BCFL Metro
2023 — Towson, MD/US
Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideJohn W. Arnold
Howard High School
Ellicott City, Maryland
I have been competing in forensics since middle school! I have taught public speaking, coached and judged IE, LD, CX and Public Forum debate since 2006.
Public Forum Debate Judging Philosophy
I find Debate to be much like a game of chess. A good clash of ideas makes a most enjoyable debate for me. So, don’t be afraid to take risks and be passionate about your arguments, so long as you support, defend, and explain them. PFD is a debate of currently relevant events; therefore, please make sure that your arguments and evidence reflect that current relevance.
Communication skills and the resolution of substantive issues are equally important to me. Speed has the potential to harm your communicative ability. If you are reading too fast, I will let you know, and expect you to adapt to my request. Your speaker points are based solely on your ability to communicate with me. Please remember that you are trying to persuade me to vote in your favor. Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that I can understand you.
Teach me, explain and apply the evidence to me, don’t just read it. The quality of your evidence is much more important to me than sheer quantity of evidence. You must be able to use--weigh, impact, link, extend—your evidence, showing me that you know and understand it.
Absent a framework being established, I will evaluate the debate on the voting issues presented in the Summaries and Final Foci. Be sure to use those speeches to explain and convince me of what the debate boils down to, and why I should believe you over your opponent -- be sure to warrant these assertions!
Crossfire, especially Grand Crossfire, should remain civil.
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Judging Philosophy
I will not intervene during the debate, nor ask to see evidence after the debate. Feel free to ask any questions prior to the round.
I enjoy judging LD rounds when the debaters focus on communicating with each other and educating me. This is the basis on which I assign speaker points. Don’t be afraid to clash, in fact, clash intentionally, but with civility.
I prefer a clear standard with which I can evaluate the round. Make sure that you link and impact back to the standard. Don’t just tell me that they do, prove it. I am definitely listening for claim—warrant—impact in the presentation of evidence and logical argumentation. I’d rather LD debaters did not spread, but as long as your speed does not affect your articulation and comprehensibility, I am fine with it. Make it easy for me with road maps and signposting. Both AFF and NEG should be sure to clearly and effectively crystallize their position in their final speeches.
My decision is based on my review of what I have on my flow at the end of the round.
Policy Debate Judging Philosophy
I find Debate to be much like a game of chess. A good clash of ideas makes a most enjoyable debate for me. So, don’t be afraid to take risks and be passionate about your arguments, so long as you support and defend them.
Communication skills and the resolution of substantive issues are equally important to me. Speed has the potential to harm your communicative ability. If you are reading too fast, I will let you know, and expect you to adapt to my request. Your speaker points are based solely on your ability to communicate with me. Please remember that you are trying to persuade me to vote in your favor. Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that I can understand you. Teach me, explain and apply the evidence to me, don’t just read it. The quality of your evidence is much more important to me than sheer quantity of evidence. You must be able to use--weigh, impact, link, extend—your evidence, showing me that you know and understand it. I’d rather not evaluate the debate in topicality issues, but will if forced to. Absent an in-round framework being established, I will evaluate the debate on whether or not the topical plan would be a good idea. I don’t think kritiks provide for the best debates, but will listen to them and consider them, if given a clearly articulated and warranted reason to.
Argue what you believe in, are passionate about and are good at. Enjoy what you are spending so much time doing!
I'm a parent judge who has spent the last two years judging PF and LD. I'm an attorney and litigator and, as a result, particularly value your frameworks, clarity, and argumentation over technicalities regarding flow. In addition, I'd prefer you remain topical and I have limited interest in theory. In other words, while I will track points made and dropped, and consider them, I'd prefer you point such matters out once (and argue for the point's importance) and then return to your overall argument, and I'd prefer that the debate remain focused on the topic at hand and not spin out into unrelated areas. A novel argument is great, but an unrelated argument is not going to win me over.
I enjoy a good crossfire, but I won't vote on cross unless it's brought up in a summative speech. I get frustrated with debaters that have effective crossfires that aren't utilized - please remember to do that. Also, being aggressive is great, but don't cross the line into being inappropriate, rude, mean, etc.
I indicated this above but I love a good framework and the ability to stick to it. If you are able to respond to your opponents argument, or learn something in cross, and fit that rebuttal or information into your framework - or a natural extension thereof - I will be an admiring judge.
Finally, please do not speak to fast. Share your information, but remember you're trying to convince me of your argument.
The more I think about my paradigm and debate the more I realize that my opinions are constantly evolving and thus I will probably not be straight down my paradigm in round.
The bold is important highlights throughout. Enjoy
Quick overview:
I debated at Calvert Hall for four years (2017-2021), debate at Towson University (2022-present). I ran policy arguments in high school and now I do performance debate in college. Make it simple for me, i don't like doing work for you, you don't write my paychecks. Every aspect of debate is performative, make sure that you are a decent human being and call out your opponents when their performance is problematic. But, run what you want and do your job as a to explain to me while it matters.
yes I want to be on the email chain, christd550@gmail.com
You should leave pen time whether or not i'm flowing on my laptop or paper - I want to make sure I get all your warrants!
here's how I would pref me:
1 - policy (soft-left) or policy vs the K
2 - Policy (heg/nuke war)
3 - Identity K
4 - High theory K's
Specifics:
Affs:
I think K affs are good for debate. I really like seeing you incorporate aspects of your performance into later speeches, and strategic cross-applications of your performance to answer things like framework. There's lots of things that happen in rounds that can create other arguments to prove your critical arguments, especially if your criticizing things about debate as an institution. Behaviors and such matter in debate but I'm not going to evaluate that for you unless you make it an issue.
Neg:
DA:
Better link debating is better debating and will earn you higher speaks.
Live laugh love the politics disad
T:
Prove abuse and impact it out. If you're aff give me specific examples of why the aff is uniquely good for debate/is topical. You should probably have a case-list or at least a categories list otherwise i'm not sure what your interp devolves to.
Explain my role as a judge clearly. What am i voting for, what am i justifying in the community writ-large? why the other side's interp is uniquely bad/violent and you have a good chance at picking up my ballot.
I think that being non-topical is also important but its the affs burden to prove why they should get to be non-topical. I like models debates, what does your model justify vs theirs for the activity as whole, why is this round the key internal link to your model, etc.
