I am a new judge; however, I have participated in numerous speech and debate events as an audience and have good idea about the format and expectations from the candidates. I will be cautious not to have any preconceived notions and score based on content, technique and adherence to the rules.

I am an experienced (Lay/Flay) parent judge - I have never coached, or competed, but I have been judging PF, and LD for 3 years.

** NOTE FOR MSU: This will only be my second CX tournament ever - and my first on the IPR topic - Please, assume I know nothing. Start at the ground floor and build up from there **

Debate as a whole:

• I am best identified as a “Policy-Maker” judge. I think that the best arguments are advantages, and disadvantages.

• I love Line-by-Line refutation.

• Weighing is important. Weigh everything please!! I want some comparative analysis. In short - I need to know WHY something matters.

Me:

I work in fundraising, and non-profit - I like debates about new & interesting topics and/or new & interesting takes on those topics

Ethics:

I have a ZERO tolerance policy for debaters who are disrespectful to each other, and the ballot will come accordingly.

Flowing:

I do not “Flow”, I do however take rigorous notes, and record the arguments in the debate - I do use them to make my decision.

Progressive Arguments:

I am just not comfortable in most Theory & Kritik Debates - I do not have the experience needed to fairly adjudicate them. To be fair to these arguments, I don't think you should run them in front of me.

Speed:

I am generally okay with (some) speed - I understand that you speak faster in debate than you do in real life. However, I do not appreciate spreading. I will clear you once, but after that I will put the pen down.

Housekeeping:

• I don't disclose decisions. Don't ask me to disclose the decision. (if you are just asking about advice/tips, that is very welcomed though!)

• If you are running arguments that could be triggering - please run a trigger warning.

• I think debate is good - It will be hard to persuade me otherwise.

• I think topical debate is good - No Kritikal Affirmatives, please!

I am a parent judge with two years judging LD. While I prefer that you don't talk too fast or spread, that's your decision, but keep in mind if I cannot track what you're saying, that won't be to your advantage. In fairness, I need to be able to understand what you're saying in order to judge its merits.

I take a lot of notes and will be heads down - but I will be very engaged. Please make it clear what's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's. Please don’t run progressive debate.

By your final focus or last speech, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponent's. And in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded.

You can sit or stand, either are fine.

If time approaches, I usually let you finish your thought up to about :10 seconds. If you start a new thought after time has elapsed, I'll end that segment. I will not take points off for that.

If you ask for X minutes for prep time, I'll let you know when that time has elapsed. However, it's your time, so if you want to keep going that's perfectly fine.

Unless we're in higher levels of competition with multiple judges, I won't reveal my decision or give feedback after the round, but I do make every effort to leave notes in tabroom for the round and each individual.

I very much enjoy the competition of debate and look forward to judging your round. Good luck and have fun!

I am a parent judge with kids in LD. I have judged a few LD tournaments. Please speak slowly and clearly. No spreading. I will be trying to follow and flow as best as I can. Most of all, be respectful and responsible with your argumentation. Good luck!

As an alum of the NSDA (2008), and a true Lincoln-Douglas debater who's competed at Nationals, I value excellent logic, respect, structure, and philosophy in debate. I flow every round old-school style and am able to handle spreading. If you see me stop writing, it's because you're going too fast and need to focus on being a persuasive public speaker as well as an amazing debater. I love debate, and will be enjoying every minute of your argumentation, rebuttal, and cross-examination, so know that I respect the work debaters put in ahead of time to prepare, and the nerve it takes to do this event.

I'll be flowing arguments the way you present them. I'll carry arguments across when you ask me to, and I won't flow it if you don't say it. Values are a big deal to me, so I'm always hoping they feature prominently in final arguments. This is the defining feature of LD debate, and I believe talking about values ought to be a bigger part of how we interact with each other as humans.

Speak calmly and clearly: Take a deep breath at the start and deliver your arguments clearly. If you go too fast and I cannot understand what you’re saying, it’s the same as you not saying it. Quality is better than quantity. Thank you!

Do not interrupt your opponents: Debate is about each team having the opportunity to present, ask questions in cross, and respond to the questions asked in cross.

This upcoming season is my 4th year judging, primarily LD. I appreciate well thought-out cases and good enunciation as well as good clock management. I tend to let debates flow and note criticism in speaker points. I guess I am a traditionalist in the spirit of debate and might not be the best candidate for progressive debaters.

