Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

Looking for clear, organized arguments that effectively support your value.  I prefer your criterion to be an objective measurement or at least try to demonstrate that is is a quantifiable measure.  I am ok with speed but if I can't understand you, I can't vote for you. I like voter issues - tell me why you won the debate.  Clash is good in a debate but always maintain respect for all those in the room.  

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and the Informative final at NIETOC. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

 First things first I Focused on Public Forum and Congress in High School.

  Conduct: Treat everyone in the room with respect, dont be condescending, clarification of round policies and rules is allowed but don't talk down to me or your opponent.

  Evidence: Source Qualifications are important and if you can prove that your sources are more qualified or your opponents are invalid then your sources will receive precedence in my mind.

  Speaking: Speak Clearly, Confidently and give emphasis where emphasis is needed. Im ok with speed as long as you articulate well. Eye contact is important.

  Time: Time starts the second you start speaking only exception is when asking for clarification of round policies/rules. You can time yourself but only my time will be counted.

  Arguments: Cases need to be Clear , Solid and Concise. Fewer well Developed arguments are better than wide spread weak ones. Your Final speech carries the most weight for me out of all else (hold Cross-X)

  Cross-X: This is where most points will be won or lost. Being civil and being nice are two different things all I ask is that you're civil and refrain from being rude or overbearing. Address the arguments your opponents are making not the ones you think they are.

I've beeen the Debate Director for Dougherty Valley High School for 4 years. I competed in debate for all 4 years of high school, where I mostly participated in Lincoln-Douglas. I also debated Parli in college on the NPDA circuit.

I'm okay with basically every form of progressive argumentation provided it is run well. While I prefer topical interpretations, I really enjoy it when those interpretations branch out into the critical and theory levels of the debate. My threshold for theory debate in relatively high; in that there needs to be an actual tangible impact on the round, not just whining about hypothetical potentials for abuse. I'm unlikely to vote on Parli RVIs unless they go completely dropped.  Be creative, have fun, run good analysis, but don't assume that I make connections for you. 

Finally, I have a form of progressive hearing loss which means that, while I generally don't have a problem with the volume debate rounds are conducted at, it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to prosses debate when the pace is much faster than conversational. I don't like to force debaters hands in terms of presentation or strategy, but it is crucial for me to be able to understand what you are saying. 

Anthony Gerrettie
Northern Arizona University, '05 B.S. in Public Relations and Speech Communication
University of Arizona, '08 Post Bacc in Secondary Education, English

Former Head Coach, Salpointe Speech and Debate (2009 - 2018)

Policy Debate Judging Philosophy
I'm doing my best to run a blank slate, but you need to know that I am an English Teacher (that means I love analysis), I'm a former High School Debate Coach (I'm familiar with the literature), and I keep up with what's going on in the world.

I will however leave as much of that as I can at the door and I'll listen to your arguments.

General Info for both sides.
What gets down on my flow is tag lines and author names. I'll listen to the actual article but tag lines is what I believe is important. If I need to evaluate it, I'll ask for it.

Prep time has been a disaster in paperless policy. Flash evidence efficiently or if it gets abusive or if your partner is prepping while you're flashing, I'm running the clock.

While I used to judge policy exclusively, I've only judged policy when needed for the past three years. I'VE SEEN A TOTAL OF 6 POLICY ROUNDS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.

Speed: I've judged policy on and off for nine years so I'm decent with speed. I'll let you know if you need to slow it down, but if you're not clear, I'm not going to get it. If I can't hear it because you do not articulate, it didn't happen. Part of being a debater and winning is communication. GIVE ME THE TAG LINE SLOWLY AND THEN RAMP BACK UP.

Topicality: Very rarely do I vote that a plan is untopical. When I do, it's only because an alternative definition for something was provided and proved to be more effective that was not clashed by the affirmative and it was extended by the negative team calling the plan untopical. I SEE TOPICALITY AS A TIME SKEW THAT THE NEG WILL KICK OUT OF IN A LATER SPEECH. GO FOR T IF THEY DROP IT AND THEN MAKE IT YOUR MAIN VOTER ISSUE.

K: Kritik's are good but only with proper analysis. Here's where you need to use your voice, speed and volume to annunciate what in the K card makes that K good. I'll need more than a tag line if it's going to be evaluated seriously. You can't make critical claims without analyzing and I need to hear that analysis, but when you use K's, you really put yourself more in the hands of a judge than simply winning on other arguments would. They will have to philosophically side with your K.

CP's: I see CP's as a strong argument. Telling me you can do their plan better is a great way to win a debate. That being said, your counterplan needs to address all aspects of the preious plan. It's not a true counter plan unless it covers everything. Counter the counter plan by addressing all arguments, or perm it. A line by line argument on the flow will help with this.

