UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

Background about me: I debated LD for 5 years for Hopkins High School in MN (2009-2014) and coached for Loyola Blakefield High School in Maryland for 2 years (2014-2016). As a debater I had moderate success, breaking at most bid tournaments, reaching 6 bid rounds, and qualified to NSDA Nationals my sophomore year. I am currently a staffer on Capitol Hill.

I am old and have only just started judging again. I do not know all the new trends/abbreviations and I am not great with speed. Please start at 40% and ramp up (especially since WIFI and computers can be weird). Maybe don't use some weird trick or spike in the round, or at least be very, very clear about what you're doing and how it impacts the round as early as possible. I like Ks and philosophy, policy is fine, theory and tricks are not my thing. I want to be on the email chain: Berman.mia11@gmail.com and if you ask for my email I am going to assume you didn't read my paradigm, which will make me sad :(

Re: Theory and T, it is not my thing and I don't think I would be great at evaluating it. HOWEVER, if there is real abuse don't let my inexperience dissuade you from running it, just explain why it's needed. For instance, on the LAWs topic, if someone runs an Aff about landmines, I think the Neg is justified in running T. I just don't recommend Theory or T as a strategy in front of me. I also do not tend to find Theory/T compelling against Ks, but you may be able to convince me otherwise.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The below paradigm is from the last time I judged: 2015. Don't hold me to any of it and ask questions about it before the round.

I advise caution when discussing sensitive issues. I will listen to these arguments, but would appreciate if you first offer a trigger warning and/or ask your opponent whether or not they would be comfortable debating it. This is not an excuse for you (if you are the opponent) to stop them from running this argument if you simply don't feel like debating it, but a way of not having to be triggered by such a sensitive issue in round. If you are opposing an argument like this in round, I ask you to be sensitive and respectful in how you respond to it. There are non-offensive and smart arguments to make, or you can simply preclude the arguments, or argue why you cannot argue against these. Happy to clarify this before the beginning of the round.

TLDR; Don't be offensive or rude.

If you can't find what you're looking for in here, feel free to ask before the round.

Short version:

--I will yell clear/slow if needed If I have to yell clear more than 3 times in a single speech you're getting 27.5 speaks max
--Please don’t run disclosure theory in front of me, it will result in poor speaks
--If you run "must run a plan" or "AFC,” you will get poor speaks
--Being sketchy is not ok
--I reserve the right to dock speaks for extreme rudeness or for being offensive
--Weird arguments/alternative approaches to debate and the topic are fun and good as long as you explain them
--Extinction good is fine
--Have fun, be nice

Long version:

Theory
I default reasonability, RVIs, and drop the argument. These are just defaults and can be overridden, however I personally find theory silly. If you like to run theory as the A strat I am not the judge for you. I will listen to fairness and education aren't voters arguments. If there is genuine abuse, I am glad to listen to shells that accurately point out the abuse and why it is bad. That being said, if you can prove why the abuse isn't there, I will vote on that too. Semantic "I meets" are silly and I have a low threshold for responses to those. Furthermore, I do not find theory against K's particularly persuasive. Specifically if the debater running the K makes arguments how your conception of fairness or education is coming from the dominate powers perspective, I will often find myself persuaded to look at the K before theory. In these situations, I would rather you either engage the K or preclude it with your case. I think some of the arguments that are often made against Ks and put into a theory format can potentially be persuasive, but when structured as a theory shell they become much easier to beat. (If you have questions about what I mean or how these arguments would function, feel free to ask)

Larp/Util
I didn't run straight up larp much as a debater, but that's not to say I won't judge it like anything else, however I am probably not the best to evaluate these rounds. Don't assume I know the technicalities of these arguments and make sure to explain how everything functions.

K's/Critical cases
Go ahead! As a debater, especially towards the end of my career, this was what I enjoyed running most. That being said, if I don't understand it after CX, I can't expect your opponent to understand it either and will have a difficult time voting on it. Don't be purposefully confusing; make it clear how the case functions and where I am supposed to vote. If you are running something denser than fem/cap/colonialism/anthro, please try to go a bit slower than normal to make sure it is clear. If I have to say clear/slow several times and I still look confused, there is a problem and you likely won't be able to fix it in later speeches.

Speaker Points
I assign speaker points based off diversity and development of argumentation, fluency/clearness, and general disposition/attitude. Humor can go a long way, as long as it is not at another's expense. If I have to yell clear more than 3 times I will begin to dock speaks, .5 each additional time.

Dense Philosophical Positions
In college I majored in philosophy and I find it fascinating, however I don't know every philosophical position and don't read your case at me like I do. If you know your position is more obscure and denser, make sure to slow down and be clear about explaining it in cross-ex and your rebuttals.

Sketchy
Don't. If you're going to do it, own up to it.

Overall Round Evaluation
I evaluate the round in layers. I tend to care more about the line by line but can be swayed by the big picture. I appreciate weighing, it is going to have to happen at some point, so either you can do it for me, or I will do it and you will likely be upset. Don't waste your time on arguments that don't matter; only go for what you need to in order to win. If that takes the entire time, use it. If you can win the round in 2 minutes in the 2N, I would rather you sit down than ramble for the remainder of your time.

