Hello!

I am the LD captain at Amos Alonzo Stagg Highschool

I'm very familiar with LD debate and can handle most speeds but please be sure to speak as clearly as possible.

Other than that have fun

Name: Luke Anderson

School Affiliation: Fremd High School - Assistant Coach

Were you previously affiliated with any other school?

Palatine High School Graduate, Bradley University for Undergrad.

Number of years and/or tournaments judging the event you are registered in:

This is my first year judging and coaching! Although I'm new to the debate world, I've learned a lot in a short time and am comfortable with mostly anything you want to throw at me.

Have you judged in other debate events? Please describe if so.

I have judged one Public Forum tournament before, otherwise all LD.

Speed of delivery preference (slow, conversational, brisk conversational, etc.)

Whatever you feel comfortable with. I can somewhat tolerate spreading, you'll be able to tell if you've lost me though.

How important is the value criterion in making your decision?

Very important - I need something to weigh your impacts against! Give me clear and strong links for all your arguments.

Are voting issues necessary for your decision?

Voting issues are always nice to have. Explaining back to me why you won that round never hurts.

How critical are ”extensions” of arguments into later speeches?

Not important to my decision, but can be for the sake of my organization and yours.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

Your arguments win you the round, your style gets you speakers points. Poor speaking can effect your

How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (analytical and/or empirical) is in the round?

Evidence is king. Give your contentions both strong empirical and analytical evidence.

Name: Emily Carroll

School Affiliation: Homewood-Flossmoor

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 6 years coaching LD & PF. . Completed in policy debate when I was in high school years ago.

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery- All debaters should be able to clearly understand each other- you can’t have clash if you don’t know what the other person is saying! I will let you know if I can’t understand you, and I expect you to be respectful of what your opponent can keep up with.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- A good summary speech presents the big picture, and then chooses just a few key arguments on the line by line to address. You do not need to answer every argument.

Extension of arguments into later speeches- Please clearly state what argument you are extending and include warrants and why it matters! Just repeating the name of a card is not an extension.

Flowing/note-taking- I flow carefully on paper. I don’t flow cross x, but I do listen closely and will add to what I have written.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I focus mainly on argumentation; that said, your style needs to be accessible to all debaters.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, and that includes warrants, addressing class on this issue in the round, and impact analysis.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? While not every argument made needs to be addressed, speakers should hit the big points of contention on both cases.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No. To be fair, issues should be brought up earlier in the round so all sides can answer. However, there is a difference between a brand new argument and simply going deeper on a point already made.

I view debate first as an educational activity. My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained. I spend most of my time in traditional LD/PF circuits.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Good luck and have fun!

For detailed thoughts on the hows and whys of framework debating, please see my professional profile on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100054643951460). You may learn something.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS (scroll down for PF):

First, some general thoughts: (1) the affirmative debater must defend the resolution; (2) the negative debater is not required to present a case and may choose solely to deconstruct the case offered by the AFF; (3) Lincoln-Douglas is the most philosophical form of academic debate, therefore the strategy and choices employed by both teams in the debate should reflect this fact; (4) I should not feel, during the debate, that I am listening to a one-on-one version of policy debate; debaters should defend the ethics of their respective positions; (5) I always prefer quality of argumentation over quantity.

Second, some thoughts on framework. Framework exists to present a paradigm as to how the audience and the judge should evaluate the debate and place it in one of four quadrants (deontological/individualist, deontological/collectivist, consequentialist/individualist, and consequentialist/collectivist), clarify ambiguous or nebulous terms or phrases in the resolutions and their significance for the debate to follow through definitions and observations. Both debaters should present (1) a paramount value that is an abstract concept/value (ex: "Justice") and (2) a value criterion/criteria that is an operationalized version of the premise; it is a statement, with a noun and a verb, of something that is achieved through upholding/negating the resolution (ex: "protecting the property rights of citizen taxpayers"). Even if the NEG is not going to present a positive case, it still has to present a framework and argue what premise and criterion is upheld through the negation of the AFF case. To reiterate, the value is AN END IN AND OF ITSELF while the criterion is A MEANS TO AN END. With the present resolution (March/April 2024), the AFF framework must be in alignment with rehabilitation. In fact, it is acceptable for the AFF to present "Rehabilitation" as the paramount value.