DA's : Important for debate and clash. The best debates have clash and every debater has a ton of DA's, be sure you pull out the right ones.

My Ballot
My vote comes from the flow. It's which arguments were won by the affirmative team against which arguments were won by the negative team, and the impacts that come with them. Impacts always outweigh. If the affirmative team wins 4 arguments and the impact is the economy, and the negative team wins 1 argument and solves for extinction, the negative wins. It's about impacts with me, and logical impacts. Please understand that no matter what, one side will be very happy with me and one side will be very upset with me. That's the nature of this sport/activity. My decision will be made and it will be explained, but it will not be questioned any way other than for clarity.

L/D Judging Philosophy

I'm doing my best to run a blank slate, but you need to know that I am an English Teacher (that means I love analysis), I'm a former High School Debate Coach (I'm familiar with the literature), and I keep up with what's going on in the world.

I will however leave as much of that as I can at the door and I'll listen to your arguments.

General Info for both sides.
What gets down on my flow is tag lines and author names. I'll listen to the actual article but tag lines is what I believe is important. If I need to evaluate it, I'll ask for it.

Value/Criterion Debate
One of the best ways to win my ballot, especially on the criterion. Explain to me why your criterion outweighs if you have a different one than your opponent. If you have the same criterion then explain to me why your contentions will do that better than your opponent. With the evolution of L/D debate, the framework is becoming less of an important argument. If you go traditional, win ont he framework, if you go progressive, you can win on an Off Care argument or turns of your opponents case.

Contentions
I'll listen to anything. If it's outrageous, then I expect your opponent to call you on it, and then I'll side with who makes the clearer and most logical argument.

Rebuttals
Address every argument your opponent makes. Obviously this can be difficult because you are low on time. If you don't address it, and they extend it, they win that argument. If you don't address it and they don't extrend it, I'll think and decide if I buy it. Essentially, the rebuttals are your chance to tell me how to think about something. When you don't I start thinking. We may not agree but if you don't tell me how to think then what else can I do.

Voting Issues
Summariing the round before your time is up on your last speech is excellent. Why should i vote for you? What impacts do you have? What will happen if I vote for your opponent? These are all valuable questions to help win my ballot.

Progressive LD Debate

LD is becoming more and more like policy. I enjoy progressive debate but only if you are aware of the literature. Too many students are running progressive arguments and don't understand them. If you're going to be progressive understand the literature and spend a minute or two in your final speech explaining why you were progressive and why you've won. Overexplain.

My Ballot
My vote comes from the flow. It's which arguments were won by the affirmative team against which arguments were won by the negative team, and the impacts that come with them. Impacts always outweigh. If the affirmative team wins 4 arguments and the impact is the economy, and the negative team wins 1 argument and solves for extinction, the negative wins. It's about impacts with me, and logical impacts. Please understand that no matter what, one side will be very happy with me and one side will be very upset with me. That's the nature of this sport/activity. My decision will be made and it will be explained, but it will not be questioned any way other than for clarity.

Any questions?
Tony.Gerrettie@gmail.com

Public Forum Judging Philosophy

I've spent the majority of recent rounds judging L/D and PF.

Contention Level

-The first speech should build your case. Observations and Framework should come first.

Rebuttal

-Rebut down the flow. Attack everything in order as it's given.

Summary

-Figure out where you're ahead and make that your speech. The summary should contain voter issues

Final Focus

-Tell me why you've won this ballot. You can only have access to arguments that the summary beings up. If the summary didn't mention it, you can't bring it back up.

Prep Time

-If you call for a card that's fine and great. Once you get that card in your possession, prep time starts. Your prep time will be used to read the card.

I try to be self-aware about the biases I bring into a debate round.

Basic Stuff: I have been judging and coaching debate for 7 years. I'm cool with speed, and if I have any issues understanding you, I will say "slow" or "clear" depending on what my issue is. With that said, I've noticed that the debaters who slow down their tags and authors (read: each group of words that you want to make sure I have on my flow, in the exact wording that you present them) tend to do better with me. If our flows match, I will always be in the exact same place you are.

I get excited about novel arguments and creative ways of thinking. I am a fan of critical arguments (but not a fan of spelling it with a k, sorry). I'm the judge you want to run that weird, "out-there" case in front of.

I've noticed that debaters who use more prep time before their first rebuttal speech (instead of a 50/50 split) give better speeches. I mean, I'm not going to dock you if you don't do that, but I'm pretty sure that my brain goes "oh, this person knows what they're doing" when that happens and it probably subconsciously influences me. The first rebuttals are the last chance for arguments to exist in the round, so you need to make sure that your strategy for winning the round is already developed.