Overall, I am here to judge you and hopefully the round can be enjoyable and educational for all of us. Choose well! :)

I am a traditional judge who coached the Marriott's Ridge High School debate team for four years and I now also coach middle school debate. I have judged over 50 tournaments and I have extensive college debating experience. I judge both on value criterions and contention level arguments. I am willing to hear and consider progressive arguments but I do not prefer them. I do not like excessive speed. I prefer quality over quantity.

Judge for Dallastown

Etiquette stuff:

1 .I time debate and my time is the official time but you are welcome to time yourself. Flex prep is fine as long as your opponent(s) agree.

2. Aggressive is fine as is shouting but if you are a racist or sexist then I will probably deduct points.

3. I don't care if you spread as long as you are articulate -you are at a debate not an auction.

In Debate
I really like empirically-supported arguments. Framework debate is also good...don't assume that I know the philosophy to which you are referring...it's part of YOUR job to explain it.

All that being said, I do like a good solid traditional debate with lots of evidence.

[Last update 3/9/22: No real changes to what's below, but just a note to people who like to create live docs that a paradigm can be honest, accurate and funny. And if you don't get the jokes, then I feel a little sorry for you.]

History

I competed in LD, Extemp and Congress back before you were born (the 90s). I then returned and judged for a number of years before becoming an Assistant Coach (focusing on LD and Congress) -> Head Coach -> Assistant Coach (focusing on financials and tournament organization). I have spent the better part of the last decade-plus working tab on the local and national levels, but still do dust off the cobwebs occasionally to judge. I have judged everything, so individual event notes below.

LD

I started when LD was a values debate and still consider it so. The Affirmative has a burden to prove the resolution true and it's the job of the Negative to prevent that from happening (not necessarily by proving the resolution false). Though I think the progress of modern-day jargon has forced the event to become more esoteric, I've begrudgingly become accustomed to it. My biggest issue with contemporary debate is when debaters try and solve for some real-world problem. This is a theoretical debate; you can't assume the problems you're trying to solve for exist in the first place.

It's been a long while since I've been outspread in a round [and that was in policy], so you're probably okay to speak like you would normally in round. But understand that the actual clash of ideas can get devalued by hyperspeak, particularly when your opponent can't handle that same pace. So if you going fast detracts from the quality of debate, then that's your fault -- not your opponent's -- and that will reflect in your speaker score. Note if by some chance you are outspreading me, my pen will hit the desk and I will try and stare through your very soul. Take that as your sign to slow the heck down.

Lastly, keep your kritiks to yourself and don't try to skirt the resolution. The debate is supposed to be a battle of competing values on a nationwide topic. When your case is based around the expanding the education of debate, then you're avoiding the fundamentals of the event. You want to expand your education? How about you learn to argue the resolution you were given.

CX

Unlike LD, I have been outspread (rare as it may be). The best thing you can do to avoid that happening is to be very organized and sign post for me when you're moving to different arguments. Slowing down for tag lines also helps reduce that risk. Otherwise, it's easiest for me to approach CX as a hypo-tester [though I realize that's kind of obsolete], so assume I'm simply tab but be sure to explain to me how your arguments impact the round.

PFD

No major preferences in terms of argumentation, as the event isn't really long enough for that to be a big issue. Get to your key points and be wary of your word economy. For crossfires, don't be too rude [dominating the question time and/or just being snarky] or too nice [the "Do you have a question?" game] lest you risk your speaker points for the round.

Congress

STOP PLAYING NICE!!! Just because someone in the room has a speech on the bill/resolution does not mean they deserve to give that speech. If the argumentation on a bill has gone stale, then let's move onto the next bill for crying out loud! Besides, you're doing that person a favor and giving them better recency on a new bill rather than keeping them in the position of chamber custodian, left to clean up all the argumentation that has already taken place. Seriously, there is nothing I hate more in a session than rehash, and it seems these days that Student Congresses value decency and equity [perhaps as an opposition to Washington...] over quality.

My ranks usually get calculated on a two-prong system, ranking total speech points and speech score average, then combining them for a chamber rank. Ties are usually broken on everything else [question quality, number of questions, chamber usefulness, not being nice].

Speech

I read the rules for whatever event I'm judging. I then apply those rules to your performance. That probably makes me better than half the judges you sometimes get. Seriously though, stumbles and stutters are one of the first things I pick up on. If you're doing it a lot (particularly in rhetorical events), I'll start a counter and you'll be sad to see the results at the end of the round. Characterization and pantomime are generally my focal issues for interp events -- your goal is to make me forget that I'm sitting in a desk that is too small for an overweight adult. :)

Policy Debate (Other events at bottom)
I was a policy debater at Pittsburgh Central Catholic High School during my time in high school (2010-2014) and competed at many national circuit tournaments as well as many local ones as well and ran everything from Aspec to Taoism to Neolib to Ks critical of debate community practices all the way to things as ancient as Structural Inherency (if you don’t know what that is I will be more then happy to explain it too you). You name it I have probably read it at some point (doesn’t mean I like it). I now judge when I home from college.