Third, some thoughts on rationale: (1) if the resolution contains the phrase "when in conflict," then the AFF debater must briefly present a "conflict scenario" that explains how or why two independent values would come into conflict with each other; the NEG debater should grant this scenario unless it is abusive; (2) the primary task of the AFF is to defend its case and this should take precedence over attacking the NEG case if time does not permit both in the same level of detail; (3) the primary task of the NEG is to attack/clash with the AFF case and this should take precedence over defending its case if time does not permit both; (4) the NEG debater should spend at least the last two minutes of the NR departing from the flow and focusing exclusively on the voting issues; and (5) the AFF debater should use the 2AR to exclusively explain the voting issues.

Fourth, on evidence: (1) I would strongly recommend that both debaters bring hard copies of their evidence into the debate as it makes exchanging them a great deal quicker and easier than passing around laptops; (2) if a debater is going to call for/request evidence, this is how it should occur - a) request the evidence in a speech as part of an attack on the opposition's argumentation; b) immediately after the speech, the requested evidence should be offered; the debater requesting the evidence either has to burn prep time to read it or read it during the next segment/action in the debate; c) the response to the request should be addressed in the very next available speech; and (3) if a challenged is issued regarding evidence (misrepresentation, out of context, etc.), the outcome of that challenge will be THE major voting issue in the debate.

Fifth, and finally, on cross examination: (1) use the CX to ask and answer questions and not to make points or speechify or grandstand; I do not flow CX, so these points will not be recorded; (2) the debater conducting the CX may cut the other debater at any time when answering; this will not be construed by me as being rude; time belongs to the one asking the questions and not the one answering them; and (3) do not use the CX to ask for and exchange evidence; I have outlined my preferred manner for challenging evidence above.

PUBLIC FORUM:

First, some general thoughts: (1)the affirmative/PRO team must defend the resolution; (2) public forum is the most audience friendly form of debate that exists, therefore the strategy and choices employed by both teams in the debate should reflect this fact; and (3) I always prefer quality of argumentation over quantity.

Second, some thoughts on framework. Framework exists for two purposes: (1) to clarify ambiguous or nebulous terms or phrases in the resolutions; and (2) to present a thesis that will guide the argumentation offered.

Third, on rationale or case: (1) in the B team's first constructive, it may choose to present an opposition case, criticize the A team's case or a mixture of both; if the B team chooses to present a case, it should structure its case for maximum clash with the A team's case (and highlight for the judge when a contention directly clashes with an A team contention; (2) in the A team's second constructive, if B team presents a case, the A team should focus on attacking that case and not attempt to extend its initial arguments beyond a simple "pull through our case as unattacked" response; if the B team does otherwise, it should attempt to address the entire flow; (3) same holds true for the B team's second constructive; it should attempt to both attack the A case and respond to the A team's attacks on the B case (this is the price paid for speaking second and deferring to this speech any response made against the A case in the first constructive); (4) the first rebuttals/summary speeches need not address point-by-point, given limited time, both teams can pick and choose what they wish to highlight as major points of clash; and (5) the second rebuttals/final focus speeches should delineate the voting issues of the debate and explain why your team wins those voting issues; the points of clash and the voting issues do not have to be the exact same things and should retain some flexibility.

Fourth, on evidence: (1) I would strongly recommend that both teams bring hard copies of their evidence into the debate as it makes exchanging them a great deal quicker and easier than passing around laptops; (2) if a team is going to call for/request evidence, this is how it should occur - a) request the evidence in a speech as part of an attack on the opposition's argumentation; b) immediately after the speech, the requested evidence should be offered; the team requesting the evidence either has to burn prep time to read it or read it during the next segment/action in the debate; c) the response to the request should be addressed in the very next available speech; and (3) if a challenged is issued regarding evidence (falsification, misrepresentation, out of context, etc.), the outcome of that challenge will be THE ONLY voting issue in the debate.

