conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

• do you, and do it well

• don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene

• don't misgender me, or your competitors

• do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

• time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
• don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
• PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
• even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
• i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
• i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
• PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
• i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
• if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
• i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
• flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
• PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

• please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging

• of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment

• apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.

• 'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.

• going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos

• i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

• speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

Make sure to flow all your arguments and speak in an organized matter. For example: my opponent stating on my first contention that X is true, but 1. (your argument here), and 2. (your argument here), etc.

You don't have to follow that exact format, just make sure to say what argument on what contention you're addressing!

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

I'll judge based on only the information given in the debate. Also, don't be jerks.

Hey everyone,

My name is Owen Carlson (he/him) and I was a pf debater in MI for 6 years for Dexter. I currently am at MSU.

When debating please make sure to speak clearly and enunciate as a former debater I can follow fast speaking but I cant follow muddled speaking. If I cannot understand what you are saying then I won't judge it. Make sure to fully extend arguments if you do not extend them through the round then I will assume that you have dropped them. If you use a framework also extend that through the round as well. You should be weighing throughout the round as well and especially in the Final Focus. Generally, if you can quantify your impact that has a stronger impact than one that is not quantified. Also, make sure you state why your impact is important. For example, why should I care if emissions increase by 2% make sure to spell out why that would be an important impact.

Please make sure to have cut cards in case either I or your opponent asks for them it just makes it easier for everyone. If your evidence is in any way misconstrued then I will drop that whole argument no questions asked.

While I will time you please keep your own time as well. You can finish up a sentence if you run over time but if you start to go longer than that I will cut you off. Use crossfire well and ask questions. I pay attention to crossfire but I will not flow it. If anything important happens in cross bring it up in your next speech so it makes it on the flow. Do not be rude. It will weigh heavily in my decision and in your speaker points. If you are sexist/racist/homophobic or anything of the sort I will not vote for you period. There is no place for that whatsoever in any debate round.

If you have any email chains my email is owencarlson6@gmail.com please go ahead and add me to them.

If you have any questions to ask me before or after the round go ahead and ask!

This may seem obvious to you, but to many debaters, it is not. There is a resolution to be debated. You must argue it and only it. Your contentions must be clear. Your subpoints must be clear. They ALL must directly tie back to your side (pro/con) of the resolution. Signposting is a must. Speaking fast doesn't endear you to me, nor does it impress me. I think it's a tactic used by unprepared debaters who don't think the judge is really listening. Additionally, please don't try to appeal to my emotions and tell me that I have a "moral obligation" to support your side. No, I don't. You have an obligation to successfully argue your side and should not ever ask a judge to insert personal feelings into a RFD.

I also do not like "off the wall" contentions that are merely used to attempt to sound different relative to other debaters. You must stay wedded to the resolution. I also do not like arrogance and an entitled attitude during debates. There are rules and the rules apply, equally, to everyone. You are not above them and will be docked speaker points for being disrespectful or arrogant. It's really not difficult to be kind.

Let's go back to the first paragraph. It's not my job to link for you. You make a claim, you prove it. It's called the burden of proof. So, if you're making claims, you better have the evidence and reasoning/warrants to tie all of it together. Having said that, if you do your job, but your opponent doesn't respond to that claim you made in their next speech, you win that claim (it's called burden of rejoinder and debaters ignore opposition claims all the time and this will be seen as a drop). Anyway, if I can flow, it's a good thing for you. You should be doing it too while you listen to your opposition. Make your links clear, please! Ensure that your links are connected to something the opposition actually argued (you wouldn't believe the strawmanning that I have heard over the years).

Next: evidence/cards/citations. Please have them prepared and shared with your opposition prior to the start of the debate. I don't like wasting time during a debate while a team takes several minutes to find the source for the card...it often leads to an unfair prep time disadvantage and I won't tolerate it. If you press your opponent's evidence, please make sure that I have access to this and that both sides are clear as to what part of the evidence is being called into question.

Framework: if you're going to use one, stick to it and extend it throughout the entire debate. Don't casually reference it; make it the essence of your constructives. The "utilitarian" framework is possibly the most popular one, but I would strongly prefer it if you don't just drop the term and then move on...you should be very specific as to what you mean.

Impact: Make it clear and reference it often. Don't just casually say it once and then never have any ties back to it...similar to how you should approach the framework. I've heard some really good non-unique impacts, but if you're going to try and attack your opponent for having a non-unique argument, make sure you're actually correct. Again, I really don't like buzzwords and using terminology just to use it because you may think the judge is only listening for them won't work with me. When you're levying an impact in your arguments, ask yourself "how probable is this?" You would be surprised if you stopped and thought before you spoke.