Overview - Ultimately do what you want (you will regardless of my paradigm anyway). I believe this activity is about being able to articulate your side and you to persuade me to vote for your position. I am Tab and Therefore I will only vote for something if it’s in the round. I default to policy maker unless told otherwise.

All judges have some preconceived preferences and here are mine…

Impacts (general) I do prefer real world argumentation because I believe that best prepares a debater for the real world and that’s what the activity is about. That means I prefer solid link chains to get to the impact level and real world impacts. And yes in today’s geopolitical climate nuclear wars, dieses spreading (Ebola?) and extinction could be possible. But these scenario need to be supported by evidence and you need to win probability of them for me to vote on them. This means I am not just going to vote for you if you scream at me we have 30 nuclear wars to their 29 we should win you need to explain why your I/L are better.
When evaluating impacts I default to this formula—Risk = Probability times Magnitude times timeframe. That means even if a scenario has very large magnitude if it has a probability of zero then it has no risk.
I am willing to vote on a single defensive point (even an analytic) if you prove that it takes out chain of argumentation or the thesis of an argument. An argument is only as strong as its weakest link.
Speed- Speed is fine. On a scale of 1-10 I can flow about an 8. Be clear on tags and Ill be happy. If I cant understand you Ill yell clear. Slowing down a bit in rebuttals and will go a long way with me.

Specific arguments

T- Willing to vote for it, always a voter. I want to see real in round abuse and show how your interpretations effects the education in the debate sense
Dis-ads- Good, The more real world the better and prefer strong specific links and internal links
PTIX- I am a Political junkie so I am knowledgeable about our current political climate and I understand how it works. That being said I think the Politics DA are dumb because of intrisicness and the fact that we are in a current period of congressional gridlock and nothing is getting done, but I will vote on it if you win it on the flow.
CPs- Good especially if you have a solvency advocate
Ks- Ks are fine and I enjoy a lot of K debates. My partner and I went for the Neolib K a lot my senior year. I am not well versed on some of the theory that comes along with more advanced Ks. Therefore you may need to explain a bit more so I understand it. Ultimately if I don’t understand it you didn’t articulate it enough and I can’t vote on it. Also in general I would like to see an Alternative but if you want me to vote neg purely on the plans flawed ideology I will do that because real world policy makers reject bills all the time based on ideology alone.
Theory- I prefer theory to be rooted in the education of the debate space but will listen and vote on any theory if articulated well and impacted
Performance Affs- I enjoy a good performance debate especially if it’s tied to the resolution. I do find the framework argument at times persuasive.
Case debates- They make me very happy. I would love to see a one off or no off case throw down.

At the end of the round in rebuttals you should write my ballot for me you will be much happier with my decision if you do this and your speaker points will reflect it

If you have any questions at all let me know before the round Ill be happy to answer them.**

Events other then Policy

1) I will always vote off the flow

Specific Events-

Ld paradigm

I did some LD in my career, Ill vote strictly off the flow. Speeds fine (see policy paradigm). Explain to me how arguments interact with one other; especially how the philosophies interact with one another. Finally tell me explicitly why you win in rebuttals and Write my ballot for me and ill be happy and you’ll be happy. I don't care what arguments you run as long as you tell me why you win them and why that wins you the debate

PFD

I flow and vote off the flow. Evidence is important so don't even think of making something up ill know even if your opponent doesn't. All arguments consist of claim, warrant and impact. If you do that and weigh the round in rebuttals Ill be a happy camper.

LD and PF: Although I list myself as "Traditional," I am open to different arguments as long as they are explained well and related to the resolution. I believe that we are debating the resolution, not fixing society's ills. Yes debate will enable us to fix society's ills but a competition round is not where that will occur. Debate theory can be interesting to judge, but again, needs to still be connected to the resolution. Also, be sure that the theory you're arguing is correct and logical. In terms of speed, to me it's not speed it's clarity. If you are going 97 miles per hour and have to constantly repeat yourself because you trip over words, maybe going 60 is better.

Congress: As a scorer or Parli, I look for good speeches with good evidence and analysis, but also continuous participation. I believe Congress is an overall package, including activity with questioning, motions and amendments. PO's should be able to move the chamber along smoothly, and fairly. However, they must also recognize that sometimes this may be a new experience for someone in the chamber, and be sure that everyone understands how the PO is maneuvering the chambers, not just assume that it's just standard operating procedure for everyone. Be good to each other and you will often stand out from the competition.

I vote how I see the round. Solely based on the arguments made in the round, but in accordance with my understanding based off the debater's explanations.

Check http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Marble%2C+Will for most up-to-date changes. I pasted the Feb 2015 version below:

 

About me: I debated for four years at La Salle in Pennsylvania, graduating in 2011. I'm currently studying at the University of Pennsylvania. I have coached at La Salle since I graduated.

Short version: speed is fine, theory is fine, I'm a truth-tester but policy args are fine, kritiks are okay but explain them well, give me a good ballot story, don't be rude, and debate is to have fun. Ask me before the round about specific questions.

