Hello, I am Jouseline Alvarez I attend Harrison High School and I quite enjoy the formatting. I debated both my freshman and sophomore year and I am now a junior. Below are my personal opinions and how I look at the round however I will evaluate any argument that has a clear claim, warrant, and impact. Another personal belief is that debate is not a game, but an educational space for people to yes compete but also express themselves. Be respectful if anything and add me to the email chain: jouselinealvarez@gmail.com

Shortcut:

Ks/K Affs/Non-T Affs - 1

Trad - 2

LARP/T - 3/4 **READ THE BREAKDOWN**

Theory - 4 minus

White Phil - 4/5 (Your typical Kant business)

Tricks - nah, strike

Extinction impacts - boring

Ways to make the round good --> good speaks!

1. Clashing with your opponent
2. Having a clear understanding of your case and extending
3. Being clear
4. Time yourself
5. Making the round a little fun and silly

Kritiks: I freaking love Ks etc, I'm more than comfortable evaluating almost any K position as long as the links and alt are well explained. Performance is awesome and probably my favorite form of debate. However, do not just read this because I like it if you don't know your stuff because you might get roasted...

Trad: I prefer trad a lot of styles of debate. If this is what you feel the most comfortable with then go ahead. Although it can get quite boring it might be really fun if debaters use more creative arguments than just the same arguments everyone reads.

Interesting Phil: Complicated stuff Phil is probably something I would not be great at evaluating, and a lot of debaters really don't explain their arguments quite enough for me to feel comfortable voting on this. That being said, I am not an expert in many phil positions, so run these at your own discretion, and thoroughly explain the philosophy, especially if it's dense.

LARP/T: Big fan of the CP-DA game, PICs can be very clever as well. What I do NOT enjoy are long link chains that impact out to util extinction scenarios, especially since util is like kinda racist. BUT, I will evaluate them, just know it's not my favorite thing by far. T is interesting, if there are real warrants for a violation, of course run it and I will evaluate. I'm even somewhat tolerant of clever T shells that aren't frivolous when I'm in a silly goofy mood. But, if you're reading T against a non-T Aff, it's kinda like slapping someone who said they are being slapped. Granted, if the shell is completely dropped, I will evaluate. There's tons of great ways to respond to non-T Affs that I'd be happy to share if you chuck me an email!

Theory: You know when you're reading a shell just to waste time, and so do I, so basic theory shells like disclosure are fine, but once you start getting into frivolous theory shells (or friv th) like shoelace theory, I become less tolerant. While I understand the basics of theory and how it functions on the flow, I do NOT necessarily enjoy hearing rounds that devolve to theory... If there is a real violation then go ahead! I support it fully.

Whitey Phil: I will evaluate any argument I can understand (please pick up on the staleness of this sentence). I had experience hitting these positions, but I never ran them myself, so my understanding is limited. I'm not a fan of a priori knowledge, I don't particularly like evaluating it. I think Kant was racist (probably because he was) and hearing the words of a racist spread throughout debate rounds is not it.

Tricks: Strike me. While I understand and can appreciate how goofy some tricks are, they are uneducational and I will not tolerate them. Additionally, many tricks are ableist or racist, some (if you're lucky) are both! I'll vote for any argument made against them almost immediately, if your opponent reads one please take advantage of the easy W and roast them. If tricks "magically" manage to sneak their way into the round, I will not evaluate them. I won't tank your speaks, but you won't win from them. I say we leave tricks to magicians.

PF:

I'm pretty new to Public Forum (or PoFo, as my West Coast friends like to call it), but I have a lot of experience and success in traditional LD debate, which I've been told has some similarities. I've judged one tournament of middle schoolers, so that's my experience. I suppose to be clear, persuasive, sign post, and give a clear ballot story! Also keep in mind the only PF I have ever judged is middle schoolers.

As a brief underview:

• You get good speaks by being clear and respectful while also demonstrating a clear understanding of what has happened in round
• You will get low speaks and perhaps dropped if you are any type of offensive, I have a low tolerance. Obviously, mistakes are alright we all learn!
• Credits to Charles for the stolen paradigm

I prefer a loud, clear, confident speaker.

You can speak at any speed, but make sure that you are clear with your arguments

I also enjoy logical arguments.

Hello! I am a parent judge with experience judging LD at few tournaments . I appreciate this opportunity and believe that debate is a place that should be a site of education and learning.

As a parent judge, I expect you to keep the debate clear and make it simple for me to follow. Please use signposting.

Emphasize your contentions, their importance in the round, and why they ultimately win over those of your opponent.

Please speak clearly and slowly so that I can follow (i.e. if you speak fast/spread, I will not be able to understand which means I won't have the means to make the correct judgement).