I will vote off theory, but I hate when it sounds whiny. I'm not a huge believer in arguments that boil down to something like, "but that's not fair! how could I have known they were going to run that argument?!" because I think an important part of being a good debater is being able to handle arguments you weren't prepared for and finding something debatable (ha) in any argument you encounter.

I might discuss my issues with your arguments on my ballot, but I make my decision based on the issues brought up in the round. Unless you manage to offend me (difficult), I am not a believer in judge intervention. Try not to be racist.

You can win my vote with your ballot story. Tell me EXACTLY how you want me to make my decision. Place the arguments within a hierarchy (weigh your impacts). I need to know what to resolve first. Don't be afraid to start your ballot story before your last speech.

Ok bye.

this is the first tournament i've judged in 2 years

i was a K debater in policy and LD and ran nontopical affs all the time so if you've got something "weird" you wanna run i'd love to see it

currently expecting to just hear about nuke war nonstop for two days so i'd love for that to not happen

I attended Chandler High School in AZ and competed LD for more or less three of those years. I now attend Rutgers University, but do not debate anymore.
General Thoughts
- PLEASE WEIGH BECAUSE IT IS MUCH HARDER TO EVALUATE THE ROUND IF YOU DON'T. This really should go without saying but too many debaters do NOT do sufficient weighing. Also EXPLICITLY MAKE EXTENSIONS because I am not going to evaluate an argument unless it is extended (you don't have to say the word extend but make it clear to me what you're doing). 
- If I don't hear an argument I am not going to flow it or evaluate it. Please be clear and slow down for taglines and what not.
- Don't like spikes and probably won't vote on them unless you go all out on them. Gotta take risk to get reward.
- Don't lose track of prep time; if you forgot how much time you had left I'm going to assume you didn't have any. I don't count flashing as prep time but be reasonable about it.. 
T/Theory
- I don't have the highest threshold for theory but the more time you devote to it the more I am inclined to vote on it. Most debaters that I have seen do not spend nearly enough time to theory for me to consider voting on it.
- I default to reasonability and drop the argument unless asked to otherwise. 
Policy-Style Arguments
- I enjoy Ks and hearing good K debate. I find a lot of K alts I hear somewhat lame so you need to do a good job of telling me why your alternative solves for the harms listed in your kritik. 
- Disads have link stories that don't really make sense to me but I'll evaluate them as well as any argument. Please explain why your impacts are significant; that is, weigh them under some sort of framework. 
- CPs are fine but don't forget to weigh their impacts under some sort of framework! 

If you have specific questions, please ask.

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

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/McHugh%2C+Megan

LD, mcclintock high school, 2010-2014
LD coach, brophy college prep / southwest speech and debate institute, 2014-present

i understand LD and policy conventions. i will vote on almost any argument. i say "almost" because i become an activist when i think a particular argument is making the debate space unsafe, which is (or should be) par for the course these days. those situations aside, i try really hard not to colonize the debate space with my own philosophies. i do have them, though, and like all judges, i cite them frequently while deciding rounds.

there are a few philosophies i have that might be more unusual:

• this activity and the full extent of its education should be for everyone. basically, i don't think you should ever change your strategy, you should just learn how to explain critical philosophy and theory in "lay" terms if the situation requires it (i.e. if your opponent isn't familiar with your position). adapting to your opponent and offering articulate explanations during prep/cx earn higher speaks.
• i default to evaluating pre-fiat kritik impacts before theory. critical philosophy describes the reality in which we conceive of fairness, and often theory is a reactionary response to something unfamiliar. this doesn't mean you shouldn't run theory, it just means you need good analysis about why it's important.
• i never flow and rarely pay attention during cx.
• i kind of believe terminal defense exists.
• check theory interps during cx or preferably before the round. i have no opinion on theory in general but i dislike strategic theory. i'll drop the debater for real abuse.

have fun, be nice, and don't be afraid to break rules.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Neibergall%2C+Will

Debates:Convince me with facts - back it up with cards from well-respected sources. Please assume I know nothing about the topic, regardless of whether that might be true or not.  I am a flow judge. I prefer a debate on the topic not a 

Do not spread! I will judge on clarity of communication which is diminished by spreading. Quantity DOES NOT equal quality and if I get the sense you are trying to just overwhelm me and the competition with information it will most likely work against you.  

There is a subjective aspect to most debates and I value agility and responsiveness to the opponents case. I also prioritize preparation, specific vocabulary and decorum. Show polish, professionalism and respect.