CP's:
PIC's are alright - not my favorite thing, but I'm willing to listen to anything and learn why we shouldn't include a certain part of the aff. Not the best for huge and technical CP theory debates.
I enjoy CP debates but a lot of people don't explain solvency enough - no do the work. I think the same applies to the perm debate - lots of permutations go wildly underexplained.
Theory:
Condo:
I think condo is good unless I'm told it's not/the negs vision is really abusive. Multiple condo worlds are fun. I probably draw the line somewhere around 4 but that's a gray area; I can be convinced that 4+ is good and I can be convinced that more than 1 is abusive.
Theory debates are often very late-breaking and difficult to resolve. I am not the best for lots of debate theory especially without good line by line and comparison. Your theory blocks are great but what am I supposed to do with that and how does it interact with your opponent? If you want to debate theory do it well because I don't really enjoy it all that much so make it worth my time.
K's:
Anything super high theory (Baudrillard, psychoanalysis, deluze, etc.) I'm not familiar with the lit so you're going to have to explain it to me. Do your thing but you might have to do more explanation than throwing buzzwords around.
I like alts that resolve the links and result in some form of the aff - make sure you win the sequencing question for either the perm or the alt debate.
Most familiar with capitalism and antiblacknes K's - that's what I do with Towson CT.
Other Thoughts:
- Impact calc is very important, tell me exactly why I should prioritize your impacts. If this means framing cards, go for it.
- I'm willing to vote on anything (except things like racism good), just make it interesting and well explained, and do you!!!
- Don't be rude to your opponent, be respectful and nice, debate is competitive but fun.
- Pretty middle of the road/slightly above average for speaker points.
I think debaters have gotten too comfortable dumping cards and not really explaining them or using cards to make arguments instead of just being a debater and making arguments yourself. I challenge you to push yourself to make arguments and use less evidence - y'all are smart, show me you are!
if you read this far - you're already in a high stress situation and prepping for your round, so take a deep breath and get off of my paradigm and do your thing!
here's a cookie for reading this far
accomplishments you don't care about:
2x NDT Qualifier
1x CEDA Octafinalist
1x TOC Bid recipient
Myself:
Hi there, thanks for taking a moment to read my paradigm! The 2023-2024 school year is my fourth year judging in the NCFL, following my four years of experience as a Lincoln-Douglass debater. I only have personal experience in the fields of LD and Children's Literature, although I am well assessed in the Public Forum and Impromptu realms. In three years of actually competing, I spent all of my time at NCFL sponsored tournaments. I do not have any experience in circuit debating so anything you learned there may not be helpful in a round judged by me. I am more of a progressive judge as I am not solely reliant on the framework of the debate. I see the case holistically and want to hear just as good arguments on the contention level as on the framework level. Below, I provide detailed explanations on how I evaluate my rounds. Don't hesitate to reach out with any questions you may have.
Argumentation:
First and foremost, make sure that you are arguing theory, use the logic in your case to back up your reasoning. I do not vote solely based on who has the morally preferred world, but who has the most feasible world while staying in the realms of morale. When providing evidence, link them to the flow and carry them across in your rebuttals. Anything that is non-topical will most likely be voted down unless you have an incredible line of defense. I will not drop a debater for making new arguments, but I will drop the arguments. An argument in rebuttal is not new if it is made at the first opportunity a debater has had to address a previous argument. A new point in the Neg's last speech can be rebutted by a new point in the 2AR. I do accept counter-plans and over-turns. Please do not get into a definitional debate. Note: I do not do kritiks
Cross-Examination:
I capture notes during cross-ex when I feel the line of questioning is leading to a specific argument later on in the debate. Few times have I looked back at cross-ex notes to see if a debater had an admission that ended up hurting their case. In this instance, it will most likely be used in my final RFD. Additionally, I won't penalize you if there is a good reason for you to be extra firm in your cross-ex response (opponent not answering the question/tip-toeing around the answer.) However, that does not mean I allow for a combative yelling match. Any blatant disrespect will result in a deduction of speaker points.
Speaker Points:
I give 26 points for an average performance. There are some basic things that you will need to demonstrate in order to have a chance at receiving the full 30 speaker points. First, please do not over explain. Beating a dead horse in your final speech is tiring and off-putting. Though it probably won't be a decision-maker, you're wasting time that could be better spent on addressing pressing points. Second, provide a roadmap and stick to it before you speak. If you don't follow the road map you laid out, it will annoy me. Signpost as you go so I'm not scrambling around. Third, be civil and go at a comprehensible speed. I'm not critical of needing eye contact, standing during rebuttals, audibility level (as long as I can hear and you're not shouting), or potentially showing signs of nervousness. I will not deduct points for any signs of anxiety. Lastly, show courtesy. Ask if I and your opponent are ready before you begin speaking. For the more substantive expectations, I want you to effectively weigh your arguments, link back each contention level argument with your framework and explain why your opponent's world is undesirable and/or unpractical. While LD is heavy on theory, I expect logic to be consistent. And as a personal note, I love a good upstage ;)
Speed:
I'm okay with speed as long as you're clear and concise. Make sure to slow down as you approach your contention and sub-point level taglines. If I do not write it down, it will not be evaluated when making my final decision. I won't vote a debater down specifically if they speak too fast, only if their speed hinders my ability to capture their whole argument. I will try my best throughout the entire debate to record any and all mentions, even during cross-ex. Stay keen as to how I am acting over the monitor. If I'm not writing when you think you made an impact, then either it doesn't make sense or you're speaking too fast.
Timing:
I will always have a timer with me and I highly suggest that the debaters have one next to them as well. However, my timer is the official time. With that being said, please respect my time and your opponent's time by keeping your timer volume down. If you need time signals, don't hesitate to ask and I'll try my best to give them during the round. I do allow for debaters to finish their sentences if my timer runs out. If they continue well past their time (usually more than five seconds) I will stop flowing and eventually call out "times up." During cross-ex, I expect questions to be answered if they are asked before the three minutes is over. Even if the debater states it at the literal last second. As a courtesy note, please indicate when you're beginning your speech and ask if I, the judge, am ready to begin. Sometimes I am still recording notes from the previous speech and if you start before I'm ready, chances are I'll miss your refutes.