Fifth, and finally, on crossfire: (1) use the crossfire to ask and answer questions and not to make points, speechify, grandstand; questions do not begin with the phrases "Is the A/B aware of . . . " or "Does the A/B realize . . . "; I do not flow crossfire, so these points will not be recorded, they must be referenced in the very next succeeding speech; and (2) do not use the crossfire to ask for and exchange evidence, especially at the end; I have outlined my preferred manner for challenging evidence above.

I am a veteran LD coach in Indiana. I teach history and philosophy.

I expect both sides of the debate to present a framework for consideration including a value structure and value criterion. I will not vote on dropped arguments unless it becomes a tie breaker or a dropped argument is essential to the overall round. In other words, spreading will not be an effective strategy.

I will not automatically vote down Ks or Theory, but they need to fit within your framework. Also, unlike Policy, I do not access a default to utility, so arguing exclusively based on impacts without first establishing utility in your framework does not automatically win in voters.

Don't make assumptions about concepts you introduce. If you are going to talk about justice, you need to provide a rational for your conception of justice and not assume that the judge and your competitor automatically agree on your understanding. You need to lay this out in your framework. If your opponent suggests Aristotle and you prefer Rawls, you need to make me care about your view for me to prefer it over the alternative.

Finally, on evidence I will not consider appeals to authority as evidence. I don't care if you quote 17 "experts" who agree with your opinion, that doesn't count as evidence. If you have no warrant and just try to gloss over that deficiency with appeals to authority, you have no argument. Internals matter, and quoted evidence needs to be substantive. If the facts aren't in question, reason trumps appeals.

Hello! I'm (one of) Stagg's captains and have been debating since freshman year. I love to hear passion when you're reading your case, and I don't mind a fast pace at all. During cross I expect everyone to be kind, and to avoid interrupting whenever possible. I do not flow crossfire, that's your time to ask clarifying questions to prepare yourself for rebuttal.I do pay attention to cross though, and you should bring up anything important that was said during your rebuttals/final speeches.

I'm a pretty standard flow judge, I weigh based on how you tell me to under a decided framework (if any) and how things are attacked/if things are dropped etc.

Good luck guys, you're gonna do great! :)

For Congress

- Have a clear introduction and sign post your arguments

- For speeches early in the cycle, explain the bill and how the bill will directly affect the status quo

- Include clear transitions between contentions

- For speeches after the 4th cycle, refutation is extremely important. Failure to provide any refutation after the 4th cycle will not get you higher than a 3 or 4

- Impacts and weighing are very important if you want to be ranked highly

- I flow the round and make note of the students who are able to reference the points made by previous speakers during questioning and speeches

How to get high speaker points

- Clear speaking

- Quality volume

- Fluidity when speaking

- No speed --> I can flow speed to a certain degree but I do not prefer it. If you speak too fast I will stop flowing your arguments

How to win the argument

- I will be flowing so make sure to tell me what to do... Flow through, drop, extend, turn. if you don't let me know what to do, I will not flow your arguments through.

- I like the use of logic, evidence is good but if you can answer arguments with the use of logic I do value that highly.

(LD) - I like the use of framework, make sure to link your impacts to your framework through out the whole round.

(PF)- Make sure you weigh your arguments throughout the debate not just at the beginning or the end. Please signpost your arguments and refutations to make sure that I can flow your arguments.

- Make sure to have clear voter issues.

Above all be polite to your opponents and keep decorum during the round.

This is my second year as a debate judge. I request LD debaters to speak at a pace that allows me to flow. I would also encourage clear definitions be included in arguments. The Congressional debate should be evolving after each speech and you should be responding to your peers arguments. Always be respectful to your peers and enjoy the debate.

I'm a lay judge.

But I'm fair and only ask that you be respectful of your time and my time.

I will raise my hand if your speed is too quick- I'd rather not have to raise my hand.

I'm inexperienced with many forms of argument (Theory, plans, Ks, etc.) so if you do run anything more sophisticated through me as your judge, I'll try my best to weigh it based on the clarity of your explanations. I caution you, however, as I might completely misunderstand what you're saying and not be able to properly evaluate it.