I will reward eloquent/articulate speakers appropriately with speaker points, but it also isn't unheard of for me to award low point wins. Focus on your contentions and counters to your opponents' points

Be respectful of your opponents during the heat of battle and in particular during cross-ex!  Remain professional and level-headed.  I have been known to penalize a team if I feel they were excessively rude, interrupted unnecessarilyy and/or are condescending.   

I am a former national-circuit varsity LD competitor with awards from competitions across the United States.

I am not in favor of speed. Ensure that your words are clearly enunciated. This does not mean you must speak slowly; rather, simply ensure that your words can be clearly heard and understood so that arguments can be debated on their merits.

Stay organized. Keep a cohesive direction in your speech instead of jumping all over the flow.

Properly extend your evidence. You need to briefly re-explain the warrants and impacts coming out of the last speech.

I flow every round for the most accurate judging. I try to make the decision that requires the least amount of intervention on my part. If that does not resolve it, I will tend to vote for the debater that I think did the most work or exhibited the most strategic and substantive smarts during the round. In other words, if the round is not resolvable on the flow, I will not have a problem voting for the “better” debater. I will not agonize over a messy round just to artificially make up a flow-based decision. You have to earn that. In most rounds though, I find a decision usually pretty clear on the flow. Make that decision clear to me through big-picture crystallization in your final speech.

I evaluate the flow in the following manner. I will examine the voters given by both sides, and compare how each fulfills the value/criterion of the round. Weigh your arguments. You never know how I will weigh arguments on your behalf.

Be respectful toward your opponent. To be aggressive is fine, to be rude is not. Have fun.

Yo, my history with debate is two years of Lincoln-Douglas debate in high school and two years coaching Lincoln-Douglas for Juan Diego Catholic High School (ongoing).

Judging

• As a judge my job is decide who did the better job of debating, not who conformed to my opinions/preferences best. I will not let personal beliefs decide the outcome of the round as it is not my job to tell you what arguments you should be making - simply to look for who is arguing the best.
  • Though in RFD I will mention tactics I think may have worked better, although they did not sway the ballot.
• I prefer progressive cases. PICs, Kirtks, Counter Plans, you name it.
• I am accepting of traditional cases.
• Basically run whatever argument you want as long as you can pull it off. 
• Please please please have concise arguments. I want a claim, a warrant, and an implication.
• Extend with an argument. Just naming cards will get you nowhere, as I while I am attentive to taglines, you will lose me when you ask me to extend your (for example) "Marks card" in a rebuttal, but do not give the warrant behind the card. Chances are I wont know what you're talking about and it wont end up on the flow.
• Impact calculus is something I feel is neglected in LD. It shouldn't be.
• If you drop an argument that's that. Same goes for bringing up new arguments in rebuttals. While I believe it is the job of your opponent to point this out, I will not turn a blind eye if they don't.
• I like a clear cut, line by line debate, as that is how I evaluate the rounds. Make it easy for me to flow and sign the ballot. Signpost clearly and provide offtime roadmaps.
• Flex prep is cool with me.
• I don't flow CX.
• Use all of your speech time and use it wisely to help construct your argument.
• Speak as fast as you want - but if you are not clear, I wont flow. It is your job as a debater to know your limits when in comes to speaking clearly AND speedily. I will shout clear if asked to before rounds.
• Please flash cases before hand - don't waste prep time or my time. This goes to say that you should be able to present your opponent with your case or clarification when needed, even if you're paper debating.
• I expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time and time in general. I will give time signals only if asked.
• Be polite in round - be passionate and aggressive and for all means please be argumentative, but don't be an ass.
• I do not tolerate gendered language in round. You'll loose speaks, and if I find it particularly offensive, I will drop you like a hot potato.

Tell me you're "picking up Mary's Tamales" before round and I'll give you .5 bonus speaker points.

I like puns. 

I'm a simple person and that's what I enjoy watching: a simple debate. I'm not interested in your fake world where Nuclear extinction kills us all and makes the opponent's every argument moot. I like practical harms and practical solutions.

I don't put together pieces for debaters so if something goes unsaid by a team, then I don't take it into consideration, no matter how significant it may be. So don't assume that everything is "common knowledge".

I appreciate a debate with some strong clash and even stronger evidence, but I do not appreciate a strictly evidential debate. Once debaters get too carried away with whose evidence is best, I just drop the point altogether and rarely factor it into my RFD.  

Lastly, though I do love the "sassy" debater, I am not fond of the "rude" debater. Watch your tone, word choice when speaking to or about your opponent, and more importantly, your facial expressions even when you think I'm not looking.

Debate is more than evidence, it's about your entire presentation.