Long version:
General views on debate
My general philosophy on debate is that it is a game whose incentives are aligned to educate participants. I'm not strict in terms of presentation style. I'm fairly open to different argumentative styles and encourage you to try out new things, with the caveat that I must be able to understand it to vote on it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round or in between rounds.

Speed
I'm fine with whatever speed you want to go. If you're not clear, I'll say clear twice; after that, I'll stop flowing if I can't understand you. Please slow down for tags, author names, and analytics (this goes for theory as well). I will not call for cards to figure out what you said. 

Framework/paradigm issues
I default to thinking of the resolution as a truth statement. However, I think it's perfectly possible for you to run your plan/disad/kritik/whatever as long as you set up a clear framework that links back to the truth of the resolution. I'm open to an affirmative running any topical advocacy as long as they couch the debate in terms of whether that advocacy would prove the resolution true (at least in that instance). For instance, if the resolution is "R: [class of policies X] ought to be used", I will listen to an aff that advocates using an individual policy that falls within X.

I will not presume any particular moral calculus to decide the round. If the standard is means-based, I definitely want an explicit standard. If it's ends-based, I would prefer a specific standard but something general like "utilitarianism" is acceptable. If you're going to run an ends-based standard, make sure it's not a "fake" standard. That is, make sure it doesn't arbitrarily exclude impacts. For instance, "preventing terrorism" is NOT a good standard if the justification is that terrorism kills a lot of people because that implicitly presumes a utilitarian moral calculus. (Update 2/2015: this type of standard has mostly been eradicated from debate. But be careful of similar types of arguments, such as "default to utilitarianism because it maximizes our ability to discuss/reflect on morality.")

Finally, I think a prioris/necessary but insufficient burdens/contingent standards are probably unfair. If you want to run any of these arguments, go ahead, but know that I'm predisposed against you on the theory debate. That said, I think almost all abuse caused by these arguments goes away if they're the only advocacy you run (e.g., 7 minute skepticism seems legitimate to me).

"Aff framework choice" (AFC) is a dumb argument. Proceed at your own risk.

Theory
I'd prefer a shell structured in the traditional way (interp/violation/standards/voter), but I'll consider it as long as all those parts are there in some form. I default to competing interpretations as I think theory should be used to find the "best" rules for debate, but I could be persuaded otherwise. I'm more sympathetic toward fairness voters than education. Make sure you explain the role of theory in the round—I'll assume that theory is a reason to reject the argument unless you win an argument that explicitly says I should drop the debater.

Responding to theory, you should have a counterinterp and offensive reasons to prefer it. If you win reasonability, it's possible to win theory without offense, but it'll be much easier to run counter-standards or turn the original standards. I'm sympathetic to RVI's if they're well-developed ESPECIALLY if the theory is run against one of the most stock interps on the topic.

Stuff I don't want to hear (some of these may no longer be relevant):
- Theory that you can run every round (e.g., aff must run a plan/aff can't run a plan), unless there is flagrant abuse.
- Textuality as a standard because I think it begs the question.
- I don't think you'll be able to win that fairness isn't a voter if you have a semi-competent opponent.
- "1AR theory bad"
- "Must use consequentialism" theory".
- Theory saying you must disclose
- aff framework choice
- "This is LD, and X isn't allowed in LD"

Kritiks
I'll be willing to listen to kritiks, but I am not well read in critical philosophy, so please go more slowly, make your explanations clear, and don't assume that I know exactly what the terms you're using mean. I won't be happy if I can't understand it in your first speech, but then it become crystal clear at the end of the 2NR. But if you can do a good job making a complicated concept clear, you will be rewarded. If you want me to evaluate the round through some non-traditional framework (performance, etc), please be VERY clear what the role of the ballot is and give good justifications for it.

Extensions
In general, I'll hold the aff to a lower standard for extensions. If the argument's completely dropped, extending the tagline and a one-sentence warrant is enough. Unless it's completely dropped, the negative should always extend every part of the argument. If you want me to vote on an argument, you absolutely MUST tell me how it links to the standard and interacts with other args, even if it's dropped.

Extension quality separates decent debaters from great debaters.

Rebuttals
Write the ballot for me. Tell me what the standard is, what arguments link back to it for you, and why they outweigh any links that your opponent has. I don't care how you structure your rebuttal as long as you make it clear what you want me to vote on. Give me a ballot story. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE weigh the arguments. I appreciate slower-than-usual round overviews with specific references to the flow at the beginning of final rebuttals.

Speaker points
I probably average around a 27.5. I mostly use speaker points to reward good strategy, but you won't earn a 30 without being a very good speaker with coherent rebuttals.

Being rude or running up the score (so to speak) on an opponent who is clearly outmatched will not help you.