I debated all four years when I was in high school, primarily in Congress and LD (local circuits) and have judged/coached on/off for the past 5ish years.

If you want to add me to an email chain: {redacted}

Please don't be rude and try to have fun :)

I like to see debaters speaking slowly and clearly. Go line by line down the flow and refute your opponent. Make sure your voters issues are very clear and that you tie everything back to your value. Not the biggest fan of framework outside of your value and value criterion.

In the past, I was a congressional (state finalist IHSA 2017) and PF debater for 4 years (competed locally in IL and nationally). I will be listening intently and flowing you in detail.

Background:

Four year former debater in LD, PF, and Congress

First year judge

LD/PF Paradigm

I can flow and keep up with quicker argumentation, but please keep pacing to an appropriate level in order to enable myself and the opposition the ability to flow.

I enjoy and encourage debate on all levels, including framework, and would love to see how your arguments win in both frameworks, or why your opponent's framework should not be considered in the round.

I will evaluate each argument regardless of my personal thoughts/beliefs of the topic, so utilize time in the round to draw attention on which points hold more weight. In an ideal round, I will be told what is most important and why I should use that as a point to vote on, or why it should be disregarded.

I will also only flow during the speeches, so if there is a particularly important point brought up during the CX period, please draw attention to it during the round.

When presenting me with voting issues, and contentions that you think you have won, I should be able to find that on my flow. On a similar topic, don't attempt to revive dropped arguments in the final speech if you didn't address them outside of your opening one, try to extend them throughout the course of the debate.

I distribute speaker points based on the content of your arguments and your ability to analyze the points brought up during the debate, and not as much based on your speaking style.

Debate is meant to be an educational and fun experience, and I have absolutely zero tolerance for any sexist, racist, homophobic, or any other discriminatory arguments/comments presented during the round. If any of this occurs during the round, you will receive lowest points possible, automatically lose the round, and the issue will be brought up to the appropriate staff on site.

I will provide light feedback post-round, but if you want more in-depth feedback, I am willing to share in-between rounds!

I am a former LD debater (trad, not prog) in my second year of coaching, appreciating the ability to return to a sport and circuit that is very near and dear to me.

The bulk of my decisions will come down to a round’s voting issues. I will likely not vote for you if you don’t provide me any—even if you otherwise would have won the round. Your voters should not come out of nowhere; I should be able to check my flows and very clearly identify their origins in the debate, as well as track their development over the course of the round. Additionally, there should be no doubt in my mind that you did, in fact, win the debate based on the voting issues that you choose – no hotly contested points as voters!

Overall, I frown upon fear-mongering and I favor realistic impacts above all else. If you are claiming that to affirm/negate will directly lead to something as serious as the breakdown of society or the end of the world, I’d better be able to poke no holes in your reasoning. I value skills over tricks any day of the week.

Debaters able to maintain a cool and level head even while in the middle of an intense round of debate capture my interest. I often look for a debater's ability to conduct themselves in a composed manner, especially if the round isn’t going their way. Additionally, I greatly appreciate debaters who are able to balance concise evidence with clear logic. Leave few gaps in your argumentation and linkchain, and you will win me over.

I will admit, I am a little old-fashioned; I look more favorably towards debaters who can make strong and consistent links between their contentions, their impacts, and their framework. I do not see the point in neglecting framework debate in the slightest; I will weigh your arguments more strongly if you can explain how your contentions uphold the values you’ve chosen, or prove how your opponent’s contradict each other.

I appreciate well-stated, unique arguments with logical support to back them up. When I can follow your line of thought clearly through signposting, it can only reap dividends.

Let's have some great rounds!

My overall philosophy is to be kind, have fun, and avoid rude commentary (Especially during crossfire) I know that's corny, but if we're spending our Saturdays here together, we should be making friends and enjoying ourselves. Below are some other features that I tend to value in a round because I heard y'all wanted a bigger paradigm. Here we go $$$

Fairness, Clarity, and Case Development: All arguments must be structured logically from A-->B. Every argument should be weighed on its merits and building strawman arguments is mad annoying and will not be considered. High value is placed on the use of credible evidence and sound reasoning. Arguments should primarily be supported by facts and studies that have been developed within the realm of relevance. Unless used as a historical example, a card should be published no later than seven years ago (2017)

More on Cases: Arguments should have direct links. Overextending an idea to meet the needs of your case will damage your argument and your ballot overall. This creates a slippery slope and will most likely not flow through. This feels similar to what I said above, but I'm going to keep it there anyway.