My Objections:
Regardless of the topic at hand, I will vote down any debater who personally degrades or puts-down their opponent or anyone else involved in the debate. I will vote down any debater who is rude, makes threats, or who intentionally falsifies evidence. I will vote down any debater who does not take the debate seriously by reading exceptionally far-fetched cases/cards that do not correlate with the topic at hand (i.e. advocating for nuclear proliferation when the debate is about college admissions.)
I will be valuing the framework debate above all. Whoever is most effectively able to mobilize their value framework for their side is an effective strategy to appeal to me as a judge.
Other important factors:
-
Clearly sign post and stick to them in speeches
-
Utilized points in CX or in case must be clearly referenced to be considered (When I asked question B in CX, my opponent said C, which is important because..)(My opponent conceded Y in CX)
-
Define and articulate impacts and voters (The impacts for voting aff are…, this is important because…) Articulate voting issues and which one’s you win, articulate why you win the debate. Make sure to WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH!)
-
I can only consider points that are brought up by the debater (Such as something conceded in CX)
-
First time judging so please bare with me when I adjust my flow between speeches. I would also prefer that speakers do not go too fast.
- If you have any more questions please ask before the round :)
Paradigm
I vote on almost anything if you win the debate. I believe that debate should be an even competition of what happens in the round and how it affects the outside world instead of the other way around. Also don't do anything racist, homophobic, sexist, patriarchal, transphobic, heteronormative or simply disrespectful in round without expecting poor speaker points. It will also affect how I view your argumentation in this safe space.
Spreading
In regards to spreading I'm fine with it just don't start out at full speed I need time to adjust to voices. Also be clear and slow on tags so I can know what you are saying and what I should be voting on. I can't vote on something that I can't hear.
John Huebler (he/him)
Loyola Blakefield High School - LD - 2012-2016
University of Mary Washington - Policy - 2016-2020
Debate email: jhebs999@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain!)
Current 3L at University of Baltimore Law School
---
I haven't done much research for the high school and college topics this year, I'm in law school now which has occupied a lot of my time. Having applied my debate experience in professional and further academic settings, I think that good communication, critical thinking, and research skills are invaluable just about anywhere you go. To this end, moving into 2024 I hope to use speaker points more and more to reflect how I think the content of the debate has been presented.
One thing I wanted to be sure to put up top: please be nice to each other.Debate is a communicative, collaborative learning activity and it loses that value when someone feels extremely uncomfortable. I like to promote a friendly atmosphere in the rounds I judge. The good you put out in the world will come back someday!!
Presentation
Speed - I ask that you speak at about 80% of your top speed. Please have a brief pause when in between flows. I am willing to say clear up to 3 times for all debaters. For T, theory, analytics or reading your blocks, please go slow and use inflection.
Organization - At the end of the day, debate is a communicative activity. Numbering, roadmapping, and labeling are good practices and make it easier for me to understand and for your opponents to clash. To this end, I don't think that embedded clash is nearly as easy to follow as standard numbering, embedded clash only works in front of me if you slow down and use plenty of emphasis. If you are one to fly through pre-written blocks or overviews without pauses or emphasis, I would seriously reconsider how you make arguments in front of me. I want to listen to you and make the best decision I can, otherwise you won't be happy with my choice or your speaks.I think an overview should be 30 seconds at most, otherwise you aren't spending enough time on the line by line.
Extensions - Do NOT just say an author name and assume I know what you're talking about. I'm bad with names already and will hardly remember the 36 new ones that I'm supposed to know in these 2 hours! Referring to a number, a tag, and an impact will increase your chances that I will know where you're at and flow your arguments adequately.
Cross-Ex and Speaking for partner - I am fine with open cross ex, but don't hijack or take over your partner's questioning or answering. They are supposed to be the person in charge of this! Generally, I don't like partner's interjecting in the speech, it's not something I feel that I should be flowing. Saying pointers here and there is a-ok, but please don't get to the point of being super duper distracting to your partner! Abuse of this in speeches and cross ex will affect speaks.
Evidence Standards
I appreciate teams that read author qualifications - It's how I debated all four years of college, it is not a hard thing to do . If you are proud of the evidence you researched, reading the author's qualification gives you more authority.
I am disheartened by teams just finding evidence from wherever and throwing it in a doc. I would consider myself a good judge for evaluating evidence indicts and shady evidence practices. I could see myself very likely voting on this if there is a bad example of it.
I should not have to look at the un-underlined portions of your evidence to understand your author's arguments. I personally do not think that the shrink function in verbatim should ever be used for evidence.
Pace of the Round
Prep Time - Most tournaments fall behind schedule. Inefficiencies cut into decision time that affects the quality of my decision and your feedback. Please be efficient, especially in between speeches and prep time.
I will be understanding of tech fails, but not as much negligence. Anything that could have been fixed prior to the round (Dealing with your laptop’s issues, finding your flows, looking for evidence, figuring out how to operate a timer, setting up stands, etc.) will generally frustrate me and may affect your speaks in some of the more egregious cases.
Other Things:
-Please time yourselves - I will generally time too, but it's important for organizing your speech, it ensures that you stay on pace and make all the arguments that you want to.
-Politics DA - Beyond debating case, this was my second favorite thing to research and argue. I actively work in maryland state politics so these types of arguments are really something I can appreciate!
-CPs - I personally think 2 conditional advocacies are goldilocks, but can be persuaded on condo given specific examples of abuse. My tolerance for CPs gets lower with no solvency advocate in the 1NC or if it is a weird and over-complicated uniqueness CP. I really don't like the multi-plank CPs that are all very different ideas, unless there is an author that advocates all of them happening at once. I'd be persuaded by a theory argument, for instance, stating that such a multi-faceted advocacy cannot be predicted since it is not within the literature.
-Ks - I have limited experience running them since high school and relatively small knowledge on most literature bases. I'd need more in depth explanation of your arguments and appreciate using the K against the case to get specific links to the aff or interesting case turns. Definitely don't want to discourage anyone from running one though, I really enjoy overviews that are specific to things happening in the round.
background
Mamaroneck ‘21, Johns Hopkins '25
Add me to the chain - twl.debate@gmail.com
+0.3 speaks if you open source all of your docs and tell me.
Tech > truth, but everything needs a warrant.