My name is Joe McPeak and I am an LD Coach for LaSalle College High School. When judging I try to be as "tabula rasa" as possible-I do not like to intervene in a round. I will not vote an argument down just because I believe it is silly. This means that I do not care if you run traditional arguments, kritiks, plans, counterplans, theory, narratives, etc. I just want you to give me some kind of standard to weigh the round, show me why it's the appropriate standard, and show me why you win it. As for speed, I can keep up with certain levels, but spread at your own risk. I won't ever jump in and vote you down based on speed. I do not care if your opponent can or cannot keep up. But if I cannot understand what you are saying, then it might not make it on my flow. I will say clear or louder when I cannot understand you but i will only do this so many times. I'm also OK with debaters talking to each other and swapping materials during prep time.  I do not take off time for road-mapping before your speech.  Finally, I want all discussions about paradigm/preferences to take place before the round starts. I will ignore any questions about preferences that are asked mid round.

There is one situation where I might drop someone for non-substantive reasons: when a competitor behaves inappropriately or is distruptive during the round. Examples include, but are not limited to, the debater who takes huge sips of a drink after a question in cross and then asks for the question to be repeated in an attempt to eat up cross time, or the debater who hands off the wrong materials to an opponent during the round when the opponent asks to see her case, card etc. I haven't ever had these things happen in round but depending on the sitution, I might consider it "inappropriate or unethical behavior" and drop the debater for actually disrupting the round.

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". In the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

From JudgePhilosophies Wikispace:

 

Heidt, Garreth

I've been coaching LD for almost 20 years. I’ll accept just about anything, but the burden is on you to teach it to me. Thus my paradigm is one of education--being a teacher I have a good idea of what that’s about, and being a student, you should know what it’s about as well.

 

Your job is to teach me about why your position on the resolution is the one that should be the most valid in the round. As a teacher, you should strive for clarity and concision because education is a communicative act and a clear, concise message offers you the greatest chance to communicate successfully.

 

As far as adjudication, I need to know why something is important for me to learn in the round.  Whatever you chose to run in a round, then, should be explained so that I grasp the argument at hand, the support for that argument, and the reason why that argument is important in the round.A lot of that is self-evident, I know, but you should consider that I won't finish arguments for you.

 

Consider the round a type of test you're giving me. First, it should be clear to me what’s on the test and second why certain arguments are more important than others. If you write a test I understand and can learn from, you'll win the round. Thus, your victory is a type of merit pay.

 

Theory: I'd rather not vote on this. I think too many debaters use it as a way out of the more substantive ethical matters at hand. That said, I'll consider it if you run it well.

 

Critiques/DAs/ and other CX cross-overs: Sure, if you have the time to teach me, I have the time to learn. Just tell me how it's to function in the round.

 

Rebuttals: Crystallize and write the ballot for me.

 

Standards: They give me a clear manner by which to weigh the round. If you use a traditional value/criterion structure, then understand that links and impacts to standards are important to me, but they’re not the only way I’ll weigh the round. Given my paradigm, you could run anything else, so long as you are clear, weigh it, and tell me why it’s the best way to adjudicate the round.

 

I invite creative, innovative ways to frame the debate, but they require an extra burden on the debater’s part to make things clear and conscise.

 

I am an old school LD debater who was also once a policy debater. Basically, I can handle speed but I do not like spread.

to me the best rounds are devoid of theory or K. Rather they focus on framework clash and the debaters genuinely try to persuade me. I am more than willing to have further discussion before the round so ask away. 

Finally. Time yourself, please! If you have to rely on my hand signals, you're going to have a bad day. 

I was a Lincoln Douglas debater as a student, and have about ten years of experience judging. I prefer traditional Lincoln Douglas debate, however, I can follow spreading and have become fairly familiar with progressive LD. I tend to vote on framework.

I have been coaching all four categories of debate for First Colonial High School for the past decade. I have judged hundreds of rounds of both LD and PF. I also moonlight as a congress judge when needed/called upon. I don't subject myself to Policy unless it is an absolute necessity.

Etiquette is important. While I may not vote down a debater for rudeness or lack of etiquette, it will affect their speaker points. Since debate is about education, dialogue, discussion, etc., I personally believe that lacking manners is a major problem (since people do not want to engage with those who do not know how to treat others properly). You can be assertive, and even aggressive, without being a condescending jerk. Maintaining one's composure and displaying self-control (even in a heated round) is critical to me as a judge.

In LD, I do not want to be a part of the use of progressive tactics, as I strongly prefer more traditional LD debates. So absolutely no spreading, please no kritiks or counterplans (things will just get weird as there is just enough time in round to try and do it properly), and if you come into the round lacking a value and/or value criterion (because you plan to debate like an individual policy entry...) then you can pretty much count on me NOT voting you up. If you do not personally agree with this, please feel free to strike me (trust that I will not be offended).

In PF, there are couple notes I like to share. First, in the god awful periods of the round known as Cross-Fire, I do not flow anything that is said unless it is brought up in an actual speech afterwards. Just something to keep in mind. Also, see the brief paragraph on etiquette (cross-fire seems to make us forget about politeness in the heat of the moment). Second, (although this should go without saying) if you cannot produce a proper card or the article from which you base your evidence on during the round, then I wont flow it. I have this happen a few times in PF. Also, please have things organized to quickly pull up source info if it is requested. I wont make you use prep time to find cards unless we get way behind on time because it takes you all forever to find the requested info. I only bring this up because it has seemed to be an issue in at least half a dozen rounds this year. Lastly, (this is more of a personal preference) I do not find single contention cases to be very persuasive. While I have voted up teams with single contention cases on occasion, these types of cases tend to be gimmicks and lessen the overall quality of debate.