Impact Analysis: Try to place an emphasis on the significance and implications of arguments. Scope is most important to me as a judge.

I don’t need solvency, I just need you to show me how your argument does LESS harm.

Preciate it, GOATS!

I am a former LD debater, now in college.

Be respectful. I do want to see clear impacts and their connection to case values. Also have multiple voter issues, or an elaborate explanation of one. Please signpost when giving your rebuttals so I know where and what your arguing against. Please don't waste your own time on the framework debate if they are identical, collapsing framework is fine by me but if you are arguing why yours is better, make it a good argument. Avoid spreading, I will take away speaker points if I cannot hear what you are saying.

I have been assisting in coaching and judging for both LD and PF for a year at Fenwick High School. I will be evaluating each team based on clarity, logical coherence, evidence, rebuttal, delivery, cross-examination, thoroughness, and respect. I will be looking for the team that presents the strongest argument overall, based on these criteria.

I am open to a variety of arguments, conventional and unconventional, and look for the following:

1) Speed of delivery can be brisk, but must be clear enough so argument can be appropriately heard, processed, and flowed.

2) I prefer our second rebuttal for PF to hit more big picture themes and flaws

3) Voting issues are essential - please include them

4) A lack of extension of an argument will not hurt your score, but successfully extending an argument is certainly a sign of a well-constructed debate

5) Argument is valued over style

6) Debates can be won using an opponent’s framework, but must be as well-constructed and multifaceted as if they used their own.

7) Evidence is CRUCIAL. No evidence = no basis for argument

TLDR: Focus on value and criterion in LD, don't misuse evidence in PF, and speak extemporaneously in Congress. Always warrant your arguments. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. Thou shalt not go off-topic by using abusive "progressive debate" tactics such as kritiks, counterplans, or meta-analysis of debate. I am a traditional judge who flows and is tech over truth. If you think this is contradictory, you might spend too much time online.

In a debate round, most of all I'm looking for a clear, concise, and robust exchange of ideas. Some ways to work on this are to make sure you're signposting in all of your speeches, planning ahead to ensure that you're fitting the most important contentions and objections into the allotted time, and responding directly to the arguments and objections your opponents put forth in their own speeches. Do all of this without strawmanning your opponents (or committing any other major logical fallacies).

Most importantly, warrant: Don't take it for granted that your judges can see why your opponents are wrong, or that your contentions speak for themselves in response to challenges. Even if I do see these things, I can't score you well unless you are doing this work yourselves in the debate. Don't let any of your opponents' objections make it through the flow uncontested. Always warrant your claims. Cross-apply your contentions liberally in rebuttals so that I don't think you've dropped any of your own arguments.

I'm not a fan of most forms of "progressive debate," as I want you to make accessible arguments relevant to the resolution, not signal your position on whatever is currently in vogue. For example, if the resolution is about whether the United States should raise taxes on the wealthy, and you're arguing in favor of doing so, it is 100% okay (and probably a great idea) to give arguments about how capitalism can leave certain groups behind and how trickle-down economics only exacerbates wealth inequality and thus eliminates equality of opportunity. It is not germane to the resolution, however, to make all of your arguments about how capitalism is nothing but a tool of oppression and we need to abolish it, as this is not what is at question in the resolution. Similarly, I find meta-analysis of debate as an activity in-round to be grating. I will always favor the person/team using their speaking time to discuss the issue at hand in the resolution.