My debate experience is '80's and early '90's policy (fast and lots of post-fiat impx; this was before the Kritik days, the only pre-fiat debates were on topicality and conditionality). I do like kritical debate, though and mention the policy experience so you know I'm up for just about anything - debaters create debate. There's no special category of arguments labeled "THEORY" with a bunch of skulls and crossbones warning debaters away - if you're in a debate talking about debate, you're in a theory debate. If you're going to do it, please make sense and consider the impacts outside of the room we're in. )

LD has the advantage of a well-established expectation of impact calculus that revolves around framework debates - I like that. Don't bother debating identical frameworks, though, because I get enough of that in local politics.

My pet peeve is the unbelievable amount of time wasted "flashing" or creating e-mail chains for evidence sharing. It should not take an additional 5 minutes to flash after 1 minute prep. If you can't figure it out, debate on paper. (The strategy is usually for both debaters to be so slow that I can't hold it against anyone in particular. This strategy results in an extremely cranky judge reticent to hand out speaker points to anyone.)

Finally, I have a lot of respect for this activity and I believe the way we respect it is to show respect to one another. I have little to no tolerance for rudeness, condescension, or derisiveness. Be nice. Be kind.

This paradigm was written for POLICY and the thing to understand is that I see clear differences between the items needed in each format. To see how I view PF or LD find them towards the end of the flow. Following are the things that matter in terms of how I judge policy. At the end, I will provide some guidance when you see me as a Public Forum judge and add some Lincoln Douglas comments as well.

Speed- I will tolerate reasonable speed but if it is so fast that I cannot flow it, the argument did not happen and you lose speaker points and perhaps the debate. Be clear, enunciate all syllables, and do not attempt to use extreme speed to intimidate an opponent because if your opponent cannot flow it then it is likely I cannot either. If you do not see me flowing, you lost me and this is not a good thing. In the vernacular of my generation, Speed kills.

Performatives- I have yet to see one that convinced me that it should win a debate round. If that is your only offense then it indicates to me that you may not have adequately considered the myriad of arguments that could win on this very multi faceted debate topic. I have taught Debate, English Language Arts, US History, Asian History and European History, Government, Economics, and World Mythology. All of these areas provide adequate forays into the current topic.

K Affs- I love a good one. You MUST convince me that your K is not only a valid premise in terms of the topic area but well considered and researched . This being said, I am unlikely to entertain current feminist or racially based K affs that I have seen as they appear to be lacking in a wide range of scholarship and stick to a very few popular sources. If you want to run a feminist arguments, foundations in Sanger, Friedan, Brown, Paul, Anthony, Catt, Wollenstonecraft, Pankhurst, Adams, Addams, Steinem, et al would be a start and beneficial and help to sell me your case. Racial arguments, like the ones I have heard on feminism, should be based in documented materials with a wide range of authors including people like Malcolm X, King, Evers, Mandela, Gandhi, Chavez, Truth, Marshall,Davis, Innis, Hamer, Randolph, Parks, Douglas, Wilkins, and Williams. I am old enough and was active enough in the 1960's and 1970's that many of the arguments appear lacking in historical perspective and scholarship. So you have to give me a really good well researched case for me to buy it . However, all of this being said, human rights issues still generate a myriad of offense and become far more applicable for me to buy IF they are well done.

Language K's and claims- Like the K's above they have to be substantive and real world impacted. The PC culture tends to be poorly received in the real world that the middle class and lower middles class inhabit. Having my background steeped in this, unless I can see that you have real world examples and solvency, it is a tough sell. Real world environments tend to mirror Hobbs more than anyone else....cold, brutish and dark. Just beware that I am unlikely to entertain a case that has little real relationship to the real world. Academia is fun but business and government where policy lives in the real world exhibits far less esoteric concerns. I have inhabited both worlds thus will err on the side of reality more than anything else.

T arguments can be fun but beware of overly specific definitions such that you leave your opposition with no area in which to maneuver as it might be considered abuse. Mr. Webster and Mr. Thorndyke as well as Mr. Black ought to be sufficient and there is no need to nitpick. It is topical because or non-topical because without grinding the argument into vanilla and soporific areas requiring caffeine to solve.

Civility is a KEY element for me. No rudeness or your speaker points could drop to the very low 20's. I will not tolerate rude, abusive or mean behavior. This is debate and it should be civil and respectful. We are not being broadcast nationally so there is no need to be reflective of what passes for debate in the media.

I do consider recency as this topic lends itself well to a wealth of more current data.

Slow for tag lines...please!