Notes to consider:

I don't have experience with the circuit side of debate, so please keep the debate traditional.

Specify your contentions clearly, direct me through your flow. During the debate, make sure to clearly state if you are moving on the neg/aff side of the flow.

Weigh your arguments. It is important for me to know what impacts are more important and urgent in order for me to evaluate the round.

I like instructions from the debater on how to piece together the debate

I give good speaker points if you are reasonably well prepared and speak clearly and eloquently.

Don't be rude to your opponent(s).

Good luck and have fun!

I'm a high school senior and have been doing Lincoln Douglas debate all four years of high school.

I can handle faster paces, but please speak at a pace that is effective for you to fully get your points across (and please do not excessively spread).

I think that framework is very important in a debate round and I appreciate when debaters have a solid framework and maintain framework debate throughout the round. I will not decide only on who wins framework, but I consider it a very important aspect of the debate (weighing your impacts under both frameworks is often very effective).

Please make sure that you do not drop points and that you are responding to your opponent's case as well as defending your own. Sign posting is always appreciated and responding in the order of the flow is also very helpful.

Above all else, please be respectful and kind.

Use respectful language and behaviors between debaters

Speak at a nice pace - not too fast, not too slow

Clearly state contentions/arguments

Demonstrate keen listening abilities by challenging/addressing opponents contentions directly

Stay on topic

Demonstrate good time management skills

Organize thoughts/points to build a coherent narrative

Hi, I’m Jason (he/him) and I've done LD at La Salle for three years. You can just call me Jason in round.

Prefer for debaters to send cases, any format is fine. For email chain or questions after rounds: jasonjiang.lschs@gmail.com

• If it's second flight, please set the chain up before round or use speechdrop before we start.

Flow judge: I can evaluate anything that has a claim warrant impact. No preference on arguments, I can evaluate a lay or circuit round.

Speed: I can do any speed but slow down on analytics. I can clear you if I can’t hear.

Clash is good but don’t be rude.

In case anyone needs to see this, saying anything exclusionary (e.g. racist, sexist, ableist, Islamophobic, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) will warrant an L with low speaks if I see that the round has become unsafe for debaters to engage.

Time: nothing major. you can finish your sentence but don't drag it out. I'm cool with off time roadmaps but make sure you actually stick to that order.

- Time yourself so you know where you’re at

Things to do for higher speaks: sign post, extensions, weighing, clash, clear voting issues.

• Along with this, if you have any speech impediments, please let me know so I don’t count it against you.

For novices/JV: make sure to explain how your link and impacts connect and do more comparison with both worlds. Always link back to your FW because that's what the judge evaluates the round under.

Online debate: cameras on is probably good but I understand if you can't. In case you or I cut out, please record all of your speeches. Debating online is hard so try the best you can to answer cross or time prep.

PF: all the above applies and I understand that grand cross can get messy so try your best to answer and ask questions. Cool with circuit PF if the tournament allows it.

When I'm allowed to give feedback post-round and if anything in my RFD is unclear, you can def ask. If you have any questions that weren’t answered here, feel free to ask before round. Good luck and have fun.

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is ckarcher at chapin dot edu.

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

-----------TOC 24 UPDATES-----------

Not well-read on the topic.

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

----------------------------------------

Mid-season updates to be integrated into my paradigm proper soon: 1. (PF) I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Not a fan of it. 2. (LD) I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default. 3. Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have a high bar for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its bars this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and are their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

Other important things:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX ends when the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

I’m a parent volunteer judge, have judged Speech and PF, LD debate for several years, but I am new to Congressional and Policy debate.

Your performance will be assessed based on what your deliver and how you deliver. I am a scientist, I like straightforward, well developed and evidence supported contentions and arguments. I appreciate spot on rebuttals and effective debates. I don't judge if your arguments are right or wrong, I vote for the team who is more convincible based on your defense and offense.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. It is your responsibility to challenge the evidence provided by your opponents. I don't do fact check for you.

Please speak at an understandable pace (no spreading!). If you're speaking too quickly, I may not be able to flow, and you may at the risk of losing those arguments.

In your final speech, please clearly state the reasons why you think your should win.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

EXPERIENCE:

I am currently a civil rights trial attorney practicing in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the Federal Courts. Throughout my career, I have sat as an arbitrator in hundreds of cases.

I am a traditional speech and debate judge.

GENERAL PREFERENCES:

-Quality is more important than quantity.

-Substance over style.

-Be organized—provide road maps.

-I prefer clear, eloquent presentations of the issues in a round.

-Speed is acceptable, but only if clear and concise.

