2024 GOLDEN DESERT DEBATE TOURNAMENT AT UNLV
2024 — Las Vegas, NV/US
NLD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Im a primarlily a ld judge, I'm still somewhat new but I do understand the concepts of debate and ld
Im not a fan of spreading and theory that doesn't work or is fully fleshed
lay judge (might not know what youre talking about). i give lots of feedback! might not be that great, but hopefully it's useful to you
- i like good pens and .3 led
- coffee good too
I would like a conversational pace. If you go to fast, I can't guarantee I will hear and take in everything you say.
Please tell me how much prep time you will be using so I can warn you if you go over.
Try not to miss others' arguments as it usually is hard to come back from.
It doesn't matter if your in a suit or casual clothes you will all be judged the same so don't worry.
If you wanna win with me as a judge I like a lot of clash so try and disprove arguments rather than just ignore their's and extend yours.
Cross-ex is very important as it can help with arguments later so try your best to set up traps.
I hope we have a great round and remember to try your best.
Email for docs: firstname.lastname@example.org
tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!
-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.
-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair per your value. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.
-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon. Noting for phil, I default util unless you can persuade me otherwise.
-Tricks: Not a big fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you don't argue very well with a trick. I don't think they're real arguments.
-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. Hopefully, that will improve over time. You can't sacrifice clarity for speed before you lose me.
-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.
-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.
If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.
I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.
- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.
- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.
- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow
- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.
- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.
- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.
- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.
If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.
I am an Assistant Coach for Milpitas High School. I have been judging since 2009. I have judged mostly LD and Public Forum and some policy. I PREFER persuasive delivery, NOT speed. I flow every round, but I do not flow at spread speed.
My Preferred Pronouns: she/her
For all debaters:
When you are speaking, stand up. I've noticed in some rounds that competitors do not even stand up and just sit and stare at their computers and talk as fast as they can. With me, their speaker points would be incredibly low for this. (Under 15) - This is a big no-no. Always stand up during your speeches. I WILL give low speaks for not standing during speeches.(You do not have to stand during grand crossfire in PF- this is the only exception).
Will I disclose results? Is it required? No? Then probably not. I will write feedback on the ballot though, including an RFD and other relevant information for you to read. I am a flow judge. Keep that in mind and try not to drop things on the flow.
I look for logic, good evidence, and DO NOT drop contentions. Support your value and criteria well with your contentions - there needs to be a link.
Speed: No spreading. I do not flow spread speed. If you spread, I will not get everything you are saying down and I'm a flow judge. I've had top seeds lose a round to low seed because two judges split their decision and I was the deciding judge and the top seed spread the round. Just do not spread in a round with me if you want to win the round.
I do not have a particular philosophy concerning what I will vote on. If you can convince me, I'm open to it. This means almost anything... I'm open to theory, philosophy, Kritiks...If you are running a K, It may be more difficult for you to convince me but not impossible. IF you run a plan or CP though, keep in mind that I will judge you like I judge policy debates and I am a stock issues judge for policy - that means you have to meet ALL FIVE stock issues in order to win on AFF. (Topicality, Solvency, Harms, Inherency, and Significance). If you drop one or lose one, you lose the round. Also, do remember to be at least borderline respectful of each other. Stand up during speeches and during cross ex or I give reduced speaker points.
Always have framework. If you don't have framework, be prepared to consent to whatever framework your opponent lays out and prove that your case supports their framework better. Framework matters.
Be sure to have evidence to back up your claims (that you can show when asked for it by opponent or judge). Make sure you attack your opponents case as well as offer your own. Just offering your own case without attacking your opponents is not enough to win usually. I look for logic as well as evidence when attacking an opponent's case - it's always good to use both to support your own case and to attack your opponent's case. I like tags and cites and DATES. Use credible evidence. If I do not hear an author/date, I typically just write "blah blah" or "no source" on the flow, since I assume you are saying it yourself and it is not coming from a source. Do not cite Fox News or Wikipedia. Also do not use Huff Post unless you are saying the author name and credentials. Do not drop things on the flow. As a flow judge, that means if you drop something, you agree with it.
I have some experience with judging policy. I do not like speed. Speak clear, and in a reasonable pace or I will not be able to keep up with what you say and judge accordingly. If I put down my pen (or stop typing if I am using my computer at the time) while you are giving a speech and stare at you, it's because you are talking too fast and I can not write anything - it's a hint to slow down or you are not getting credit for anything you say. (In other words, do NOT spread with me). You do not have to talk slow though, as I've been judging for 5 years and can keep pace reasonably well.
I am a Stock issues judge and I generally follow this paradigm.
I do not have an issue with tag team cross ex. I also do not have an issue with flex prep. (Asking questions for clarifications during your own prep time)
Generally speaking AFF sets up how the round will be run in Parli debate. Depending on what type of debate AFF decides to run, see above on how I judge each type of debate. I'm a pretty consistent judge so if you run a plan count on me judging like I judge policy debate. If you run a Value debate, count on me judging you like I judge LD and so on.
EMAIL FOR SPEECHES AND ALL QUESTIONS: Samuelshewmake005@gmail.com
Hallo- My name is Sam, and I did 4 years of high school debate, and am now competing at a collegiant level- I have competed in World Schools, LD, Congress, duo, and both extemps- but I am most familiar with LD, World Schools, and Congress.
If you have any specific questions about my judging style, feel free to ask me before rounds, but I will give you a few general notes first-
The most important thing in a congress room is demonstrating clash with the opposing side- if you want to impress me, demonstrate how your evidence or reasoning is contrary to the Aff/Negs
I know a lot of judges do not, but I actually pay attention to cross questions- ask as many as you can!
I am generally against spreading- if you feel like you HAVE to, go ahead, but I will slow you most likely, and you might lose me on parts of your flow if you arent slowing for it- I have hearing issues, so It will be harder for me to accurately flow all of your arguments if you are moving too fast for me
Being mean = terrible speaks.
Try and keep me entertained. Try and be energetic and do something every so often to get my attention. Bonus speaks if you can make me laugh
Argumentation(1-10 scale on how much I enjoy it.
IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS! ALWAYS GIVE ME IMPACTS AND IMPACT WEIGHING
T/Procedural : (9/10)
Theory: (Be careful, 6/10) (will never vote for disclosure theory)
Performance: (6/10) ] enjoy performance, but do not think it is the focus of LD generally speaking
K: (4.5/10) I need a real good explanation, will vote on them- I am not super familiar with K debating to begin with, so you might lose me if you go for a K
Narratives : (4/10) It's unfair for a opponent to defend against your own personal story. Use it as an impact not a voting issue and ill value it more.
Triggers: (X/10) Depends on violation - be realistic.
For LD I believe that fundamentally
1) Good framework is an ultimate truth and is the most important thing of the round.
2) it is the debaters job to prove a general principal.I am generous with AFF fiat but not unrealistic
3) the proof is in the logic, plans cant be proven and so use your skills to explain it to me with logical lines of thinking. Go over the line by line, give me good overviews and explain where your winning and why.
If you feel as though you cannot continue the round for any reason and have the ability to knock on the table 3 times please do so and the round will end immediately and a discussion can occur about where to go from there.