I was 1a/2n.
topicality
I will default to competing interpretations.
You need an alternative to plan text in a vacuum.
policy
Tell me to judge kick.
Smart perms destroy process cps.
You can insert perm texts.
You can insert rehighlightings.
The more specific the disad, the better.
Impact turns are fun (excluding wipeout).
ks on the neg
Ks should have specific links to the plan. Pull quotes from their aff for links.
Reps links are bad.
If the other team doesn’t understand you, don’t assume I will.
Policy teams that can't answer the K deserve to lose.
k affs
Framework: Procedural fairness and clash are impacts.
I can very easily be persuaded by presumption against k affs.
If argued by the neg, k affs probably don’t get a perm.
theory
Condo is good but you can persuade me that it is not.
Neg leaning for most theory.
Will vote on conceded aspec and other theory arguments.
non-negotiables
Follow speech times, don’t ask for high speaks, don’t ask for double wins, and don’t try to destroy the game.
PF:
I have coached PF for a number of years and am a past BCFL PF director. I believe this activity is meant for a parent judge so speed is unacceptable and jargon should be kept to a minimum. I expect a civil debate with no rudeness. I expect crossfire questions to come relatively evenly from each side. In rebuttals, I expect the pro to address the con case and any issues from the previous crossfire. In the con rebuttal, I expect that the debater attacks pro and rebuts the attacks made by pro on the con case. If con does not cover both sides, I will consider consider the arguments dropped on my flow and judge them as such. In grand crossfire, I expect to hear from all four debaters. To the extent that I do not, it will be reflected in your speaker points. In the summary speeches I know that this will be pro's first chance to respond to con's attacks on the pro's case but also summarize the main arguments. FF should be concise and identify the issues you are winning and convince me why I should vote for your side of the debate. I should not hear any new arguments in the FF. If you make them, they will not factor into my decision.
- Please summarize and impact your winning arguments in your last speech. While I may disagree with your list of voting issues, it helps me see what issues you have identified as important and how you weigh them.
I will default to the Pro's proffered definitions (assuming they're stated in the Pro Constructive) unless Con offers good reason for me prefer a counter-definition (or a modified version of the Pros definition) proffered by the Con. I cannot reject a definition unless I am given some alternative definition or understanding to use and that alternative is argued for.
Roadmaps and signposting are extremely helpful, so please stick to roadmaps once you've given them.
Evidence
- I do not require debaters to proactively share their cases with one another or with me. If you want someone's case or evidence, request it--it's simple enough to do. I do, however, expect you to share evidence when requested. I dislike asking for cases pro forma, and in slower debates, I prefer that debaters not call for or examine cases just as an aid for flowing. Don't be lazy.
- I am reluctant to call for evidence. Unless there are accusations of dishonest practices, I will evaluate the credibility of sources based on the arguments made by the debaters in the round.
Timing
- I always time all speeches and prep. My timer keeps the official time. If you need time signals, please ask, but I am not always great at remembering them. Fair warning.
- Prep begins after all requested cards are shown or sent to the requesting team (unless the requesting team wants to or does begin prepping sooner). Prep ends when the debater tells me it ends or they run out of time. Debaters must clearly indicate to me when they are starting and ending prep so that I can keep time. Starting prep before alerting me is unacceptable.
- Feel free to time yourselves. You may time your opponents as well, but please don't cut them off verbally or with an alarm. If you think an opponent has exceeded their time, get my attention quietly.
- A sentence begun before time expires may be completed after time has expired. No compound, complex or run-on sentences.
Finally
I do not tolerate rudenss to your partner or your opponents.
I don't bite--feel free to ask questionsbefore the round if you have any. If you need to refer to me, you should call me "judge" during a round. Outside of a round, "judge" or "Mrs. Mandile" are acceptable. I use she/her/hers pronouns. Remember: just have fun and do your best. Good Luck!
Email: tapachecolbdb8er@gmail.com; also on debatedocs if that matters.
***2019 NDT/TOC Update***
1) Background
A) College- I have judged fewer than 15 college debates on the executive powers topic. I have done some research on it.
B) High school- I have judged fewer than 20 high school debates on the immigration topic. I have done significant research on it.
C) I have legal knowledge as a background. Rarely has it made any difference in a debate. It has helped in cutting cards in providing a context I would not otherwise have regarding legal processes.
2) Debaters should be better at resolving debates and providing relative comparisons at a meta-level. Tell me why you have won a particular portion of a debate AND why that matters relative to the remainder of the debate.
3) Specificity matters to me. I have found over the course of judging that debates in the abstract are the most difficult to judge. Whether it is the specificity of a disad link or an explanation of limits on T, specificity to the context of a particular debate is critical in terms of how you contextualize your arguments.
***Old Update***
So I thought about my previous philosophy, and I didn’t think I would like it if I were a debater and read it. So I will try to provide (hopefully) more useful insight into what I think about debate. I have no idea what situations will occur and what defaults I may have given my limited amount of judging, but I think explaining what I thought about debate as a debater will help.
I just graduated from college, having debated for 4 years in high school at Loyola Blakefield and 4 years in college at the University of Mary Washington.
The way to get me to vote for you is to tell me what to vote on and how to evaluate it. Force my hand, think about the debate from a holistic perspective. Compare arguments. Make even if statements.
What did I really value that I got out of debate?
Fun- I thought debate was a ton of fun. Thinking quickly on my feet, trying to predict what people would say, cutting a ton of cards. I loved debate.
Critical thinking- I do not think anything ever made me think as hard and as complexly as debate. Limited prep time, strategic decisions needing to be made. Thinking about the best arguments to be made against a certain team or with a certain judge. Thinking the way debate teaches has helped me in undergrad, law school, and in life. It teaches a certain way of thinking that is invaluable.
Advocacy- debate taught me how to make an argument, and how to win it in front of anyone. Strip debate of the jargon, and you know how to make an argument in any context. It enhanced my paper writing and has helped me in a lot of situations I think.
How did I get this out of debate?
Rigorous testing. Equitably difficult debate where both teams rigorously test each other’s arguments produces an activity that I found fun, helped me to think critically in quick and strategic ways, and taught me how to make arguments efficiently. I fundamentally think that debate is about rigorously testing positions. You can have debates about anything, but I think this is how I would describe it to people outside of debate and is what debate should be in my normative world.