-Direct simple language instead of jargon.

FOR DI/HI:

I like a meaningful teaser that sets the world you are creating and tries to introduce as many characters as necessary to effectively tell the story.

I think introductions should be short and sweet and be more personal.

I like blocking and movement that is used to enhance the story.

I really look for fully developed characters that really listen and react to each other.

For author's intent, I think it is okay to re-interpret a piece if it is within the rules.

I don't have any issue with a curse word if it is used purposefully.

FOR LD/PF/PolicyD/ParliD:

Theory has its place in the right argument, but I prefer you go for substance over theory.

I would rather hear a few cogent arguments, than many quick snippets.

I am fine with speed. I am not fine with spreading by reading paragraph after paragraph at a top speed with zero regard for clarity. Slow down, be clear, and enunciate.

I love cross-examination. I pay special attention to it and think it is strategically valuable.

Make sure to clash with your adversary's arguments and point out dropped arguments. Be specific with your extensions, and remind me why I should care.

Sum up with voting issues, persuasion at the end can secure a win.

FOR CONGRESS:

I look for a healthy combination of entertaining and professional.

Entertaining can look like a lot of different things- from good humor to presenting statistics in a way that keeps me engaged. I really like it when a speech is well organized and gives proper time to each point that is being made. I value clash a lot in congress because that is what makes it interesting past the third speech on a topic. It is very impressive to me if you can prove that you have been paying attention the whole round and have done the research to prove others wrong. Please make sure your clash is professional and doesn't seem aggressive or turn it into a personal attack.

Good luck and have fun!

time yourself

Newark Science '25

ashleylourencoacts@gmail.com

email chain subject line should be: [Tournament Name] '[Year] | Round [X] | [Team [YY]] (aff) vs [Team [ZZ]] (neg)

I will not pretend I am able to hear and flow every word of the 400 wpm 1ar so no tricks, pen time, don't refer to args by the cite (I don't flow author names)