One last word on policy....and this is related to speed. I see no way without speeding beyond anything I will accept to even try to present over 9 off case or on case positions. I have seen people present 12 at which point my pen fell to the floor as there was no way I could reasonably flow it. So, please, be reasonable. Overwhelming a judge is not a good idea. Your opponents will get additional credit if they claim abuse over this. I will give them credit for recognizing reasonability. It is here where your analytical skill can win you the debate. I do not care who you quote to try to justify throwing out this many arguments, they are not me .

Most of all, learn something from your opponents, expand the base of your knowledge and skills and when the serious part of the debate is over, have fun. This is a great activity for everyone and shows our common ground despite the multitude of backgrounds in our population. We can all share ideas, experiences and advance the activity to its highest levels.

I will disclose wins, losses and winning arguments but not speaker points if permitted by the tournament.

PUBLIC FORUM GUIDANCE

As this IS Public Forum I will tell you that I do not want to see K's (aff or neg), Plans, CP's or Performatives. Racism arguments will only work when you do not limit the commentary to racism for ONLY one group when in reality the racism is applicable to multiple ethnicities or minorities. You need to really be making sure that your commentary is civil for everyone. Dirty looks and negative commentary during Cross will certainly not earn you my vote. I happen to favor the Father of our Country in this regard and consider civility to be not just important in this activity but one of the lessons you are supposed to model. Foaming at the mouth and spewing specious rhetoric is not going to be tolerated. No quarter on these things. I also EXPECT to see clash and if there is none then we are not really debating as the definition of debate includes clash always. Have fun and make new friends of your opponents as this is one of the only activities where you can clash and argue in round and be besties out of round. Enjoy!

Lincoln Douglas-ERR on the side of traditional Lincoln Douglas formats. Always tie to your value and value criteria. I do not favor bringing policy argumentation into LD debate. When you run a K you ignore the scope of LD debating which is meant to be more universal and not applicable to any single system of governance or economics. If you run a CP, you must show me where the affirmative is running a plan text. LD does not ask for plans and this should be left to policy debate. No plan, no counter plan..it is basically that simple.

Again civility is a key ingredient to a good debate. I just finished another book on Abraham Lincoln and the development of his speaking style via the experience as a courtroom attorney. As a result, I am not a big fan of progressive debate although I have coached students who did use this successfully and crafted their arguments to be exceptionally cogent. Beware of speed and see above comments on policy to understand how I feel about speed.

One last comment regarding venues where background noise is an issue. Please, please, please be considerate of your judges and your opponents and speak loud enough and clear enough that your arguments can be followed, flowed and examined. This might require that you slow down a bit and project to be heard. If we cannot hear your argument, it cannot get you the credit you obviously deserve.

Good luck, have fun, learn something, and always, make new friends!

First: my rounds are a SAFE SPACE.

Hi! My name is Heaven. I actually started debate my senior year of high school, and lost almost every round of LD I competed in :) I lead with this, because I continued debate in college and had a very successful LD career (I placed in every tournament, 4th place nationals, and including making it to semi-finals as a Maverick (solo without a partner) in a Parli competition. Don’t ever feel discouraged!

I competed for Northern Arizona University’s team in both LD/light policy for three years. I am typically a Kritik debater, but do enjoy straight-up rounds as well. I try to be a very hands-off judge; this is your round and I am just here to listen. My biggest paradigm is professionalism; give respect to your opponent and do not be distracting during their speech. I will listen and flow to any/all argumentation. I can follow spreading so long as it is clear and understandable. I will typically give 2 “CLEAR” warnings if I am not able to flow with your spread, and after that you’re on your own. I will not weigh out impacts for you- in other words, tell me why nuclear war is bad. I welcome topicality arguments, so long as in-round harm is proven. Will not vote on a T if it is pre-cut (hard to prove to me any loss if you didn't come prepared with said argument you couldn't run due to the topicality). Clean cut debate rounds- extend through your argumentation/dropped arguments, impact them out, supply solvency if necessary, and give me a comparison of what an aff/neg vote would mean. Framework framework framework- how do you want me to weigh the round/why?

Overall- have fun! Debate is a great thing to be apart of and should always be a good time.

First off, thanks for doing debate, you're awesome.

I've done LD before switching to policy. I am currently competing in and coaching policy.

I know that every judge that says they're "Tabula Rasa" is lying, but I try to be open to every argument that I hear.

Ks: love em, do em, I'll understand it as long as you do it well.

Case: I really like case turns, especially impact turns. I believe that if you have enough offense you can win on case alone. Whether that is a strategic decision or not is up to you. Also case defense is useful, it helps me to see Aff impact stories as mitigated or with limited probability particularly when going for DAs.

DAs: make sure that you explain the DA story, don't just jump right into the line by line. I evaluate all DAs with a probability of happening and whether the magnitude is worth it, that's where the debate should be.