Why does this matter?
It shapes what I think about debate positions, or is my default for evaluation. This is one of many possible frames I could use. But this is where I start, and it shapes my perception of topicality, to CP competition, to Ks, to theory, to speaker points.
FW
I do think I am open to listening to alternative constructions of debate, but what that is and looks like needs to be tangible to me for me. The team that answers the question- what world of debate is most equitably rigorous wins. My presumption about rigorous testing can be challenged, and I do not know what I will think once I start judging. It is my default though. I think the topic has value insofar as it sets a stasis for argumentation from which rigorous testing commences. Topical version of the aff arguments are good, but not necessary for the neg. For the aff (saying debate bad), I think uniqueness arguments about exclusion are persuasive. I think the closer the aff is to the topic, the more persuasive reasonability becomes.
Topicality
Topicality debates should be grounded in the literature. I tend to think limits are a controlling issue in T debates because they determine whether the neg has the opportunity to rigorously test the aff. Caselists are useful for either side.
I think arguments contextual to the topic are useful. I think T is important on the oceans topic given its enormity and the lack of unified negative ground. For the aff, I am compelled by aff flex arguments like its and generic CPs make the topic awful.
CPs
For most CPs, I probably default to reject the argument not the team. I do think there are arguments that can be made that bad CPs are a reason to reject the team, but it is not my default presumption. There are two questions that I think are important to answer- does the CP rigorously test the aff AND how critical is the CP in the literature? I do think that most CP theory debates are invariably shallow which makes evaluating them difficult.
Conditionality does not differ for me from other CP theory in that the question is about rigorous testing. I do think conditionality is rampant. I think contradicting positions are bad, but can also have different implications in debates- does using the same reps you k’ed mean that perm- do the alt is legit, or that the alt fails? Probably. Contextualizing conditionality to the specific practices done in the debate makes the argument very persuasive.
My presumption is against intervening to kick the CP for the 2nr. If I am told to do it, I might if the aff drops the argument. If they don’t, I probably won’t.
College teams – Pics- I am not completely sold that all/nearly all is the death knell for pics on the college topic. My presumption for pics being good makes me think this is a debatable question, even if the resolution tries to write this out of debates.
Ks
I think topic-specific critiques can be interesting because they rigorously test the aff. Whichever team controls the role of the ballot typically wins, and neg teams should invest more if the role of the ballot is distinct from my presumption of testing. I also do not think it is strategic for K teams to not answer the aff explicitly – dropping the 1ac usually means I vote aff – meaning my bar is higher on voting for “x comes first”/ “x means the whole aff is wrong” args. Generalizations do not test the aff. Dropping the 1ac does not test the aff.
I think try or die is how I think about ks. Ks that are the strongest in persuading me control the impact uniqueness of the debate. I find aff arguments about trends in the status quo more important than other people because of that (for example, if the environment is sustainable, winning a consumption k becomes much harder). Affs should focus on alt solvency and how to evaluate impacts.
Disads
I tend to think the link controls the direction of the DA, but can be persuaded that uniqueness does.
I think zero risk is possible.
I think turns case arguments really help the neg. I think unanswered turns case arguments by the block in the 1ar are difficult for the aff to come back from.
General
You will receive a bump in speaker points if you read quals.
I flow cross-x.
Demonstrate topic knowledge.
I like specific arguments better than general ones.
I think long overviews are overrated and are a way to avoid clash.
Start impact calculus early.
Indict specific evidence- the quals and the warrants.
Explain to me why I should prefer your evidence over your opponents.
Tell me when an argument is new or dropped.
Be comprehensible.
2as should not blow off arguments on the case.
Smart arguments matter, as long as they are complete. An argument is a claim and warrant.
Clipping is a problem in the activity. Don’t do it. Don’t allege that someone else has done it without evidence via recording – you will not win otherwise. The debate community relies on shared trust. Breaking that trust or accusing someone of doing this is of the utmost seriousness.
Be organized- with yourself in the debate as well as your arguments.
Do not steal prep.
Minimize the amount of time paperless debate causes.
***Previous philosophy***
Short version
I just graduated from college, having debated for 4 years in high school at Loyola Blakefield and 4 years in college at the University of Mary Washington. I have not judged so much that there is a predisposition that is so strong not to be able to be overcome. You do you, most things are up for debate. I prefer specific strategies over general strategies regardless of what those strategies deploy. I prefer CP/Politics or Politics/Case debates. I think the real way to being happy with a decision from me is to tell me what to do and how to assess arguments in the debate. The team that tells me what to do at the end of the debate and has the best reasoning for it will win.
I like hard work. Debaters that work will hard will be rewarded for doing so. I will also work my hardest to give every debater the credit they deserve while I am making a decision.
Coaches who have had a formative impact on me – Adrienne Brovero, Daryl Burch, Tom Durkin.
Judges I liked that I would like to be like – Lawrence Granpre, Scott Harris, Fernando Kirkman, Sarah Sanchez, Patrick Waldinger. I promise I will not be as good as these people, but I use them as a model for how I want to judge.
Background
I was a 2a and a politics debater in college, and a 2n that relied on the cap k and topicality in high school. I have done significant research on the oceans topic, and a little on the college topic.
FW
I default policymaker. I think the topic is set up to be instrumentally affirmed. Again, not so much so that I will not listen to other arguments or perspectives. For the neg, I am strong believer in fairness as well as the skills that debate teaches. I think predictability is necessary for debates to happen. Topical version of the aff arguments are good, but not necessary for the neg. For the aff (saying debate bad), I think uniqueness arguments about exclusion are persuasive. I think the closer the aff is to the topic, the more persuasive reasonability becomes.
Topicality
Topicality debates should be grounded in the literature. I tend to think limits are a controlling issue in T debates. Caselists are useful for either side.
I think arguments contextual to the topic are useful. I think T is important on the oceans topic given its enormity and the lack of unified negative ground. For the aff, I am compelled by aff flex arguments like its and generic CPs make the topic awful.
CPs
For most CPs, I probably default to reject the argument not the team. That does not mean that I think that all CPs are good OR that I would be unwilling to vote on a cheating CP. I do think that most CP theory debates are invariably shallow which makes voting on them difficult. Most teams get away with bad/illegitimate CPs because the aff is terrible at executing, or the neg has some trick. I also think the more contextual a CP is within a set of literature, the harder it is to beat on theory questions. I have no predispositions on CP theory – I am willing to listen to it.