Most of all, I like debate and I love teaching, so I want you to know that I am still up for learning (and do not mind kids taking risks or chances in their tactics/strategy in rounds). I only give you the previous notes/comments to help you tweak your tactics and/or strategy if you feel it is necessary (and I like to give the LD debaters who only wish to do more progressive LD stuff a chance to strike me as a judge). I am fairly easy going, and I will always be happy to answer any clarifying questions before the rounds start.

I think I hit everything, if not... oh well (trust me, it will be okay).

Just because I like to end this with something you will likely think is weird, ambiguous (and possibly stoopid) --> In the end, everything and everyone that you have ever known, cared about, stressed over, etc. will be dust and will one day be forgotten by all others who will exist... so stop worrying and remember that everything is nothing, and nothing is everything. Live in the moment, and Godspeed to you all.

Oh yeah, remember that I will not be offended if you strike me as a judge. Just saying...

I appreciate your speaking slowly and clearly (no spreading).  I believe this is an important skill to develop for all public speaking.  Also, if I miss what you are saying I won't be able to judge it.

 

If you introduce a concept (e.g. social contract) please be sure to provide a clear definition.

 

I appreciate debaters who make full use of the purposes of each stage of the debate.  For example, during negative constructive,  state your case and then argue against the Aff.  In the final phases, make sure you summarize/crystallize your argument, etc. Think about what you want to accomplish in each stage.

 

I choose to judge debate because I find it very stimulating and thought-provoking.  I enjoy seeing different debaters' styles and ways of approaching topics.

 

My hope is that you enjoy the challenge of debate and see everything that happens as an opportunity to learn and improve.

 

Best wishes!

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Schmidt%2C+Joshua

I debated policy 4 years for Lake City High School in Coeur d'Alene Idaho (ok, technically I debated 3 years for CdA and then 1 year for Lake City which was a brand new school). I did this in the 90s. Policy debate was different back then.

I did not debate in college and have coached for many years now (PF and LD).

Lincoln Douglas

I value the resolution. I believe Aff has a burden to show the resolution is, generally speaking, a true statement. Neg has the burden to show it is a false statement.

The method by which we typically answer the question of the resolution is the criterion (value-criterion or standard). I should note that I am completely open to other methods of answering the question of the resolution. What most people mis-understand is that these methods must actually address the question and not some other question that you wish we were debating.

When it comes time to decide the round I will do the following: First - I will try and decide which criterion to use as a method for deciding the round. This means that you are extremely well advised to compare and contrast your criterion with your opponents. If both criterions are shown to be not worth using then I will just weigh generic “impacts” broadly defined and largely up to my own personal biases. You don’t want this to happen.

If I happen to choose your opponents criterion then you want to link into it and show how you also win the round under your opponents method of deciding the victor. This is a very good idea and I encourage you to do it.

Second - I will use the best criterion to decide the round. This is where I look at your contentions and impact level arguments and decide how they interact with the criterion I am using. Make sure your impacts are clearly applicable under your criterion.

General Notes: Speed - I can handle some amount of moderate speed that is getting less and less as I get older. I will generally not say “clear” because my main problem with speed is that your argument stops making sense to me, I can understand all the words just not the overall meaning. I wouldn’t say “clear” if you made a poor argument and I won’t say “clear” if you make a poor argument quickly.

Warrants - I highly value warrants that are explained well by the actual debater in rebuttals. Thus, you should extend the reasoning behind each piece of evidence in addition to just mentioning its name and assuming I will do the hard work of applying its logic to the round.

Author names - Refer to arguments themselves and not just “author name and #” and expect that to convince me of anything. I am generally unconvinced that something is true just because somebody got it published somewhere. (see point above about actually understanding and explaining your warrants, especially in rebuttals and especially in how those warrants interact with the argument).

Off Topic Arguments - these are generally a bad idea. I only consider the hypothetical world in which we enact the resolution (for the Aff) or negate the resolution (for the Neg). I do not consider “real world” impacts. That being said, if you have a particular argument that actually addresses the resolution then go for it, just be very sure that it actually answers the hypothetical question of the resolution and doesn’t do something else.

Circular arguments - most value debates come down to circular arguments where somebody will say without value X then value Y is meaningless and then the response will be, but value Y is necessary in order to fully realize value X. Understand that you should respond to these arguments if your opponent makes them because a dropped argument is a true argument. But these are unlikely to actually advance the debate in your favor. On the other hand, very specific arguments about values grounded in the resolution can be extremely convincing to me and are often very strategically wise to make.

Policy Debate

Basically, everything I said above about Lincoln Douglas is still true with a couple of relatively minor exceptions. First - Neg has presumption in policy debate and I will vote Neg if no Aff impacts carry through the round.