don't be a jerk

offense offense offense

~~~~~~~~~~

I did policy for like 3 or 4 years. I do LD now. I can judge your debate! If you care about that stuff, I have been in my fair share of bid rounds... I have a K background and for the last three years have read mainly antiblackness and some sett col.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct3CLVSEBPs

Hi! I'm Olivia (she/they). I do LD at Dallastown.

If you are spreading then you must case share (I flow on paper). Note: if you are spreading and case-sharing you must make it clear where you deviate from the speech doc.

Run any argument you want as long as you can explain it. I will vote on the flow. Also, I need warrants. I cannot extend something without knowing how/why that thing is true. I also think it is necessary to explicitly link your impacts/argumentation style to the fw debate.

*I will NOT vote for anything offensive. Read as: you will automatically lose the round.*

Overall, have fun and good luck! If you have questions after the round and I'm allowed to give oral feedback ask me anything you want! Debate is a learning experience.

Hi all!

Email Chain: vparoder@gmail.com

Updated for UPenn:

I am a parent judge. Please avoid speed and I will evaluate the round based on who has the better arguments. Make sure that there are clear warrants for your arguments otherwise I will not be able to evaluate you effectively.

If you have any questions before the round please feel free to ask.

Good luck and enjoy of course!

I debate LD at La Salle in PA and I'm a senior right now

tech>truth but both are important

I love trad and Ks and trad Ks and also policy util stuff

Not a fan of weird frameworks just to be weird unless it makes sense

You can spread (speed read) just not like super fast and be clear because I am not the best at flowing

If you have any questions after the round, I will try to give the best feedback possible

I am a parent judge. I appreciate clear communications in the form of volume and projection, confident but respectful tone, and a pace that is swift but not too fast. I also appreciate well structured constructive with introduction/overview and good evidence to support your points. I prefer when speakers stand at a podium when there is one.

This is my 3rd tournament as a judge. I prefer arguments to be presented logical and calm manner. I'm an Engineer by education, I always like logical reasoning behind any statements made. Apart from content, I also pay attention to the presentation style of the candidate. I prefer speeches that are slow to medium-paced and clearly stated.

I was my school's debate coach for five years and have been judging both public forum and Lincoln Douglas debates during that time period.  I am now retired but continue to judge for my former team. 

While I am ok with speed, please do not spread and be careful that you enunciate clearly.  If I can't understand what you are saying, I won't be able to flow your speech and I will be frustrated at the end of the round. 

I do work my way down the flow and prefer that debaters argue in the order of the flow.  I do pay attention to dropped points but only if there is additional commentary on why the drop is important. Organizational skills matter so please go in the order that items were mentioned and try not to bounce around. If a round is close, I do consider voting issues to be a good way to break ties so please leave yourself enough time to include them.

I also expect all competitors to be respectful of each other. I will dock points for outwardly rude or arrogant behavior.

IF YOU ARE READING THIS, THAT MEANS I AM (PROBABLY) YOUR JUDGE. YIPEE!!

*:・ﾟ ₍ᐢ•ﻌ•ᐢ₎*:・ﾟ

HE/SHE/HIM/HER

D.K.SEEP@GMAIL.COM

BACKGROUND: Debated for four years for Horizon High School in Arizona, graduated 2019 and now I judge for Collegiate Academy in New York. I mostly ran performance/queer rage Ks in high school, if that matters to anybody reading.

CRASH COURSE: The floor is truly yours, run whatever you like I want to hear it!! Please explain your complicated lit, I really hate having to read a bunch of fine print in order to judge the round.Oh my gosh please please please use speechdrop.net I ABSOLUTELY DESPISE EMAIL CHAINS THEY TAKE SO STINKIN' LONG. STOP. I am fine with spreading, but please pause and emphasize important bits of your speeches. Card tags/authors, impacts, links, anything that you think NEEDS to be on my flow, take .5 seconds to pause and emphasize. Even raising your voice helps if you dont have the time to pause, it really helps me out on my flow. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, IMPACT ANALYSIS IS KEEEEYYY to winning my ballot! Also please extend, otherwise I will LITERALLY drop anything you did not extend by the end of the round.

PF: I never really was a PF person, so it's hard to say what I like to see in a PF debate. My big thing is impact analysis, I don't really care for "my evidence is better than YOUR evidence" debates. I feel like a lot of PF debates focus too much on things that don't really affect /my/ ballot (how recent your evidence is, statistics, etc.) which I personally don't like, but I also know thats just part of the event.

FRAMEWORK: I love me some good framework debate. If you're running traditional I think you should REALLY focus in on framework.Please, add some extra meat to your framework beyond "value: [BLANK], criterion: [blank],"I want to know why you chose your framework and how it fits into the round before you even get into contentions.

LINKS: To me, anything is a link. And Imean anything.You tell me it links, and I'll believe you.That is not the same for delinking, please tell me why a link is BS and I will believe you.Too many debaters have simply tried to tell me "this doesn't link, drop the argument," without telling mewhyit doesn't link.

IMPACTS: You need to really hammer in why your impacts win the round!! EVEN WITH EXTINCTION IMPACTS, TELL MEWHY IT MATTERS.YOU CANNOT JUST GIVE ME EXTINCTION IMPACTS AND EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR YOU WITHOUT DOING THE PROPER WEIGHING!! Magnitude, scope, whatever,weigh. all. of. the. impacts. in. round.

PLANS/COUNTERPLANS: I'm lukewarm on plans, I think if you're gonna run a plan it should be very fleshed out otherwise why not just run a trad aff lol? Counterplans are cool too, but please just let me know when you ARE running a counterplan. Obviously plans and counterplans can be run as trad, but it's just to help me flow and keep track of what is being said, thank you!

KRITIKS: My faaaavooritteeeeee!!! I love em all!However, I have not competed in almost 5 years(ohgeezthatscrazyimgettingold)and I am NOT college edumacated. Please explain your lit!Add some extra analytics after cards, something, anything like that. I have a pretty good understanding of a lot of phil, but I just need my hand held a little bit.Also if your opponent clearly is confused, PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE THEM MORE BY NOT EXPLAINING THINGS.That is really, really mean and I do not like it ONE BIT.This is why I encourage flex prep, let your opponent ask clarification questions and answer themHONESTLY.Oh and also please LABEL each section of the K!! Makes it a lot easier for me as a judge.