Conditionality is different than other CP theory args for me. It is certainly excessive most of the time. It gets egregious when positions contradict. Contextualizing conditionality to the specific practices done in the debate makes the argument very persuasive.
College teams – Pics- I am not completely sold that all/nearly all is the death knell for pics on the college topic. My presumption for pics being good makes me think this is a debatable question, even the resolution tries to write this out of debates. I think what is “nearly all” is what the literature says it is. I am also compelled that maybe the topic is so bad that these pics are important for the neg.
Ks
I think topic-specific critiques can be interesting. The more specific to the topic, and the more specific to the aff, the better. Whichever team controls the role of the ballot typically wins. I also do not think it is strategic for K teams to not answer the aff explicitly – dropping the 1ac usually means I vote aff – meaning my bar is higher on voting for “x comes first”/ “x means the whole aff is wrong” args.
Disads
I tend to think the link controls the direction of the DA, but can be persuaded that uniqueness does.
I think zero risk is possible.
I think turns case arguments really help the neg. I think unanswered turns case arguments by the block in the 1ar are difficult for the aff to come back from.
General
I think long overviews are overrated.
Start impact calculus early.
Be comprehensible.
Smart arguments matter, as long as they are complete.
Clipping is a problem in the activity. Don’t do it. Don’t allege that someone else has done it without evidence via recording – you will not win otherwise. The debate community relies on shared trust. Breaking that trust or accusing someone of doing this is of the utmost seriousness.
Be organized.
Do not steal prep.
Minimize the amount of time paperless debate causes.
Have fun – that’s why I do this.
I am Unique Palmer and the team captain of the Towson University Debate Team. I debated four years at Baltimore City College as a krikal debater. I often ran race and gender centered arguments and will continue to do such in my next three years in college debate. I have very few prefs:
1. I believe in the burden of proof for the aff and neg if there's an alternative. Don't be inclined to use debate lingo and statistics, especially if you don't use the word correctly.
2. Win the meta level of the debate. Big picture debates are cleaner.
3. IF YOU ARE DEBATING ANY THEORY, please relate it to real world context and explain solvency clearly. If its unclear to you how you solve, don't run it. If its unclear to me how you solve, I won't vote for it.
4. Respect pronouns. My preferred pronouns are she/her.
5. Don't post round me. I will debate my reasoning back to you and win.
6. You don't have to spread to win with me in the back. You can if you'd like but make sure you're clear.
I flow on paper and take notes speech by speech to give individual comments at the end.
If you have questions about any of my paradigm or college debate in general, please email me at Upalme1@students.towson.edu
I prefer logical and moderately paced speaking when judging, and frequent signposting is appreciated. I care very much about the logical clarity of arguments and will look for dropped arguments in the debate when evaluating the ballot.
Overview
I judge mostly on the local level. I did LD and a little PF for 4 years as a competitor, and have been judging and coaching LD and a little World Schools and PF ever since (about 10 years now). While I am experienced and willing to entertain almost any strategy, do not assume that I am familiar with circuit trends.
I strongly prefer that clash focus on points of significance (not on points that are unlikely to sway my ballot) and that speeches be organized. Roadmaps should be off-time and accurate. I would strongly prefer not to hear 15 blippy a prioris or spikes designed to be easy outs. I try not to intervene too much in the round.
I am generally well-read in the LD and PF topic literature. I have a very solid knowledge of ethics, but do not assume I understand whatever random philosophical argument you're running (esp. if it's postmodern or critical). Explanation early prevents confusion later.
This paradigm applies to LD and PF. If I am judging you in some other event, please ask for my preferences for that event. I will disclose and provide oral feedback only if doing so fits within the the rules and norms of the tournament. I promise I am more chill than my paradigm makes me sound. Include me on all email chains: resispeechanddebate@gmail.com.
Speaker Points
My baseline is 25 points for an average performance for your division. There are some pretty straightforward things (listed in no particular order) you can do in front of me to increase the points I award you:
- Don't overexplain or become repetitive
- Ask if I am ready before you start speaking
- Give roadmaps and stick to them (signpost as you go)
- Be civil with everyone in the room
- Avoid purposeless gesticulation and stand still
- Make eye-contact with the judge (look at me, not your opponent, during speeches and CX)
- Weigh the arguments (don't just give me competing sets of unweighed offense)
- Stand during speeches and cross-ex (if you are able) (this doesn't apply to virtual rounds)
- Project without shouting
- Don't troll or run joke/jibberish cases
- Don't quibble over highly similar frameworks
- Use all of your time (finishing with 0:30+ left is nonideal)
- Be strategic with what arguments you go for in later speeches
I very much appreciate when non-trad debaters adapt to accommodate trad debaters or when spreaders adapt to accommodate non-spreaders. I have never seen (and doubt I ever will) a good round where people don't adapt to each other in this way. I am quite happy to tank your speaks into oblivion for going 300+wpm against someone speaking at 160wpm even if I vote you up. If you don't know your opponent's style or speed, feel free to ask (and don't lie if you are asked--lying in this way is a breach of ethics and I will vote you down). I also appreciate funny and/or obscure Star Wars (be warned, I hate episodes VII-IX), Star Trek (DS9 is the best but I love them all), or LOTR references.
I also have some random pet peeves--while they won't hurt your speaks, but they will make me sad. For example, the verb is "rebut" not "rebuttal." "Rebuttal" is only ever a noun. Please do not say "I will now rebuttal this argument." Another example: "the resolution" is not "the resolved." "Resolution" is a noun; "resolved" is a conjugated verb functioning to communicate the idea "be it resolved that." And, lately, the difference between "exacerbate" and "exasperate" has been irking me. The former is to make worse or more serious, the latter is to make mildly annoyed or frustrated. You will exacerbate my exasperation if you conflate these terms.
Argumentation
I go into each round with a set of basic presumptions. I do not retreat *to* my presumptions absent argumentation; rather, I am willing to retreat *from* them if you argue with sufficient strength that I should abandon these presumptions. My presumptions aren't fallbacks; if you want me to ignore them you need to convince me that I should.