I have so much respect for all these kids who are brave enough to try debate.

My only comment is that I prefer the clarity of speech over speed. Please do not talk so fast that I cannot understand what you are saying.

I am now an experienced parent judge. You may debate any way that you prefer. I am impressed with debaters who really understand their research and can organize their positions in a coherent way. I am less impressed with debaters who use words they don't understand or appear to be reading off the page something that someone else wrote. However, I applaud the efforts of all debaters and think this activity is an admirable use of your time.

Amy Love Klett

I am the Speech and Debate Coach at Carolina Day School in Asheville, NC.

Our program at Carolina Day focuses on Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and some speech events. In competition, I primarily judge Lincoln-Douglas.

I will always be flowing debates and will be familiar with the topics. I hear a lot of debates and can handle speed, but speed cannot come at the expense of clarity. If I can’t understand what you are saying and get it down on the flow, I won’t be able to weigh it later in the round.

I value frameworks in PF. If you don’t have a framework in the constructive, I will assume we are employing a cost-benefit analysis.

I judge primarily on a traditional local circuit. I'm open to progressive argumentation, but it will need to be clearly explained and clearly connected to the topic.

I’m a brand new judge, so go easy on me! I’m thoughtful and like a well reasoned argument. I like to think about things, so don’t speak too fast or throw in too many different points. I appreciate a good exchange of ideas and respond to people who also are thoughtful and respect their listener. I’m looking forward to it!

Big Picture: I'm a judge with few heartfelt convictions about what you can or should do to win a debate. Do you.  

Theory: Do whatever you please, as long as you carefully weigh the impacts of your competing interpretations of any given theory. I think that most theory debates are inconclusive given that folks do not take the time to parse out what values or goals are furthered by their theoretical framework. You’ll have a greater chance of winning my ballot if you carefully and explicitly impact your theory arguments relative to the other side.  

Topicality/Framework: I think the same basic thing about T/Framework--do what you will. I am of the school of thought that fairness, ground, and so on are not terminal impacts, and it is important to me that you make some normative comparisons about about how debate should be configured in debates about framework.  

A note on competition: With the "do what you please" maxim in mind, I should say that I have some defaults. If you are a policy team, I do tend to have a greater negative bias on counterplans than others in this area, so feel free to test the limits of fiat and competition, if you wish.

When it comes to debates around starting points, I will say that I have a decided (though revisable) bias for opportunity cost as a model of competition, so I am probably more conservative (by default) than most on whether or not differences in starting point are a sufficient ground for competition. The world is a complex place, in my opinion, and so simply starting at a different place than another team does not guarantee that views of the world are de facto competitive options in the absence of some other claim for competition.  

I am old, and my ears and flow are not quite what they once were. I tend to decide quickly, and not to look at a ton of evidence. Taking this into account in resolving the important issues in the debate, and, even better, providing a compelling narrative framing of your argument will go a long way with me.  

Concept Explanation

CREI ORGANIZATION STRATEGY: CREI is an acronym that stands for claim, reasoning, evidence, and impact. The claim should tell the judge what you are arguing. The reasoning should show why your claim is true in your own words. The evidence should show why your claim is true using the words of another. The impact should tell the judge why your argument matters.

RIOT METHOD: RIOT is an acronym that stands for reduce, indict, outweigh, and turn. Reducing your opponent’s arguments means to put the arguments into perspective. Putting your opponent’s arguments into perspective includes breaking the argument down into its core components to show the judge the ridiculousness of the argument, or you can take the weight of their argument and compare it to the other numbers that make the weight of their argument seem small. Indicting your opponent’s arguments is the most common form of refutation. You can indict your opponent based on flawed logic and bad evidence. Outweigh is when you look at the impacts of your arguments and your opponent’s and tell the judge why your impacts have a greater weight using IMPACT CALCULUS. Turning is taking your opponent’s argument and using it to benefit your side. If your opponent presents an argument and you notice it helps your side the same or more than your opponent’s point that out and explain why to the judge.

THREE-POINT REFUTATION STRATEGY: Three-point refutation breaks down the refutation process in an easy-to-manage way. The first step is to say, “my opponent said _______.” Then you follow up by saying “my opponent is wrong because _______.” Then you end by saying “this error is significant because _________.”

VOTER ISSUES: Voter issues give the judge criteria to vote on other than his own. Providing these voter issues will allow you to demonstrate to the judge why you have won the round. Common votes include better evidence, rhetoric, and greater impact weight.