Rebuttals: a little bit repetitive here, but you have to respond to the claims made by your opposition in your very next speech...usually here. Don't bring them up later or you will be docked and, likely, lose. If your opponent argues contentions x, y, and z in their first constructive, but you only address contentions x and z in first cross or rebuttal, that's a drop by you and they win on contention y. If you wait until summary or second cross, that's a problem for you. Rebuttal speeches are meant to do exactly that; they are not meant to make new arguments, nor is final focus for that matter. Don't do it.

Off-time Roadmaps: I don't mind them and if you need to verbalize what you're planning on doing, that's fine. Keep them short please.

Oh, one more thing: don't be top heavy in your overview. What I mean by this is please do not spend lots of time on your own arguments but not answer (or shoddily answer) your opponent arguments. Please don't do this. You can give me a re-cap, but make it fast. For example, during summary you should prioritize answering the key arguments addressed by the second rebuttal speaker in addition to giving me a brief overview of your own arguments...just ensure that there is balance here.

I lead a team of healthcare business consultants for work and spend a lot of time coaching them to deliver compelling, fact-based presentations. In your debate I'll be looking for you to:

1) Best highlight the best facts -- It's not always about the volume of citations, but rather how you use the very best proof points to assemble a persuasive argument.

2) Argue points in their entirety -- For example, if you are arguing that solar power is the best option to slow global climate change then you need to address why wind, hydroelectric, and other renewable energy sources are less desirable.

3) Anticipate refutations -- Understand the fact and the fact behind the fact to do this. Carrying through the solar example above, you can assume that your opponent will raise the environmental damage created by lithium mining so be ready to discuss new developments in battery technology to fend this one off.

4) Moderate your speed and modulate speaking tone -- Be more persuasive by speaking loudly and clearly, adding emphasis to the key points you need a judge to hear and deeply understand.

One other thing: If I furrow my brow and really bear down, that doesn't mean I'm angry or disinclined to your argument. It means I have my thinking cap on and am concentrating to parse your argument. It can seem off putting, but I am not scary and will share constructive feedback positively after your round.

Good luck!

I have been judging debate since September 2023

1. I prefer debaters to talk slowly and concisely and not to speak with anger. I give points for proven points that have been published. I like eye contact.
2. I mark positive points when arguments and claims are supported.
3. I note when key claims are supported. I give points when the opposing team hears and counters the argument with supported evidence.
4. I value argument support and flow style. It is valuable for the two teams to hear their opponent and not only reiterate their own argument but debunk the opponents with support.
5. I consider calm rational clear understanding of the argument. and presenting in a calm manner.
6. I expect respect and clarity

Hi,

Here are my expectations/paradigm for the round. 

- Running obscure arguments on your opponents might seem super cool, but showing probability and a clear link chain will probably have a better chance of winning.

- Second rebuttal needs to address turns from first rebuttal, otherwise your rebuttal is a little too late. 

- First summary doesn't need to extend defense unless you think its absolutely necessary for whatever reason. 

- You need to extend BOTH the warrant AND impact of your argument(s) in later speeches if you're serious about finessing my ballot.

- I'm all for taking control of CX/the round but if you are abusive/disrespectful in doing so it will reflect poorly on the ballot. Treat you opponents like human beings and we'll all have a good time. 

-In terms of speed if your flow and delivery is hot and clear I'm writing it down. If you wanna be Speed Racer go ahead as long as you feel a reasonable person can still understand you. 

-Use author qualifications when first citing a piece of evidence (for extensions later on last name will suffice).

-Tate 

FOR DEBATE: I generally look for the team that best carries their own contentions all the through the round while continually showing how they defeat their opponents contentions.

I also place an emphasis on competitive manners. Be polite to each other while competing.

Please don't tell me when to start my timer. That's my job as a judge, not your job as a competitor.

FOR FORENSICS: I listen closely for speakers and performers who vary their vocal tones. No matter which event you do, change it up throughout your performance or speech. That gives our brains a chance to reset, which allows them to stay interest in what you're saying. Make us interested in what you have to say.

Getting my PhD at Wayne State University in communication studies. Competed at Wayne State, qualified to the NDT twice. Assistant coach for West Bloomfield High School’s public forum and IE team.