Second - I want to reemphasize that I view my role as the judge to compare the hypothetical world in which the Aff implements their plan to the Neg world (SQ or CP). The role of the ballot is to endorse the team that best does that and to explain my thinking about that question. I do not listen to any arguments about other ideas you might have about what the role of the ballot or the judge is in the round. Utilitarianism is not the only method for making this hypothetical comparison and I will listen to moral arguments (and indeed welcome them), but they must be grounded in the hypothetical debate world and not the “real” world.





Old Philosophy (basically the same as above, but I felt that I must have been unclear about a few things so I tried to explain better above).
I feel that debate is a game. Games have goals. The Aff's goal is to show that the resolution is generally a true statement. The Neg's goal is to show that the resolution is generally not true. My job is to evaluate who has accomplished their goal better.

The traditional value/value-criterion is a very efficient way of acheiving your goal; I understand what you are doing and therefore you do not need to spend much time clarifying how this causes you to meet your goal. I am open to other ways of meeting your goal, but make sure you are clearly explaining how your argument impacts the resolution. Also, you are probably being much less clear than you think you are, so explain your argument as clearly as you can and then clarify it more.

Speaking of clarity, talking fast really only works if the idea is simple to explain. For complicated ideas you should slow down (and almost *all* of philosophy is pretty complicated). Remember to explain your criterion particularly well as this is where I look to see exactly how you want me to evaluate the round. You want me to understand this very, very well so don't speed through it.

How I decide between two competing arguments. A good argument does the following: it is clearly explained (yes, this is a theme), it is relevant (i.e. it addresses your goal or it actually addresses the argument you are attacking), it is properly explained why your argument might be true (i.e. it has a warrant). It is important to note that bald assertions are not warrants and that quoting an "expert" who then makes a bald assertion is not particularly persuasive to me and can easily be overturned by your opponent's original analysis.

Arguments that the game of debate is fundamentally unfair are not persuasive to me (nothing in life is fair and much of what is perceived to be unfair in one way is actually tilted the other way).

Finally, I love crystallization. At the end of the debate I like a nice tidy list of things I should vote for you on and clear reasons why you are winning that list (it is also very helpful to weigh the arguments you are winning vs. the arguments your opponent might have won).

Hi I am a parent judge with limited experience. I prefer a traditional debating style. 

I will flow the round, but anything which I don't hear or understand works against you. Speak slowly, SIGNPOST, and don't spread.

Don't be abusive. Know your burden, but don't unfairly burden your opponent. This is a competition to see who is the better debater, not who can speak the fastest or define their opponent out of the round.

Link back to your values, and link into your opponent's just to be safe. Tell me what to extend if your opponent has dropped a card/ argument, but make sure to tell me the impacts. Why is the fact that that card was conceded important?

Give me clear voters. 

As always, be respectful ad have fun!

LD Judging Paradigm for Brad Taylor (Barrack Hebrew Academy, Bryn Mawr, PA)

PF and Parli: the comments on arguments. rebuttals, ground and speed extend to these events.

February 2023

BACKGROUND: I'm a former judge/coach/parent of a busy and fairly successful LD'er about a decade ago. I have continued volunteering my time both judging at and organizing regional tournaments. I've judged hundreds of LD rounds and many PF and Parli rounds, plus Congress and some Extemp.

I'll call myself an open-minded traditionalist. I'll start by evaluating the value framework debate and weight all contention-level arguments off of that. I’ll listen to just about anything. I prefer fewer well developed and supported arguments over many less substantial ones. Keep your link story tight. It is expected you understand and present claim/warrant/impact. Warrants are critical – please have them and make sure they are good ones.

I prefer cases and arguments focused on the resolution. This is the fair battleground for everyone. If you want to present technical stuff, a string of contingencies, or other less-than-direct approaches, I’ll listen. But last I checked, the rules say you’re here to uphold your side of the resolution.

Please make your arguments clear. You’re supposed to do the heavy lifting here – I should not have to decode what you’re saying. I’ll ignore name dropping, philosopher drive-bys, and argumentation short-hand. If someone reading your speech had to read a sentence twice to understand it, then it won’t be convincing when I hear it.

Rebuttals are key for me. Don’t just shuffle around and regurgitate what’s been said in the constructives. Provide analysis, re-argumentation, and clarity. And remember, we're not weighing whose evidence is better, rather whose arguments are better.

I’m OK with speed if you’re OK with clarity. I start missing things somewhere north of 200 words a minute – do the math. If you’re spreading, your opponent is compelled to clash, but I'll allow a spread to be countered by relatively fewer words. Remember, we’re not counting arguments to determine the winner. The side with the best stuff will prevail over the side with the most stuff. If you can do both, great.

I take a dim view of attempts to carve out a narrow requirement for yourself, or narrow ground for your opponent. You are here to debate, not hide from one. If you want to roll out theory to address fairness or abuse, fine. But the formalism is not mandatory and your opponent can respond conventionally. Make sure the abuse is legitimate. I have a low threshold for theory as part of an NC spread strategy.

I keep a reasonably-detailed flow. Please follow the flow and signpost! Gross repetition is not needed, but please tell me where you are. Your words will be more effectively assimilated into the debate if I don't have to search all over the flow.