WORLD COMPARISON: World comparisons are a persuasive way to demonstrate to the judge what is happening in the aff/neg (pro/con) worlds. World comparison tells the judge what the world would like if he voted for one side or the other and illustrates why one world is more/less desirable than the other.

IMPACT CALCULUS: Impact calculus is an easy way to illustrate to the judge why your arguments have more weight than your opponent’s. Impacts can have a greater weight depending on timeframe, scope, magnitude, and probability. Timeframe compares how soon the consequences of the impact will happen. Scope observes how many people the impact will affect. Magnitude explains how bad/good the consequences of the impact are (think getting sick vs. dying). Probability measures how likely the impact is to happen.

CLASH: Clash illustrates to the judge where each side differs from the other. If both sides have different arguments, but two deal with healthcare in some fashion, one of the clashes for that debate would be “healthcare.”

Lincoln Douglas

Judging Criterion:

I primarily judge on how the debaters engage with the values presented because LD boils down to the values. Focusing on the values requires great LD debaters to rely on mostly rhetoric, philosophy, theory, and history to support their arguments. Using studies and other academic journal works would prove insufficient in LD when they stand alone because the findings only serve to illustrate debaters’ reasoning. Because debaters’ main reliance comes from their own reasoning, they should maintain a conversational pace when speaking.

The next quality I look for in both debaters is accomplishing the goal of each speech for the debate. For constructive speeches, the debaters should focus on communicating their main arguments to the judge, except for negative using some time to refute the affirmative’s contentions of course. To communicate their constructive arguments clearly, debaters should use the CREI ORGANIZATION STRATEGY or a similar strategy (explanation above).

During cross-examination, debaters asking questions should make sure to only ask questions that let them gain information for their refutation, however, please do not only ask yes/no questions, give your opponent the chance to slip up when they are over explainingan answer to one of your questions. The questions should be concise so the opponent cannot claim to “not understand” your question and waste your CX time, and the questioner should not let opponents waste their CX time by giving long answers. Therefore, questioners should let their opponent answer their question plus one sentence and then politely cut them off. The questions a debater asks should indict one of three elements in an opponent’s case: reasoning, evidence quality, and impact weight. Debaters answering questions should keep their answers concise and answer only what their opponents asked them, so they do not accidentally give their opponent more ammo for when they start their refutation speech. However, when answering questions, you should not only answer with a “yes” or “no.” You need to explain why the answer is “yes” or “no,” especially when a “yes” or “no” answer damages your argument in the eyes of the public.

During refutation speeches, debaters need to focus on both attacking their opponent’s arguments and bolstering their own. For attacking, debaters should use the RIOT METHOD (explanation above). Along with this method, debaters can use the THREE-POINT REFUTATION STRATEGY (explanation above). For bolstering arguments, debaters should not just repeat their argument in different words; instead, debaters should try to focus on what their opponents said and counter the reasoning or evidence their opponents used during refutations.

Finally, debaters should end the round with a strong closing speech. Strong closing speeches NEVER summarize what each debater said during the round. Instead, strong closing speeches tell the judge why you won the round. The best methods to use to tell the judge how you won include VOTER ISSUES, WORLD COMPARISON, and IMPACT CALCULUS (explanations above). Debaters should also make sure to relate their concluding arguments back to their value and why their value should be preferred during the round.

During all these speeches, debaters should relate all that they say in support of their side back to their value. Remember this is a debate about VALUES. Therefore, the debater who convinces the judge to prefer their value wins the round. Without convincing the judge to prefer your value, you will miss the whole purpose of this format and probably lose. These are the strategies that will make you a great LD debater.

Breakdown:

· Content: 70%

o Values – 30%

o Logical Reasoning – 10%

o Impacts – 20%

o Supporting Materials – 10%

· Speaking: 30%

o Conversational Pace – 15%

o Non-fluencies – 10%

o Tone and Nonverbals – 5%

Public Forum

Judging Criterion:

The primary quality I look for in a public forum is great teamwork and support. One of the primary aspects of PF is learning how to deliver a cohesive argument with another person. If PF debaters don’t acquire this skill, the whole educational experience in PF becomes lost. The secondary qualities I look for in a great PF team are accomplishing the goal of each section of the debate and using proper argumentation strategies.