I'm also not a fan of counterplans because they shift the burden of proof in the round to the NEG/CON. The burden of proof belongs on the AFF/PRO. If you don't want to defend the status quo, I think you need to ask yourself why you're spending your free time doing this activity. As a coach and an instructor, the greatest value I see in debate is that it teaches students to charitably look at and adopt perspectives that are fundamentally different from their own. Using abusive "progressive debate" tactics to get around doing this robs you of the greatest benefit of doing debate, and robs your opponent of the opportunity to engage in a robust exchange of ideas about the actual topic of the round. Here I'll provide the analogy of papers: if a student handed me a paper that was well-written, but never actually addressed the topic they were supposed to write about (or worse, questioned the process of writing the paper in the first place), they would fail because they did not actually complete the assignment. The same is true in a debate round.

A note on speed: I don't mind spreading and can keep up with it as long as you don't talk like you have marbles in your mouth. But before you spread, consider that you will have many lay judges in this circuit who are unfamiliar with this speed or even hostile to it. Proceed at your own peril. Additionally, I often see debaters spread to try and overwhelm their opponents with cards to respond to without ever substantially developing or warranting their arguments. When I read student philosophy papers, I look for two things before anything else: clarity and concision. The lesson from this is that sometimes less is more because it forces you to focus on what really matters in the round, and as such you develop your arguments around key voting issues far more than you would if you were just hammering your opponent with as much evidence as possible.

A couple of notes on questioning: I'm not a fan of debaters interrupting or steamrolling their opponents. Be courteous and give the other team/person a chance to respond and to ask their own questions during grand cross while still using your own speaking time well. Being the loudest person in the room is not synonymous with being the best debater. I do not flow questioning, either. If you want something that came up in questioning to factor into my decision, you need to bring it back up in one of your speeches.

A final note on my ballots: I try to write pretty detailed ballots because I know how frustrating it is to lose a round and then not understand why, or to be told something vague or even get a blank ballot. I try to make up for this all-too-pervasive problem with debate judging by providing you with detailed feedback. However, I want you to understand that only the comments in my RFD directly factored into my decision. I'm writing comments throughout the round to you individually to try and provide feedback on your cases (especially because I know some of you may not have coaches), as well as your argumentation and speaking styles. Sometimes I will write things in the individual comments section that are my personal opinion on what makes a good case, or whether something is a convincing argument. As a tabula rasa judge, this kind of thing does not factor into my decision unless the other debater(s) call(s) you on anything I mention in one of their speeches. I provide this individual feedback not to explain my decision, but to potentially help you grow as a debater. The RFD is the true explanation of my decision.

For Lincoln-Douglas: If you're using a moral or political theory from analytic philosophy (i.e. utilitarianism/consequentialism, deontology/rights-based, virtue ethics, Rawlsian distributive justice/justice as fairness, any kind of social contract theory, principles from medical ethics, etc.) please make sure you know what you're talking about. I have way too many rounds where a utilitarian or consequentialist framework devolves into deontology or rights-based theory, and vice versa. Or worse, where a debater uses a contradictory value and criterion, such as pairing autonomy with consequentialism. And these are the simplest moral theories; the bar will be even higher if you choose Rawls or something more obscure. I'm not against you using these theories (in fact, as a philosophy teacher I want you to do so), I just want you to use them well and appropriately. I highly recommend that all LD debaters read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy extensively in order to better prepare for using and coming up against philosophical concepts in rounds. Theories from continental philosophy will be a tougher sell for me in general because they're even more difficult to use appropriately.

No matter what value and criterion you choose, make sure you're linking all of your impacts back to your framework throughout the round. A brief mention at the top of each speech is not nearly enough attention to framework in LD. Also, please don't make your value "morality." That's redundant. All of these resolutions have the word "ought" in them; morality is implicitly valued in the round. Saying your value is morality is like telling me you want to do something without specifying what you want. You're not actually giving me any real information here about how you're using a theory of value to evaluate the resolution at hand.

For Public Forum: Evidence matters here even more than in the other debate events. Make sure you're reading all of your sources in their entirety before cutting cards. I'm always paying attention, and so are most of the other debaters: if you're using something out of context, you will get called on it eventually by one of your opponents or judges. I will call for evidence in close rounds, so be prepared to hand over your cards. Making empirical assertions without providing empirical evidence will make it very hard for me to vote for you, and misusing evidence will make it nearly impossible.