Include me on emails chains please: DouglasAHusic@gmail.com

I flow on paper, please give me pen time. Start slower and settle into top speed instead of missing parts early on. I care about clarity more than who reads a few more cards. CX is a speech, I flow it in every debate format. I rarely follow along with docs.

Non-important old man yelling at cloud moment: The 1ac is an opportunity for free speaker points and sets the tone for the debate, a lot of people sound like they don't practice reading it.

----

Whoever controls the framing of how to evaluate offense in a debate generally wins my ballot. This is universally true for all argument styles and debate formats. I am very flow dependent. Specifics listed below, but absolute defense is a hard sell absent drops, strategic concessions, or the argument was poorly constructed to begin with.

Debate is a persuasive and communicative activity first and foremost driven by student research. As a debater research was my favorite part of the activity so I certainly appreciate quality evidence production on unique and different arguments. Communication surrounding the importance of evidence is most relevant to how I evaluate it at the end of the debate. A great card that is undersold and not explained and applied may get my appreciation when you bring it to my attention in the post-round, but absent you directing me to the significance of that evidence or why I need to read it won't be important to my ballot. If it’s not on my flow, it doesn’t register for my decision, and, if the warrant is on my flow and uncontested, it won’t matter if the evidence supporting it is weak. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the lengths many of my peers turn to the docs to verify claims that in my mind are just not being debated. If your arguing on the line by line in no way questions the other team's characterization of evidence, I will never go on a fact finding mission.

I expect debater's to make relevant issues on evidence known in the debate.

Debater's should answer arguments.

You don't get to walk-back win conditions you establish that are conceded.

Thoughts on framework:

Full transparency I went for this argument for the majority of my career as a debater as a one-off position, and can be compelled that there should be some limit on the topic for the purpose of predictable negative ground. So take that for what you will.

However, I am also highly sympathetic given my personal pedagogical and research interests as a scholar of alternative interpretations of the resolution for the purposes of interdisciplinary/undisciplined debates. Teams that have a well thought out counter interpretation and vision for what their model of debate looks like are often in a strategically good place for my ballot. In my mind a counter interpretation provides a useful avenue for resolving both sides offense and is often a place where I wish the negative invested more time in the block and 2nr.

That being said, I have been persuaded by affirmative teams who impact turn framework without a counter interpretation. Iterations of this argument which have been persuasive to me in the past include critiques of predictability as a means to actualize clash, critiques of fiats epistemic centrality to clash/fairness/education, arguments which emphasize styles of play over notions of fairness for the game, as well as impact turning the rhetorical performance of framework.

A frequent line in decisions I vote aff on framework, "I think the negative is winning a link on limits explosion, but has underdeveloped the internal link between limits to clash/fairness/epistemic skills as an impact, and furthermore that impact's relationship to the way the aff has framed insert X DA or X impact from the 2ac overview on case is never once articulated". I'm a big believer in if you want to say T/framework is engagement you should actually engage the language and impacts the aff has presented, I will not fill in these connections for you because you say "praxis or debate is key to activism".

Teams over-emphasize the TVA without fully developing the argument. A core dilemma for the negative in round's I judge is the TVA's interaction with affirmative themes, performances, and theories remain superficial and surface level at best. Even when a great piece of evidence is read by the negative, it is an error in execution for the negative to rely on the judge to resolve these connections. My threshold for the TVA being "sufficient" is often higher then my peers. Given the value of the TVA as a way to resolve affirmative offense it is a spot where I think the negative must dig deep(ala Jeff Probst from Survivor) to put themselves ahead in a debate. There are many ways the negative can do this effectively, but all require a more thorough incorporation of the TVA from the onset of your strategy. It's bad form and a missed opportunity when the negative refuses to give an example/or doesn't know of a TVA in C-X of the 1nc. I'm a believer that there is a benefit in the negative block introducing other TVAs in the negative block, The 2nc should tie TVA's to performances, impact arguments, and theories of the 1ac. Saying you could have talked about X thing as a performance instead often falls flat. Do research pre-round or pre-tournament into the artefacts of the 1ac, be creative, you can incorporate them I believe in you.