The easiest way to show great teamwork in PF debate is to watch how members of the same party support each other in the British parliament. When party members representing the same party give a great speech in parliament, their fellow party members will knock or smack the table to applaud their efforts. Using this same model, I encourage all PF debaters to knock or smack the table loud enough for me to hear to demonstrate public support for their partner. Some judges may not like the noise though, so for other judges, I suggest nodding your head instead.

The more difficult way to illustrate teamwork in PF debate is to make sure you and your partner are on the same page when speaking. I cannot tell you how many times PF partners have contradicted each other in later speeches all because they were not on the same page. Therefore, PF debaters need to make sure all the arguments they make are cohesive. The best way to maintain cohesive arguments is to take notes on what your partner said during their speech(es). If you tune out your partner’s speeches, contradictions become more likely because you cannot remember what your partner said.

Now, let’s move on to discussing how to accomplish the goal of each speech. Constructive speeches carry a lot of weight because the constructive speech introduces your side’s arguments. During this time, the first speakers should solely focus on introducing their main arguments and not refuting or producing counterarguments against their opponents.

I know crossfire comes next, but I’ll get into it later because it deserves its own section at the end. For now, let’s move on to the rebuttal speeches. The rebuttal speech is the time when one of my pet peeves for PF gets triggered. Sometimes the second speaker for either side will start introducing completely new arguments. You should NOT introduce new arguments in the rebuttal speech. What you should do for the rebuttal speech is refute the opposing side's arguments, and the team B second speakers should defend their side. This is one of the speeches other than the final focus where you can put into practice your table knocking and smacking skills.

The summary speech is the trickiest speech to understand for a PF novice. Though this speech is titled “summary speech,” the speech itself should not just summarize everything that both sides have said during the debate. Instead, the summary speech should boil down the debate to the main CLASHES (explanation above). Identifying the clashes will help your partner with the final focus speech as well because identifying the clashes sets up and outline for what the final speech from your team will cover.

Between the summary speech and final focus speech, a PF team can show off just how well they work together. The final focus is not meant to rehash any old arguments or continue your side’s refutations. The final focus speech needs to tell the judge why your team won the round based on the identified clashes. The best way to demonstrate how your team won is by identifying how your team’s side either solves or has a greater weight on each of the clashes using IMPACT CALCULUS.

The last section of the PF format I will explain is the crossfire. Teams should share the crossfire time as equally as they can, so each person has the chance to ask and answer questions. If the teams do not share the crossfire time equally, it will appear as if one team is badgering the other or one team will appear less competent. For the first crossfire, the questions should focus on gathering answers your partner can use during the rebuttal speech. These questions should indict one of three elements of your opponents’ arguments: logical reasoning, evidence quality, and impact weight. The second crossfire should focus on figuring out where both sides differ so the debater giving the summary speech has an easier time identifying the clashes. The grand crossfire needs to focus on asking questions that get your opponents to concede to your identified clashes. Questions would include challenging the other team’s chosen clashes by making them admit that their clashes do not relate to the topic or are too narrow in scope for the topic.

Now, I’ll briefly explain my preferred method of argumentation. Every argument a debater makes should follow the CREI ORGANIZATION STRATEGY (explanation above) or a similar strategy. For this format, your support should come from reasoning, studies, theory, and history. Using philosophy is not worth it in this format, because there is not enough time to cover the depth of the principles. As for speaking rate, debaters should use conversational or slightly faster to ensure the judge understands their arguments. For refutation, debaters should use the RIOT METHOD (explanation above) and the THREE-POINT REFUTATION STRATEGY. These are the methods you can use to become a great PF team.

Breakdown:

· Content: 70%

o Impacts – 30%

o Logical Reasoning – 10%

o Clashes – 20%

o Supporting Materials – 10%

· Speaking: 30%

o Conversational Pace – 15%

o Non-fluencies – 10%

o Tone and Nonverbals – 5%

I am a parent volunteer judge. I prefer that you do not talk too fast or spread, so that I am able to fully understand what you are saying. Thank you and good luck!

I've been judging LD debate since the fall of 2000. I prefer more conversation delivery as opposed to spread. I still put a lot of weight into framework arguments vs my card is better than your card arguments. Speaking of that it is possible to persuade without a card if using a common sense argument it then falls upon the opponent to use common sense to rebut the argument rather than just: "My opponent doesn't have a card for that." This does not apply to specific amounts. For example, if you were to claim that Mossism has 50,000 adherents, I'd need a card. Common sense arguments follow lines of basic logic. Also, please please please please Signpost as you go down the flow.