CPs: I don't think that they're cheating, I think they are very strategic. If the CP is net better than the Aff then the CP wins.

T/FW/Theory: Not a big fan, but I will vote for it. You must prove why the Affs veiw of debate is harmful.

Performance: I like performance debate, but I do believe in debate as a game. I love it as a game. So I will evaluate anything that allows for the game to function, that meaning that as long as there is still argumentation, I will listen to it.

If I judge you on LD, feel free to use any policy style or lingo, it'll make me feel more at home.

I personally really like aggressive CX. Don't just stand up and say that your opponent is an idiot, but feel free to make CX a debate, so long as it's in Q&A format.

I competed for three years in Lincoln-Douglas Debate for Desert Vista High School (2 years on the national circuit) from 2010-2014. 
This will be my first time judging, so I will try my best and update my paradigm as I discover new details to add to it. What I have here already, however, will remain true.

My philosophy
I believe that debaters should be able to run the arguments they want to. As a debater, I put much effort into cases that were never run because I “never had the right judge.” As a judge, I want to encourage debaters to run the arguments they never had the chance to run. I will be an open listener to any argument you choose to run; for it does not matter since the opponent’s job is to refute it. So I hope you read this before asking me "what types of arguments do you prefer?" Although I am open to arguments, they must still be run well in order for me to vote on them. What follows is to help you get a sense of what I mean by a well-run argument.

Speed
Bear in mind that I have not seen a debate round for months. So when spreading, please be VERY clear (I will yell ‘clear’ if necessary) and don’t go at maximum speed right away. When reading author names and tags, emphasize it (reading slowly, reading loudly, pausing, etc.). I will not vote for something I do not understand or get down on my flow. Overviews are very, very, very niceJ

Theory/Topicality
Tell me what to vote for. Otherwise, you leave me up to my own assumptions (drop the argument and not the debater, no RVI’s, reasonability). Please do not leave things for me to assume. If you choose to run theory/topicality, you must do the weighing for me as well as run it in a shell. I have no preference on education/fairness: it is up to you and your opponent to do the weighing.

Plans/Counterplans
There must be a CLEAR [counter]plan text when you read this. You must also tell me how to weigh your argument rather than for me to assume.

Kritiks
I am not well versed on critical philosophy although the arguments intrigue me and I am more than happy to listen to them. If you choose to run a K, please keep this in mind; do not assume I know what you are saying. Read slower than you usually would if you normally spread, and take time to explain the argument. You must still win the argument.

Disadvantages
There must be a framework to weigh this under if you run one. Link story must be CLEAR and you must be able to explain those links clearly.

Cross Examination
I will not flow this, but I will pay attention to the strategies used during CX, which will ultimately factor into speaker points. Besides that, conduct this in which ever way you wish and keep in mind that it must not be disregarded.


If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round. I would be happy to clarify my paradigm.

I am the Scott Woods who teaches and coaches at BASIS Scottsdale in Arizona. There are others. For instance, I am not the slam poet Scott Woods (although I enjoy his work), so if you try a slam poetry case because you think that your judge is a pretty famous slam poet, you will probably be disappointed by the ballot.

About me: I teach middle school English and high school speech and debate. I competed in interp and platform events in college. I'm a Scoutmaster, a Republican, and I go to church regularly. Many people who know me don't believe that I am as conservative as I think I am.

I want the debate round to be for the benefit of the debaters. I have been coaching and judging debate for several years, mostly in PF, but some LD. I also judge policy rounds occasionally. I've judged at the TOC four times and at NSDA Nationals three times. When I judge on a panel, my decision is often different from the majority, possibly because my judging skills are so refined and subtle, or maybe for other reasons that escape me.

I think of debate as an educational game that should be fun, challenging, and life changing for the good. I don't like sneaky approaches to debate, tricks, or unsporting behavior. I especially don't like anything that attempts to achieve an unfair advantage over an opponent. Among the behaviors I don't like to see are spreading, because it seeks to gain a time advantage by squeezing more content in the given time, forcing one's opponent either to spread or to be disadvantaged, because it makes debate into a ridiculous exercise (and I consider making good things appear ridiculous in order to achieve personal gain to be bad form), and because it is aesthetically unpleasant (and I consider intentional ugliness inflicted on others to be bad form). Also, if you spread I won't flow as much, won't understand as much, and won't believe you as much. If both teams spread, then I'll just have to guess at who won, which is very likely something that you don't want me to do. Please speak in a clear, persuasive voice at a reasonable public debate speed, and be sure to point out when the other side is spreading, show the harms, then show why they should lose on that. I'll probably buy it.