For Congress: It is to the whole chamber's disservice to get stuck on one bill or one series of bills. Even if your favorite bill is being discussed and you haven't gotten a chance to speak yet, it's in your best interest not to extend a tired debate. I would rather see fresh debate on a bill that is less familiar to you than continue to see the same arguments recycled over and over again. Congress is meant to be an extemporaneous event. I don't want your speeches to be pretty and polished like a speech event, or even like a constructive speech in PF or LD. I want you to show me that you have a range of knowledge and interest in an even wider range of topics in current events, and can speak extemporaneously on these topics in the chamber. There's little I dislike more in debate than for a Congress chamber to take a recess so everyone can "write their speeches." This fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of Congress. The best advice I can give Congress debaters for prep isn't to write polished speeches, but to regularly read (not watch) reputable news sources like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and The Economist. If you must watch your news, go with the PBS News Hour or something international (i.e. the BBC), not partisan entertainment-oriented channels like CNN, FOX, or MSNBC. Podcasts are fun, but not a substitute for reputable news organizations with full-time fact checkers.

Add me to email chains: sharpedebate@gmail.com

Short Verison:

*I specialized in LD in high school and moonlighted in PF when someone needed a partner. PF paradigm - Flow is the most important thing in the round, please be clear; I'll be deciding on the flow. I'm not new to debate, so I won't be voting off the last speech but the big picture of the round, who has the most positive impacts in the round. I'm a progressive judge so do whatever you want, just be respectful of your competitors.

Tho I prefer that folx don't run bad geopolitical link chains leading to nuclear war - if the links don't make sense I won't care.

TLDR:

* I really don't like racism, sexism...etc. I won't vote for hateful arguments.

* Warrant your arguments! Names of authors mean nothing to me. I won't vote for you if you just read cards.

*Weighing is very important (especially with a Value/VC/Roll of the ballot)

*Prioritize impacts, the strategy is important

*If you are going to value Morality, please explain it. What moral framework are we working under

*Be Clear

Former Debater at Homewood-Flossmoor

Lincoln Douglas was the debate-style of my high school career so I am very familiar. I started in traditional Lincoln Douglas and ended my career running Kritiks so I am comfortable with both styles of LD. I can understand most spread, but make sure your opponent is comfortable with the speed and be clear. If you are not clear, I am not flowing. You can go as fast as your mouth and lungs will let you, but if you are not clear it will most likely be detrimental to you. I will say clear twice. If you don't adjust I will probably stop flowing. Refrain from bringing your opponent's identity into the debate space, especially when it comes to sexuality, race and/or disability. I have seen and experienced many rounds where people assume wrong about someone's identity, and it becomes offensive. With that being said, if you are non-black running arguments about anti-blackness (or in general), make sure it's for the right reasons, and don't use authors that write for the black population.

Plans: Call me old-fashioned but I don't think that Affirmative needs to provide a plan in any LD debate topic. But I am not against plans in LD.

Theory: 80% of the time I do not like theory debates because it can get very messy. While I view theory to be a necessary part of debate I hate frivolous theory. To be honest, I don't care if someone's case isn't on a debate wiki, I am not 100% against voting for stuff like that but the reason why its imperative for people to explain the need to disclose.

Kritiks: I think they make debate interesting and sparks great dialogue. But please run a meaningful Kritik don't slap one together before a round that isn't well thought out. I tend to like Kritiks that challenge the topic/arguments, just because there tends to be more clash, but Kritiks about the debate space is fine. I haven't had the time to read a ton of literature in college, so don't assume I know an author.

The debate case should have clear contentions with cards/evidence supporting your claims that explain the topic well. Generally, your case should be structured so it is easy to flow and understand as the audience. The arguments should be concise, and clash is essential. Follow the structure of the debate format you are competing in. For example, in LD, the Value and Value Criterion are significant; centralize your case towards them and focus on them in Rebuttal/Voting Issues. Extend your arguments throughout the Debate; consistent repetition is not necessary. Speak clearly and spreading is not preffered and may harm speaker points. Be organized and give road maps before speeches. Rebuttals should attack main pionts and be should be specific to case, not generalized attacks that aren't applicable to their case specifically.

