaluating topical evidence on both sides.

Feel free to ask me any other questions in round.

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.

Paradigm Updated 8/2/2018

Email: marshall@victorybriefs.com

Background

I graduated from Walt Whitman high-school in 2011. I have been coaching debate fairly regularly since then and currently direct curriculum at VBI. My debaters have consistently gotten to late elims at major national tournaments including TOC.

In my non-debate life I am pursuing a PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. My primary area of focus is in ethics and the nature of persons. I work in the analytic philosophical tradition with a focus on the work of Elizabeth Anscombe.

Conflicts

I am conflicted from Harrison HS

5-Min Before Round Paradigm (how i'm different from the average judge)

1. I am more interventionist than most circuit judges. I am willing to do work to not vote on extremely silly arguments. Arguments I have admitted to doing work to avoid voting on include:

- Drop the debater because they read dates after their card names, rather than numbering the cards with the same author name.

- Prefer aff offense on any given layer, extended as saying aff always win weighing.

- 'I meet' I did not read that argument, I extemped it.

- They forgot to say 'I meet' on theory, even though they did indeed extend a plan text.

That said, I am probably more willing than most judges to deviate from mere community convention when it comes to argumentation. For example, I am quite receptive to arguments that the affirmative should get intrinsicness perms and that philosophical frameworks frame theory offense.

2. I am worse at flowing than perhaps any other circuit judge. I'm extremely dyslexic/dysgraphic and my flows tend to be extremely poor even when typing them. However, I can follow the vast majority of rounds, even fairly technical rounds, pretty well in my head. So, you can still be technical however it will be important to spend more time in the 2ar and 2nr doing big picture analysis and comparison than it is for most circuit judges (and for most judges it is more important than students seem to realize).

3. You should win the round because you can beat your opponent's arguments, not because your opponent cannot make arguments. This means if you read super complex Ks against a novice your speaks will suffer a lot. In general, if you structure the debate in a way that you should have known your opponent could not engage you speaks will be capped at 26.

4. I hold positions to a higher standard of clarity and explanation than most judges. I not only need to understand your position when you first read it (and I have no problem admitting when I do not), but the explanation has to be good enough that I think it is reasonable for a reasonably well-informed high-school student to understand the argument. Thus, if you say 'Morality’s directives can only be categorically binding if they are constitutive of agency, as otherwise they are escapable' that is not an adequate explanation of the argument. The only reason I know what that means, is because I know the actual argument that it's a placeholder for. Similarly, if you say 'prefer competing interpretations because it prevents a race to the bottom and reasonability is arbitrary' I will not fill in for you the many missing internal links and extrapolation needed for that to mean something.

5. You can answer preemptive arguments after they are extended and applied. You don't need to answer them in the first speech. E.g. you can answer AC spikes in the 2nr, or NC spikes in the 2ar.

6. Preptime ends when you remove the flash drive from your computer, or when you hit send on the email. Compiling speech docs is on time.

7. Some debaters are unclear when they spread. Others are just going too fast for the complexity of the arguments. If you are unclear I will say 'clear'. If you are going too fast for how complex your argument is I will either say 'slow' or 'AURGHBLUGGGGG' in a distraught tone.

8. [Update midway through apple valley] I have found that I functionally cap negative speaks at 28.5 if you go for more than two distinct levels of offense in the 2nr. I think collapsing is a non-negotiable component of good debating which speaker points are designed to reflect.

Broader Paradigmatic Considerations: Things I believe but will still do my best to decide on the flow

Theory/T Beliefs

A) The Aff should be topical.

B) Many LD resolutions are generics, and many 'plans' don't prove generics true.

C) There is no good argument for the RVI.

D) Theoretical advantages should not replace substantive argumentation. E.g. this FW is super educational should not be able to be a warrant for your ethical theory (note that many Role of the Ballots have this same problem).

E) Framework argument can, and should be, applied to theory debates. If util is false, than deterrence is probably not a good reason to drop the debater on theory.

F) Ad hoc interpretations are bad.

G) Most theory is not drop the debater. The sensible conclusion is normally drop the argument or something else.

H) Something being difficult to answer does not make it unfair. Similarly, proving a theoretical assumption of the aff is false, does not prove the aff did something unfair in making that theoretical claim.

K Beliefs

A)The Aff should be topical.

B) K arguments that talk about what the debater should have done I tend to think about as theory shells. Ks that talk about what the government should have done I tend to think about as a dis ad + a counterplan.

C) Reasons the affirmative ethical theory is bad, is normally not a reason the affirmative loses. Just a reason we should assess the resolution under a different ethical theory. Obviously this is not universal nor incontestable.

D) If your K can result in the action of the aff then you need to say so in the NC. The K solves the aff offense by resulting in the aff is new if made in the 2nr.

Policy Beliefs

A) Condo is fine in most situations as are intrisicness perms (though you cannot fiat into the future, only within the timeframe suggested by the resolution).

B) Uniqueness arguments are probabilistic, not absolute. For example, suppose a republican win in the house and senate will certainly lead to extinction, and a democratic win in either will certainly prevent that extinction. Now imagine two cases. First, the neg wins republican win is likely now (about 60%) and a link that increases the republican chance of winning (moving democrat chances down to 40%). Here the aff has increased the chance of extinction by 20%. However, suppose that the aff reads cards on uniqueness showing a republican win is actually more likely (so the chance of dem's win starts at 40%). Still if the link evidence is the same strength (and so move the dem's chances to 20%) the impact is still the same (affirming increases the chance of extinction by 20%).

I did PF for four years in high school, and have been judging PF and LD ever since.

Here are my main areas of concern:

Spreading - Don't do it. If I can't understand what you're saying or the supporting evidence for it because you're speaking so fast, there's really no point to you saying it. Remember this is primarily a public speaking event and you're job is to convince me. Speak at a normal/slightly above normal pace.

Gish Galloping - Don't do it. I think it is abusive and you'll lose. I'd rather see a few well developed arguments then 27 arguments supported with one sentence.

Tabula Rasa - I come into the round knowing nothing about the topic; everything I know about it I learn from the debaters.

Counter Plans - Generally not a fan. Argue for or against the resolution, not something in between.

How to win - Convince me to go with your side. On the Aff, convince me of the resolution. On the Neg, convince me that the resolution will not solve the problem, the status quo is better, etc.

For both LD and PF, I am a very traditional judge. Extreme speed, overuse of jargon, and trickery are not appreciated and could cost you the round. Win the round on the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation. I will disclose ONLY if required by the tournament host. I will offer no oral critiques. Both of those are the purpose of the ballot.

Can't Judge: Stuyvesant, Lexington

Background: I debated for 4 years at Lexington and competed almost exclusively on the national circuit.

I coached for Stuyvesant from 2014-2017 and also helped out some former students for TOC 2018. I haven't judged since that tournament and have 0 content knowledge about the topic.

I think part of what makes debate great is its incredible openness. Given that fact, I am fine with speed, theory, policy-style argumentation, dense framework arguments, kritiks, performance, tricks, and pretty much anything else you can think of. Debate is your game. Play it how you want to.

Feel free to message me with any questions at pzhou@wesleyan.edu

Some judges that influenced me: Sam Azbel