- I presume that arguments in LD should be topical (this is a non-negotiable redline in PF).
- I presume that it is the Affirmative's/Pro's burden to defend the whole resolution.
- I presume that theory is a reason to drop the argument, not the debater. I will ignore frivolous theory and RVIs.
Additionally:
- I will not evaluate new arguments unless (a) the round is otherwise irresolvable or (b) you failed to flag it as new when you had the chance (Neg literally can't flag new arguments made in the 2AR, so I will intervene to do that for them). An argument in rebuttal is not new if it is made at the first opportunity a debater has had to address a previous argument; e.g. in LD, a new point in the Neg's last speech can be rebutted by a new point in the 2AR.
- I don't mind counterplans in LD/PF (if they're not super niche). Please do not preach at me that counterplans are against the rules; that is a cop out designed to avoid substantitive debate.
- Dropped arguments are concessions (concessions still need to be impacted). You can drop your own arguments. An argument dropped by both sides is dead in the round; no amount of rhetorical necromancy will revive it and it will not figure into my decision.
- Win your round on the flow. Persuasive rhetoric is great, but I will vote up bad speakers who win on the flow over amazing speakers who lose key arguments. LD/PF is debate, not speech.
- I cannot reject a definition unless an alternative is proposed and argued for.
Here are some event-specific comments:
~~~~Lincoln-Douglas~~~~
- I prefer not to see Ks in LD and for cases to follow the traditional Value-Criterion set up, but this is a preference only, and not a hard-and-fast rule. I have voted for Ks in the past.
- I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting a standard (e.g. criterion, role of ballot) and by identifying who weighs most heavily under this standard. Winning the standard is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round. A standard is abusive if no plausible opposing strategy (or only an ultra-niche strategy no one but you has ever heard of) could link.
~~~~Public Forum~~~~
- As an event designed for lay judges, extreme and implausible link chains should be avoided (this is a preference, not a hard-and-fast rule). To use one example, conflict on social media platforms will not result in nuclear war. I am not opposed to extinction impacts where those impacts are actually plausible.
- Neither incredibly dense philosophy/high theory nor Ks belong in this event; you will lose my vote if you run these.
- The second Rebuttal needs to address *both* the Pro and the Con cases. The time skew is not an excuse for not having to do both. It is up to you to make the strategic decisions that will allow you to win the round given the time constraints.
- I presume a cost-benefit-analysis weighing mechanism in PF (unless that would be inconsistent with the plain text of the resolution). If you want me to use something else, you must provide solid reasoning as to why I should retreat from this presumption.
Evidence
- Paraphrasing--as long as it's an accurate representation of the evidence, and you're not paraphrasing a huge section of text--is not objectionable. It is ridiculous to me that one would suggest otherwise.
- I do not require or expect debaters to proactively share their cases with one another or with me, and will not penalize debaters for not automatically sharing cases when not specifically requested to do so. If you want someone's case or evidence, request it. I expect everyone to share evidence and cases when requested. I dislike asking for cases pro forma, and I prefer that debaters not call for or examine cases merely as an aid or replacement for flowing. Unless someone point blank refuses to share their cases or evidence with you and I witness that refusal, I won't take disclosure theory arguments seriously.
- I will only call for evidence if there is some serious question in my mind (or raised in the debate) as to a card's legitimacy. Unless there are accusations of dishonest practices, I will evaluate the credibility of sources based solely on the arguments made by the debaters in the round. I will *not* read cards after the round just to see if they're "great on this question."
- If you only have softcopies of evidence, and your opponent does not have a laptop, you must make your laptop available to your opponent if they have requested your evidence in order to prep. All softcopy evidence should be in a standard file format such as .doc, .docx, .pdf, or google docs.
- You have the right to request that your opponent delete any downloaded evidence or return any soft- or hardcopies at the end of the round. I fully expect debaters to comply with requests to delete or return evidence.
Speed
- I can understand somewhere around 275 words per minute depending on how clearly you articulate, but I prefer a speed at or below 225wpm. I will not vote you down just because you're going faster than I'd ideally like *as long as* I can still understand you. I cannot vote on what I did not understand.
- I will not shout "clear" during rounds (unless it's virtual). Instead, if I literally cannot understand a word you're saying, I will stop flowing and set my pen down. That is your cue to slow down. I will not vote on what I did not flow.
Timing
- I always time all speeches and prep. My timer keeps the official time. Feel free to time yourselves.
- Prep begins after all requested cards are shown or sent to the requesting team (unless the requesting team wants to or does begin prepping sooner). Prep ends when the debater tells me it ends or they run out of time. Debaters *must* clearly indicate to me when they are starting and ending prep so that I can keep time.
- A sentence begun before time expires may be completed after time has expired. Don't abuse this privilege.
Cross-Examination
- CX is non-binding unless its content is brought up in your immediately subsequent speech. For example, in LD, if you are Aff and raise some admission made in 2CX in the 2AR, I will not consider that admission. If the Aff wanted something in 2CX to be binding, Aff should've raised it in the 1AR.
- I do not allow flex prep (using prep as added cross-ex) or the reverse (using cross-ex as added prep) in my rounds unless required to do so by the tournament. If I am on a panel and the tournament rules are unclear, I will respect the majority decision on whether to allow it.
- I am not a fan of CXs that descend into shouting matches or snark-offs. CX should be interactive and probing, but not combative. Some people are entertained by gladiatorial CXs...I am not one of those people.
- CX time belongs to the questioner. Therefore, if the questioner asks a question just before time expires, I will still expect the respondent to answer the question, even though time has expired. Saying "that's cross" doesn't magically free the respondent from their obligation to answer.
- In PF GCF, everyone needs to participate. Ideally, each debater on a team will participate equally.
My Redlines
- I will vote down anyone who clearly and intentionally sets out to (1) advocate wanton killing of other human beings (e.g. extermination as a solution to overpopulation); (2) take a position which is clearly Racist, Ableist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Transphobic, Sexist, Xenophobic, etc.; and/or (3) personally attack an opponent, school, or anyone involved in the activity.
- I will vote down anyone who (1) is exceptionally and insufferably rude, (2) makes threats, and/or (3) falsifies, misquotes, selectively edits, and/or otherwise dishonestly manipulates evidence in a manner which could have materially impacted the round.