Don’t be rude to your opponents. Articulate clearly.

I am an ex-traditional policy debate coach (Stock issues judge) who has been coaching LD since 1990. I usually administrate tournaments rather than judge except when I have been at Catholic Nat's and NSDA Nat's.

Speed: Adapt to the judge who prefers a few well-developed arguments to spreading. I will flow as fast as I can, but it is up to you to communicate to me the compelling/persuasive reasons why you should earn the ballot. Speak clearly and articulate your words and you'll do fine.

Flex Prep. No. Speak within the time constraints and use prep time to see Evidence.

Evidence Challenge: If you doubt the veracity of evidence, then challenge it at the next available opportunity. Remember evidence challenges are all or none. If the evidence has been proven to be altered or conjured, then your opponent loses. If the evidence is verifiable and has NOT been materially altered, then you lose for the specious challenge.

Arguments: A few well-reasoned claims, warrants, and impacts are very persuasive as opposed to a laundry list of underdeveloped assertions/arguments.

Theory Arguments: Not a big fan of sitting in judgment of the topic and/or its framers with critiques. But I do weigh the issue of topicality as germane if made during the constructives.

Philosophy: It's been labeled Value debate for a reason. I encourage the discussion of scholarly philosophies.

Framework: There is a Value that each side is pursuing as their goal. There is a value criterion that is used to measure the accrual of the VP. The last steps include why the Value is superior and why the VC is the best way to measure that value.

Decision-Rule. While repetition often aids learning, I prefer that you tell me what the established standard for judging the round has been and why your arguments have met/exceeded the threshold. Write the ballot for me.

PFD: I have coached and judged PFD since the event started.

I prefer a framework and a few well-developed arguments to the spread. Point keywords as you read your case. Be polite in C-X and ask closed-ended questions. Tell me why your arguments are better by weighing impacts.

Ryan Parimi - Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum Paradigm

Email: ryan.parimi@gmail.com

About me

• UGA law student
• I coach/teach college, high school, and middle school debate (LD, PF, WS, Parli)
• I've taught summer debate camps at Yale, Drew, U. of Washington, and even one way out in Jakarta, Indonesia

My debate philosophy

• Although I enjoy some progressive arguments, my debate philosophy still centers on clear argumentation and persuasive speech. I want you to try to win me—not only win arguments in a vacuum. I try to award speaker points accordingly. If a tournament doesn't allow low-point wins, I will say in the RFD that I would've given a low-point win with x points.
• I generally vote on the flow. Tech over truth (within reason).
• I like aspects of both traditional and progressive debate. I wish the traditional community wouldn't let its fear of everything turning into policy keep it from adopting some helpful circuit norms, and I wish the progressive community would stop trying to convince itself that a total departure from traditional debate turns the activity into anything but an esoteric, nonsensical game with no real-life application.

Speed

• Prioritize clarity. Spreading is lame, but I won't vote you down solely because you chose to spread. If you spread, please be good at it. Bad spreading will 100% tank your speaker points. Email me your case or give me a printed copy before the round if you plan on spreading.

Evidence

• I know the evidence rules, and I have no problem deciding a round on a legitimate evidence violation.

------

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

In general

• I love LD.

• Please remember that you need to make your attacks on your opponent's case in the rebuttal portion of NC (if neg) or 1AR (if aff). NR or 2AR = too late. I have to disregard those as new arguments.
• Don't forget fiat exists. Fine with you arguing to what extent.
• Counterplans are fine.

Framework

• I enjoy a good framework debate.

• Traditional and modern frameworks are fine. Just make whatever you’re using clear. I know my philosophers pretty well...don't try to BS me on Kant or Rawls or something. I will know. That being said, I believe it's on the debaters to call each other out. I'm going to flow it even if it's a little painful to listen to (unless it's crazy).

Kritiks and Theory

• A well-developed K could certainly convince me. I'm familiar with the critical theories behind most Ks.

• Theory arguments are fine when there's actual abuse--clearly explain the norm and the violation. Don't waste my time with arguments like "he didn't put his contact info on the debate wiki so drop him."
• For me, K and theory are above the plan/case level. I'm fine with you arguing about that though, and you're especially welcome to argue whether K > theory.
• I hate disclo and will not vote on it with one exception: if you didn't disclose and you're spreading so fast that flowing is nearly impossible, I will give you the L if your opponent runs disclo (unless they're also spreading and didn't disclose).
• Condos are a little sus but I don't have a strong view on them.