Debate Experience:

[4 years] High school: PF, LD, Congress, World School, American Parliamentary, and more; competed at nationals

[Present] College: IPDA, LD-Policy, British Parliamentary; competed at nationals

Judging since 2019

General Paradigm for ALL debate formats:

I value RESPECT and DECORUM above all. No shouting, being rude, cutting opponents off, making faces, openly expressing annoyance of opponents' arguments, certain body language, and more; these are valid reasons to deduct speaker points. Getting excited about an argument and going full into it does not count as disrespect. I judge based on age group. There is a fine line between firm and rude. If I see you being rude, I will give you low speaker points, but I won't make you lose the round.

I am a LOGIC judge, if something doesn't make logical sense, you'll lose the argument

I love ANALYTICS, analyze the evidence

Be organized

Clear contentions

Spreading or speeding is okay if you are coherent. Policy debaters, refer below

Off-time road maps, please

Follow the flow of the round- don't make my life harder than it has to be

I like jargon, its helpful and I am familiar, except for IPDA

LD-Policy + Policy Paradigm:

Run anything, I don't care, as long as it works. DA, T, CP, K, etc, all work, just make it make sense. I may be educated but I don't know the whole dictionary, so make sure to explain in simple terms at the end, like 2-3 sent final summary. Second, make sure you still attack the general Aff plan and why it does not work. I need both, just in case, to default.

I can not express this enough if I don't understand your arguments, then it's hard for me to vote for you.

Be organized and make sure you upload clean documents after your speech. No shady things, for example, copying your speech twice to make the document hard to navigate...really? Make sure to do this right after your speech ends, so your opponent has time to use the clean doc.

Spreading:

(1) Only do it if you want to relay more information and can speak clearly, if you have not practiced reading your document and are choppy + taking breaths in, do not spread

(2) make sure your opponents are okay, debate is supposed to be fair, equitable, and educational

(3) make sure to explain anything important, if I miss something and you don't explain it, that's on you

Links + Impact + Solvency - without it you won't win

Just because you read a card doesn't mean you're done. Explain its impact

I flow the cross. Anything important should still be brought up in the subsequent speech

LD Paradigm: Traditional Judge

Focusing on the V and VC

Clash is important

Links + Impact + Solvency - without it you won't win

I don't flow the cross, anything important, MUST be brought up in the subsequent speech

PF Paradigm: Lay Judge

Clear contentions, strong evidence, links, and impacts

I don't flow the cross, anything important MUST be brought up in the subsequent speech

Other:

Have any questions, need coaching, or help?

Contact me @ nuveriat@gmail.com

Need accommodations, let me know

I am a flow judge.

1) Signpost & provide an Off-time roadmap. Very important!

2) Prioritize clash, both contention-level and framework-level (or collapse/concede fw if necessary)

3) Connect contentions & impacts to the framework.

4) Outweigh on voters.

5) Extend arguments

6) I can somewhat handle speed, but don't spread (it will tank your speakers)

7) While I won't flow CX, make sure your questioning leads you somewhere. Try to poke holes and stump your opponent's case, rather than asking worthless questions to fill time.

8) All arguments are welcome.

8) Be respectful and have fun. This is all a learning experience! If you make me laugh or if I learn something new – easy 30 speaker points :)

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

SPEAKERS
30: I wish I could frame your speeches – hard to imagine a better speaker.
29.0-29.5: You left no doubt about who won and are an excellent speaker.
28.0-28.5: You were effective and strategic, and made only minor mistakes.
27.5: You hit all the right notes, but could improve (e.g. depth or efficiency).
27.0: You mainly did the right thing, but left something to be desired. No Signposting.
26.5: You missed major things and were hard to follow;
26.0: You advanced little in the debate or the round was messy; Spreading.
25.0-25.5: You are not ready for this division/tournament.
Below 25: You were offensive, ignorant, rude, or tried to cheat (Report to tabroom).

I can deal with speed, but I appreciate evidence

Your speaking is the number 1 thing I look for, as presenting your arguments clearly and with passion is very important to me. During cross-examination, I listen for good questions and will keep them in mind. Additionally, in final speeches, please give clear voting issues.

And be sure to have fun!