- It is virtually never acceptable to read an obscene word as part of quoted evidence. The educational value must be quite significant; if I determine that the value isn't that high, I will ignore the entire card.
Finally
I don't bite--feel free to ask questions if you have any. If you need to refer to me, you should call me "judge" during a round. Outside of a round, "judge," "Mr. Shouse" ("sh"+"house") or "Brian" are acceptable. I use he/him/his pronouns (if you're comfortable with sharing, let me know which pronouns you prefer). Remember: just have fun and do your best. And if I happen to be judging your round, may the Force be with you!
If you are starting an email chain for the debate, I would like to be included on it: psusko@gmail.com
Default
Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm.
Topicality
Most topicality debates come down to limits. This means it would be in your best interest to explain the world of your interpretation—what AFFs are topical, what negative arguments are available, etc—and compare this with your opponent’s interpretation. Topicality debates become very messy very fast, which means it is extremely important to provide a clear reasoning for why I should vote for you at the top of the 2NR/2AR.
Counterplans
Conditionality is good. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, unless told otherwise. Counterplans that result in plan action are questionably competitive. In a world where the 2NR goes for the counterplan, I will not evaluate the status quo unless told to by the negative. The norm is for theory debates to be shallow, which means you should slow down and provide specific examples of abuse if you want to make this a viable option in the rebuttals. The trend towards multi-plank counterplans has hurt clarity of what CPs do to solve the AFF. I think clarity in the 1NC on the counterplan text and a portion of the negative block on the utility of each plank would resolve this. I am also convinced the AFF should be allowed to answer some planks in the 1AR if the 1NC is unintelligible on the text.
Disadvantages
I am willing to vote on a zero percent risk of a link. Vice versa, I am also willing to vote negative on presumption on case if you cannot defend your affirmative leads to more change than the status quo. Issue specific uniqueness is more important than a laundry list of thumpers. Rebuttals should include impact comparison, which decreases the amount of intervention that I need to do at the end of the debate.
Criticisms
I am not familiar with the literature, or terminology, for most criticisms. If reading a criticism is your main offensive argument on the negative, this means you’ll need to explain more clearly how your particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. For impact framing, this means explaining how the impacts of the criticism (whether it entails a VTL claim, epistemology, etc.) outweigh or come before the affirmative. The best debaters are able to draw links from affirmative evidence and use empirical examples to show how the affirmative is flawed. Role of the ballot/judge arguments are self-serving and unpersuasive.
Performance
In my eight years as a debater, I ran a policy affirmative and primarily went for framework against performance AFFs. The flow during performance debates usually gets destroyed at some point during the 2AC/block. Debaters should take the time to provide organizational cues [impact debate here, fairness debate here, accessibility debate here, etc.] in order to make your argument more persuasive. My lack of experience and knowledge with/on the literature base is important. I will not often place arguments for you across multiple flows, and have often not treated an argument as a global framing argument [unless explicitly told]. Impact framing and clear analysis help alleviate this barrier. At the end of the debate, I should know how the affirmative's advocacy operates, the impact I am voting for, and how that impact operates against the NEG.
Flowing
I am not the fastest flow and rely heavily on short hand in order to catch up. I am better on debates I am more familiar with because my short hand is better. Either way, debaters should provide organizational cues (i.e. group the link debate, I’ll explain that here). Cues like that give me flow time to better understand the debate and understand your arguments in relation to the rest of the debate.
Notes
Prep time continues until the jump drive is out of the computer / the email has been sent to the email chain. This won't affect speaker points, however, it does prolong the round and eliminate time that I have to evaluate the round.
I am not a fan of insert our re-highlighting of the evidence. Either make the point in a CX and bring it up in a rebuttal or actually read the new re-highlighting to make your argument.
The debaters that get the best speaker points in front of me are the ones that write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR and shape in their speeches how I should evaluate arguments and evidence.
Depth > Breadth
If you are reading this, you are already more likely to win your debate because you are conscientious enough to take the time to learn your judge’s preferences! Good for you!
So, from most to least important (except #9; that's important for morale!), here are my preferences:
1. Please do not talk too fast. If I miss your point, I cannot give you credit for it.
2. Please do not talk too loudly. I am right in front of you, and my ears work very well.
3. Please clearly signal your contentions and subpoints by number and letter respectively.
4. Please identify the source AND year of each piece of evidence.
5. Please explain how each contention supports both your value and criterion.
6. Please include your voting issues at the end of your second rebuttal.
7. Please keep your number of subpoints and rebuttal responses reasonable; an excessive number of subpoints and responses is a tactic that can undermine your side more than your opponent’s.
8. Please do not spend debate time accusing your opponent of breaking debate rules or norms. Enforcing rules and norms is 80% of my job as a teacher, and I am very good at it, so let me worry about that. Focus on your arguments and your opponent’s arguments.
9. (If you are still reading this, good for you!) Finally, I wish I had been as brave as you are when I was your age! You are courageous for participating in such a challenging event! Now go and make yourself, your coach, your teammates, and your family proud!
I have been judging speech and debate for four years, and primarily judge Lincoln-Douglas Debate.
For speech: I value enunciation and suitable but not excessive changes in tone. I appreciate respect for the material while making me see it as fresh. For OO and Extemp, several of my LD comments below also apply.
For debate:
I judge based on clear, well-organized arguments supported by appropriate evidence. I want to see a link between your value and value criterion and your contentions. I appreciate a moderate tone and a well-paced argument. If you talk faster than I can write, then I cannot track your argument and will give less credence to it.
I appreciate the structured approach and give points for working that approach systematically. I prefer plain language in writing and speaking, and am not a fan of esoteric philosophical arguments.
I like solid use of signposts and sufficient detail to make sure your listeners (me and your opponent) are oriented. I also prefer not to hear references to "my card three" without additional detail of the substance of the card and how it supports your argument. I am judging six or more debates a day, so I don't track to every source without additional information.
I expect points made in cross-examination to be used in subsequent arguments, or I will not consider them.
I am put off by extremist arguments (e.g. the idea that something not necessarily nuclear will lead to nuclear annihilation) and the use of sources with a clear political bent even if you cover both ends of the spectrum in the same argument (Cato Institute, Huffington Post).
For everyone:
I appreciate all the work that goes into preparing for these events. Thank you for the chance to listen to you!