Examples of cases that would be great for my taste

• Traditional case that demonstrates a deep understanding of the philosophy behind its framework
• Cap K that links reasonably to the resolution, argued in a more traditional style
• Tech case that restores my faith in humanity by making semi-reasonable arguments and doesn't force me to flow 10 subpoints of copy-paste garbage from the debate wiki

------

PUBLIC FORUM:

In general

• Did you know that PF is the only debate event that explicitly mentions lay judges in its description? Indeed, "Students who do Public Forum must be prepared to debate in front of judges without any formal debate training. Being able to persuade a range of judges is a central component to this event."

• ^That means I prefer you lean more traditional in this event. I will not, however, vote you down solely because you went more progressive.

Kritiks and Theory

• In general, I'm skeptical of Ks and theory in PF.
• Still open to theory when there's actual abuse--clearly explain the norm and the violation.

Plans/Advocacy

• Just going to remind you of the rule: "In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions."
• I'm really not in the mood to hear a CX round given this rule + time limits that don't work.
• I'll assume basic fiat for pro.

Weighing

• Please give a clear metric(s) to weigh arguments with AND weigh your arguments against your opponents'. Don't expect me to weigh for you.

Evidence

• Not sure what it is about PF, but it seems to have uniquely bad evidence in terms of source quality and questionable cutting. If you did good research and cut cards ethically, you're already making me happy.
• I don't want us to spend more time asking for cards than actually debating. I know most of you have never judged, but trust me, it's mind-numbing to sit for 5 minutes after every single speech and watch you drag your feet pulling up 10 cards when only one card is relevant. Please call for cards sparingly.

------

OTHER STUFF:

• Chinese rap enjoyer. Flip phone believer. Manual transmission user.

• I follow NSDA rules whenever questions that the rules address come up. I follow tradition for pretty much anything else. If you have questions about specific preferences, just ask before the round.

Hello Debaters,

My name is Yogesh Patil, I'm from Charlotte and I work in Information Tech. This is my second time judging Lincoln Douglas debate. I am from Ardrey Kell High school. Im very much of what you guys may call a "lay judge" and i prefer if you explain link chains thoroughly and slowly. In general, the easier you make it to understand, the more i can make sense. Please speak slowly and don't use rude or offensive language.

Thanks!

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. Reading cards is not good debating, giving full and complete verbal explanations of the specific claims made in the round and how they interact with one another is. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

February2002-Complete-Rostrum.pdf (speechanddebate.org)

Luong RJ PresumptionNov'00 (uvm.edu)

As a judge, I prioritize well-structured arguments that clearly address both scope and impact. I value debaters who use legitimate, valid sources to support their claims and can balance depth with breadth. Strong cross-fire skills are key—getting to the bottom of the issue can make or break a round, and a well-handled cross-fire can win the debate. Time management is crucial—don’t leave time on the table, but also respect the clock and avoid going over. While I’m laid back in my judging style, I still expect clear, concise points, and I appreciate arguments with real-world implications and practical outcomes. Engage meaningfully with your opponent’s case, but avoid irrelevant tangents.

Background

I'm a 3 time NSDA/NCFL qualifier and now coach LD. I like this stuff - fun, isn't it?

General Preferences

If you won this round, you probably 1. gave me a coherent lens through which I can gauge what is important and 2. weaved a story of the round using that lens. LD is about creative weighing, much like how we interact with complicated ideas in the real world - we don't just do an in-depth cost-benefit analysis each time we make a decision, we apply multiple standards and evaluative measures to reach a conclusion (often totally subconsciously).

Basically - I should be doing as little work as possible. I don't want to intervene or even really think when judging an LD round. If you make the story clear to me, I'll vote for you.

Speed

I can handle any speed, but nobody can handle you being incoherent - I'll give you a good ol' fashioned "clear" if you're attempting to go faster than you're capable of going. Good rule of thumb: if you feel like it's necessary that I read along to understand you, it's probably because you're unintelligible, not because I'm too old and slow.

Rounds being competitive really matters to me. This means that stylistic alignment between the two debaters is necessary to create good LD. Seeing as traditional LD is by far the more common and accessible style, if your opponent is only capable of traditional LD, that is the style I expect to see in the round. I will never punish a locally active debater for not being competitive against the increasingly inaccessible and abstract style found at national circuit tournaments.