Saving the best for last, please note I'm a non-interventionist. I'll fill in the overtly obvious, but you have to connect the dots. If you want it to count, SAY IT! Also, please NO NEW arguments in rebuttals. This is often reason enough to drop even if you're winning everywhere else.

I coached at Danville High School (PA) from 2012-2019 (I stepped away from coaching when my wife and I had our first child in June 2019 so that I could have more family time). In high school, I competed in Extemporaneous Speaking and dabbled a handful of times in Public Forum Debate (referred to as Ted Turner Debate at the time). Because of my background in speech, delivery remains an important factor in my decision insofar as I must be able to understand the arguments that you are presenting to flow them. In other words, do NOT spread! To me, spreading is antithetical to effective communication, which is ultimately the reason we are here - to communicate arguments for or against a proposed resolution.

I subscribe to the school of thought that Public Forum is intended to be a lay person's debate in that anybody, regardless of their background knowledge on the subject matter or debate experience, should be able to sit-in on a round and follow each side's argumentation. As it was once explained to me, your grandmother should be able to listen to your case/speech and understand what you are saying.

An effective argument consists of three key components: a claim, a warrant, and an impact (STATE It, SUPPORT It, EXPLAIN It). An emphasis on any one of these facets at the exclusion of the others results is an incomplete argument. You can't win a debate with incomplete arguments! I say all this because over the 7.5 years I spent coaching, I witnessed a shift in emphasis away from holistic argumentation to an over-reliance upon evidence (warrants). Sure, evidence is important, but far too many debates that I've judged have devolved into a clash over whose evidence is superior or who has provided a greater quantity (the old "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" approach). As British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once claimed, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Use evidence to support your contentions and your rebuttals, but also provide an explanation (impact) as to how it links back into the bigger picture argument that you are trying to make. Logic can be just as effective a tool in a debate as qualitative and quantitative evidence.

A few other logistics for the round:

- "Off-time road-maps" are fine, but should be brief.
- You may time yourself, but my timer is the official time piece for the round.
- Individual crossfires should be standing. Grand crossfire can be seated or standing (debaters' discretion).
- I will defer to the NSDA Debate Evidence Rules for PF and LD unless tournament/league rules state otherwise.

LD is my first love. I prefer clean, well laid out arguments that include philosophy. The philosophy must be explicitly defined and explained. I do not appreciate CX like arguments with impacts, etc. I cannot handle much speed. I won't make arguments for you, please do so yourselves. I prefer crystallization on both sides.

Topicality is crucial in debate, while a debater may bring up a creative point or piece of evidence , that doesn't mean it will weigh in the debate round if it is not topical.  I recognize that a debater should not only defend their case, but put out evidence refuting their opponent. In LD debate we are dealing with a values based debate so, we should have evidence besides emphircal facts and figures and a debater would do well to use philopshy to show why something "ought" to be a certain way. Performance is a part of debate. Debaters should be able to communicate effectively and not just speed thru a round. It is the quality of the evidence, NOT the amount of evidence that wins a debate case. I do not support the use of counterplans in LD. A critique could work in LD, BUT I have seen very few supported effectively, so this should be done with extreme caution. Avoid using jargon, in the real world people don't use "cards" they use evidence. Speed should be like you were giving a speech, not selling at an auction. Debaters who use philsophy in LD have the advantage because they can prove what is suppose to be and not what merely is in the real world.

 

I graduated from Mountain View High School in Mesa, Arizona in 2013. I debated three years of LD, mostly in-state but I was exposed to a lot more progressive arguments through VBI and generally debated so. I did fairly well in state and if you think my record is really that important, look it up on NFL. 

I like to think of the role of debaters as to write the final story for the judge. I like weighing, I like metaweighing, I like explanations of how arguments interact. Don't make blanket statements, every argument needs a warrant! Remember, all your arguments/responses should be logical!

Don't forget extensions! To me, extensions make or break rounds! 

Policy Arguments:

I think DAs CPs Plans are interesting arguments. However, I still believe in the educational nature in debate so I get really annoyed when it's obvious that they are pulled from a policy backfile. Granted, I'll vote for you if you win the flow, but you'll get a speech from me afterwards. Also, your argument is less valid to me if it isn't structured. If you can't understand the structure of a DA/CP/Plan/Theory Shell/T/K/etc., you probably don't understand how it's supposed to work anyways. 

Theory: Don't use it as a time suck. I default reasonability unless told otherwise

Extinction Scenarios: I'll buy them but I have a low threshold for arguments against them, they just flat out aren't very logical and everyone in the round knows it. 

Kritiks:

I just don't like them. I think running Ks for strategy defeats the purpose of Ks. Prove to me there is actually something morally repugnant inround and I will buy your argument hands down. Otherwise, you can definitely still run Ks. I will still vote for them, but they better have really strong links and logically sound. I did not run Ks in high school so I am not familiar with a lot of K authors so definitely slow down for me if you want to run your K. 

Speed: 
As a generality, only speak as fast as you need. I can take speed, but I wouldn't say that I could sufficiently flow outrounds of the policy TOC. As long as your clear and slow down for authors, tags, other important things, I will likely be ok with your speed. I will yell clear if you're too fast/muddly.