If your debate strategy includes using tactics that have the effect of giving you an unfair advantage over your opponent, your chances of winning will go down. Your arguments should give you the advantage, not your sneaky approach, your hidden claims, your abusive framework, or your tricky wording. Again, call out your opponent's sneakiness. This is especially fun and elegant in an LD round when your opponent values morality, justice, fairness, etc., and you call them out for violating standards of morality, justice, or fairness.

I prefer clear, well-reasoned arguments that are logically valid and well supported by warrants and evidence. I also value impacts. Show me magnitude and probability. I will evaluate these by taking on the stance of an intelligent person who is well educated, open minded, and not a fool. If you read a card but don't put it into the context of a clear argument, then I won't care about it. You have to use evidence to support your warranted arguments. Your cards are your evidence. I hear many LDers giving lengthy quotes of dense philosophy, without contextualizing the quoted speech. I would much prefer that you summarize the entire argument of the philosopher clearly, briefly, and accurately, rather than quoting some paragraph that seems to support your interpretation. I almost never buy appeals to authority. If you say that Philosopher X says Y, therefore Y is true, I will probably not believe you. Feel free to call your opponent on this.

Since I think that debate is a worthwhile activity that can positively shape the character of youth, I value having fun and being nice. I don't want to spend an hour or so with people who are being mean to each other. Let's have fun and enjoy the round.

I won't leave my knowledge, training, or prejudices at the door, mainly because I can't (if I were truly tabula rasa, I would be an infant or an imbecile). Instead, I'll try to be aware of them and limit the impact of my own opinions or knowledge on the debate. If you don't make the argument, I will try not to make it for you. You must do all the work in the debate. I will, however, apply my knowledge of effective argumentation and the "reasonable person" test to the arguments in the debate. If you give me a weighing method and a clear path to signing the ballot for you, your chances of winning the round go up. Please understand that I will fail to leave behind my biases, assumptions, prejudices, etc. This is a feature of being human. We can't control the processes of our thought very well, and we are largely unaware of what guides and controls our thinking. Your job as a debater is to make these biases, assumptions, and prejudices irrelevant against the overwhelming power of your arguments. Good luck.

Please understand that I will likely be judging you after having taught children all day or having traveled a long distance and slept poorly. I will probably not be at my best. This is true for many of your judges. You should consider taking this into account when you write your cases and make your arguments. After you lose a round that you think you should have won, don't complain about the stupid judge. Instead, consider what you could have done differently to compensate for that judge not being at his or her cognitive best. That's your responsibility. I don't want to think during a round. Thinking is hard. It's not my job. I often disappoint debaters when I am required to think. Your job is to pre-think the round for me, better than your opponent does. The team that does this best will win.

It's up to the round to decide on the framework. If your framework is abusive or unreasonable, I'll drop it and favor your opponent's analysis, especially if your opponent calls it out as such. I prefer realistic frameworks that generously look at the resolution as though the debate were really a public forum (even in LD) for discussing an important issue. I also prefer realistic arguments that are accessible to the public.

It bothers me when debaters don't know their case because someone else wrote it, they haven't researched the topic, or they are just using the cards that came with the briefs without trying to understand the bigger picture. This become a problem when debaters misinterpret cards or philosophers they don't understand. If your opponent calls you on your card and disputes what it means, then I will call for the card at the end of the debate and make my own judgment. I don't want to do this for a number of reasons, mainly because I don't want to do the work that you should be doing. That being said, I know a lot about many subjects, so if I think that you are misinterpreting a card, I may call for it, even if your opponent has not called you out on it. I don't like to do this, but I also don't like misinterpreted or false cards to affect a round, and I don't expect high school students to have comprehensive knowledge of the world. If I think that your card was misinterpreted, then I will drop the argument it supports.

Please do the work for me. Make it easy for me to decide who wins. Tell the story of the round. Be organized on the flow in your rebuttals.

If your opponent calls for a card, they may continue to prep while you search for it, without that time counting against their prep. This is the procedure at the TOC, which I particularly like because it encourages teams to provide their opponents with the cards they ask for in a timely manner. If you don't have the card, and the context surrounding it, then I will drop the argument that is supported by the card. If your card clearly says something other than what you say it does, I will very likely vote for the other side. Please don't misrepresent your evidence.

Regarding policy debate: Every round that I have judged in policy debate has come down to judge adaptation. Whoever adapts best to my limitations as a judge (see above) will likely win the round (or, if you prefer, my ballot). My recommendation is that policy debaters should have two cases: one that they normally run and another that they write for judge adaptation. Debaters should also practice adaptation whenever they can, making sure that their arguments are comprehensible (at a minimum) and convincing (this should be the target) to normal, educated people.