Theory

Point out the abuse (assuming it's real) and move on. Do not make it the crux of the round. Win on substance.

I will never vote for time skew theory or anything that accuses your opponent of some form of prejudice (unless they've openly and intentionally said something prejudiced).

Kritiks

I'm actually stealing this directly from one of my all-time favorite NC LDer's paradigms because it was so perfectly written - thanks to Derek Brown of Durham Academy.

"Kritiks, like theory or topicality, are a way of questioning the pre-fiat implications of your opponents' position. As a result, Kritiks must link to a practice your opponent performed, and there must exist a relatively predictable/reasonable way your opponent could have anticipated or predicted that this practice was bad. For example, I will not vote on an argument saying "the aff doesn't address black feminism", because it is unreasonable to expect the aff to read black feminism every round."

I will add that I generally do not enjoy Kritiks that you read every single tournament (and yes, I'll know if you do) - think Cap Ks, Colonialism, etc. - they aren't competitive and generally rely on tenuous links back to the topic. If you didn't have to write it specifically for the current resolution, don't run it. I have to listen to like...6 LD rounds every weekend. I don't want to hear the same stuff every Saturday.

Bonus

Make this fun for me. Be entertaining. Be funny.I get so excited when I see good LD - if you've got a distinct style, good coverage, and I leave the round feeling like I did very little work...I'm a happy camper.

Hello - I am a Managing Director with Accenture and have worked in 9 counteries across different industries. I beelive debating is one of the most important life skill. As you debate, please remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers. I always look for a respectful debate. Once you roll your eyes, repeatedly interrupt, or are sarcastic, that's not good

I look forward to an engaging debate and all the best!!

Greetings: I have been around the Carolina West District for approximately 10 years. At one time or another I have judged every event. Although we are a very small school, we have had many students place in their respective events and go on to use their speech and debate skills in college and the work force.

Policy: All 5 elements must be clearly addressed. Spreaders should ensure I have their taglines or at least sign post before they start to rock-n-roll. I pay special attention to topicality, sources, cross x, and solvency.

Lincoln-Douglas:The AFFIRMATIVE has the burden of proof of the resolution as presented and should provide fair definitions. The NEG can and should challenge unfair definitions. I pay special attention to sources, cross x, and contentions coming full circle as well as defense and rebuttals.

Public Forum: Simply looking for which side presented the more compelling case with viable sources and confident defense.

Congress: I see two major elements here: speech content & speech delivery. I focus on well organized speeches with quality sources and ability to address questions. The P.O. should run a tight fair chamber. Outstanding =6 pts, Very good=5 pts, Average=4 pts.

IEs: The first presentation I see is in first place of that round til someone beats them and so on down the line. I look for all literary elements, appropriate use of: hands/body/posture, facial expressions, and vocal variety as the piece dictates. As OI, POI, Novice Reading, or Children's Lit do not require memorization, nor do I. I neither reward students who have memorized, nor penalize students who haven't. My personal favorite events are: Extemp and Informative Speaking.

I do NOT disclose my decisions and I do NOT share oral critiques in the room. I will gladly answer student's questions with their coaches permission to speak with me. I will generally challenge all Extempers with a short questions following their speech.

You should be polite, but you should also know that being obsequious will not gain you extra points.

Please don’t use debate-world jargon. The people judging are not debate team members, so using words that mean something totally different in their world (the real world) is not effective.

Don’t be overly pedantic. If your argument is premised on a word game (e.g. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.") it just seems silly.

Hyperbole (e.g. "Half the human population will die if you don't vote for AFF!") can be viewed as insulting to a judge’s intelligence.

As a judge I can't see your cards, so getting into an argument with your opponent about cards is kind of meaningless to me.

The best debates are about articulating ideas and presenting evidence to back up those ideas. Focus on persuading your audience—in this case, the judge—not each other.

Make it a debate that would impress Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.

This is my third year of Judging.

I judge PF and LD debates. I prefer you speak slower. If you speak too fast I won't keep track of what you say on my flow.

Being polite is important to me. Don't bring up new evidence during final focus.

I really enjoy hearing thoughtful arguments from young people. The talent on display in these tournaments gives me hope for our future!

1) Manage your time well

2) Be prepared with material for evidence

3) Respect your opponent

4) Effective communication rather than speed is key

5) Use logical reasoning to strengthen your points