THEORY: Personally, I am not super big on theory. I like that debate doesn't have any rules, why argue about made up rules? Either way, I encourage theory, but please make the violation very very clear to me. AND PLEASE MAKE IT A WELL FLESHED OUT THEORY SHELL. IF I HAVE TO MAKE AN ENTIRE NEW FLOW FOR THEORY JUST FOR YOU TO SPEND 15 SECONDS ON IT I WILL BE SO MADD!!! Basically, if you are trying to win my ballot, do not think that a theory shell will do it.

TOPICALITY: I personally don't see why ANYBODY has to be topical in LD, so please please give me some clear impacts. Again, I'm willing to listen to it, but you really need some good impacts for me to vote on it.

DISCLOSURE: Same for above, I NEED a valid violation for disclosure especially. I think a lot of disclosure theory is very frivolous, so please flesh out your shell if you're going to run it in front of me.

PERFORMANCE: I love performance in debate. I come from a theatre background, so if you've always wanted to run performance and you've never done it before, I am the perfect judge to do it front of.Please do not drop your performance after your first speech because I will be so sad):

SPEAKER POINTS: Much to tabroom's dismay, I am not a fan of speaker points. It is my least favorite part of judging I hate having to give a number value to your speaking ability I think it is kind of dumb and doesn't make any sense in a debate setting. I'll almost always give pretty high speaks, unless you're like crazy offensive or something.

Well, that is basically everything I can think of. I encourage all debaters to have fun, debate is a really stressful activity and you all need to remember to prioritize yourselves and your own mental wellbeing. Please feel free to email me with ANY questions that you have before AND after the round! I am always happy to answer any questions and provide extra feedback as needed.

If you are still reading, pet this cat!

＿＿
　　　　　✿＞　　フ
　　　　　| 　_　 _ l
　 　　　／` ミ＿xノ
　　 　 /　　　 　 |
　　　 /　 ヽ　　 ﾉ
　 　 │　　|　|　|
　／￣|　　 |　|　|
　| (￣ヽ＿_ヽ_)__)
　＼二つ

Background: Junior, 3rd Year High School LD Debater at Lexington High School. I judge LD primarily but have judged PF at one tournament.

Email: 25stu474@lexingtonma.org (Add me to the email chain)

Arguments:

I'm fine with pretty much all arguments as long as it isn't obviously racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc. Read whatever you're comfortable with.

How to Win:

1. Weigh all your arguments: It makes it more difficult to vote for you if I do not know why your arguments deserve to win the round. How do I know that your extinction impact is worse than your opponent's if you don't tell me why?

2. Crystallize your links: If your argument is not explained well, it is difficult to evaluate. Make your links clear; don't make me guess what they are. Also, be clear on which arguments from your opponent you are responding to.

3. Extend: Make sure to extend all of the arguments you want to keep in the debate. A blippy restatement of the title of your contention is NOT an extension. Make sure you restate the general idea of each argument. If you do not extend an argument, you basically drop it. Also, if you drop your opponent's argument, you can not respond to it later on.

4. New arguments: I will not evaluate new arguments in your final speech. You can still respond to your opponent's arguments or extend your own arguments but you can't, for example, read a whole new contention or add a new impact to your case in the 2AR.

Speakers:

• Make sure I can hear and understand you. If you speak faster or spread, make sure to enunciate your words

• Emphasize important words to tell a more clear and engaging story

• Make my job easier by organizing your speeches. Give a roadmap before the speech, signpost and tell me when you are moving on to the aff or neg, and try to respond to your opponent top to bottom on the flow. If you do not go top to bottom, be very clear on which argument you are responding to

• Give a powerful cross-ex. Point out where your opponent's case falls short. Get your opponent to contradict themselves. While I do not evaluate cross-ex in my ballot, it is important for speakers

• Give clear examples to further support your reasoning

Have fun debating and feel free to ask any questions!

As a competitor in Lincoln Douglas Debate and Congress in the late 1990s, I have returned recently as a coach/judge. Some things have changed; some things are the same. I remain most interested in adjudicating rounds where clash between AFF and NEG is clearly articulated and engaged. I favor debaters who take a tabula rasa approach and do not assume that the judge is comfortable with voting on a particular theory, but rather effectively use evidence, signpost contentions, and conclude with voting issues that expose the debates' clash. I am comfortable with speed, as long the speaker does not sacrifice clarity or a compelling tone. I can be convinced by counter-plans, disadvantages, and kritiks as long as they stay close to the resolution, affirm a value, and speak (once again) to clash. I like the debaters to keep a formality/professionalism about debate, and treat each other and the judge respectfully. This includes attention to presentation (standing over sitting), eye contact with the judge, and good beginnings and endings to all speeches and CX.

Email: deborah.wus@gmail.com

Conflicts: Pennsbury High School

General:

Be clear, coherent and articulate. I encourage you to take your time both in your speaking and preparation. It is your responsibility that I can understand your words and arguments. One strong argument or rebuttal can be the most persuasive with the right impact. I believe in quality over quantity in all elements of debate (i.e. evidence, warrants, contentions, impacts).

Please introduce yourself by name to me and the other team. Professionalism and respect for one another is paramount. Standing while speaking and maintaining eye contact when appropriate is compelling. Delivery is key, so make sure you are audible with proper volume, pitch and pace.

David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging

LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.

I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.

In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. Also, where tag-teaming is permitted, proceed with caution. One or two interjections is fine. More than that diminishes your partner's voice/skill and will be considered in speaker points and, if excessive, the RFD.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 26 unless you're rude and/or abusive.

Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.