I am also not a particularly good judge for negative impact explanations which rely on the assumption that the values of research/clash/fairness/iteration are inherent/exclusive benefits of a limited model. The negative often debates in front of me operating from the assumption the aff will win none of their offense or has abandoned these values in their entirety, this is both a bad move and often just a blatant mischaracterization of aff debating. An example with iterative testing. A premise which is hard to dislodge me from: all research is iterative, full-stop. Even when the aff has no counter interpretation, their research practices and argumentative styles are iterative because they build upon previously written research and arguments. This means arguments like iterative testing require more specificity in their explanation. The framing of "Only the negative model allows room for teams to refine arguments to third and fourth level" often rings hollow because it is more descriptive of the strategic incentives to develop arguments over the course of a season (which likely exist in any research activity), and not describe the actual benefit of the style of iteration of your model. A more persuasive iteration impact to me focuses on the question of quality and utility of each models style of iteration, tending more to questions like: is there an insurgent/epistemic benefit to maximizing iteration of state based politics vs negative critique? Instead of saying "the aff always goes for the perm in K v K debates," delve into questions of how affirmative models might distort the capaciousness of K v K debate? Or shutdown debates that are meaningful in the literature through standards and practices of debate's offense/defense paradigm? Are there moments where the aff contradicts their model or counter interp performatively? What is the significance of these contradictions? Are there potentially negative effects of the aff model for subjectivity? All of this is really my way of pleading with you burn the blocks of your predecessor, make some new arguments, read a book, do something.

Creativity and negative argument development on framework has plateaued.

You all sound the same.

I will be extremely frustrated if you opt to go for framework over any argument that is clearly well-developed and clashes with the aff that they blow off. There are many rounds where the 2nr decision to go for framework shocks me given 1ar coverage. Don't include A+ material if you are not prepared to go for it.

K’s vs Policy teams:

I’m a fan. I like when there is a lot of interaction with the case. I'm an ok judge for specific philosophical criticisms of the plan. I'm a substantially worse judge for "you defend [use] the state." The alternative tends to be the focus of my decision (is it competitive, what does it do to resolve the links, etc). I'm a pragmatist at heart, I believe in real-world solutions to problems and I'm often persuaded that we ought to make the world a better place. How your alternative deals with affirmative attacks of this genre matters a lot to me. I've voted for more pessimistic or alt-less Ks, but, again, mostly due to technical errors by the affirmative. I find myself caring less about alternative solvency when the negative team has spent time proving to me that the aff doesn’t solve their impacts either.

Aff teams are most successful when they have a clear approach to the theme of the negatives K from the 1ac. Either be the impact turn alt doesn’t solve team --- or be the link turn plus perm team --- wishy washiness just gets the aff into more trouble then its worth often allowing the negative a lot of narrative control on what the aff is or isn’t about.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K. You're better served making arguments which elevate the importance of the impacts you've described and undercutting the ability of the aff to resolve their own. I'm totally open to disproving the affirmative's model of predictions - I just think you have to do the work to have my skepticism outweigh their narrative. I don't think its a particularly hard sell for me when the work is done. But I rarely see teams engage the case enough to decrease risk.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go

DAs:

Links control the direction of the DA in my mind absent some explanation to the counter in the debate

You should invest neg block time into the link story (unless it's impact turned). A compelling link argument is very powerful, and can cover holes in your evidence. "Impact turns the case" is a bit overrated, because it normally lacks uniqueness. Not making the arg is a mistake, but banking on it can also be a mistake.

I miss straight impact turning and link turning strategies from aff teams.

Theory:

theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” aren't reasons to reject the team. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Performative contradictions matter less to me in the 1nc especially if they’re like a reps K (stuff like the Econ DA and Cap is more suspect). Performative contradictions carried through as a position in the block grinds my gears and should be talked about more. Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to.

New affs bad as a policy argument is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals:

By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. I will say though lack of specification often annoys me on both sides have a debate, cut some offense, defend something please. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 27.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style.

Cheating - I won't usually initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. but if i notice it i reserve the right to call you out when especially egregious If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

Ethics challenges brought up pertaining to fabrication or out of context evidence submitted into a round end the debate for me. If it is determined that the ev is fabricated or meaningfully out of context then the team who introduced the evidence receives a loss and the low end of my point scale.

There is a resolution to be debated. You must argue it and only it. Your contentions must be clear. Your subpoints must be clear. They ALL must directly tie back to your side (pro/con) of the resolution.

Signposting is a must.

I do not like arrogance and an entitled attitude during debates. There are rules and the rules apply, equally, to everyone. You are not above them and will be docked speaker points for being disrespectful or arrogant. It's really not difficult to be kind.

Linking is a must. You make a claim, you prove it. It's called the burden of proof. Make your links clear, please! So, if you're making claims, you better have the evidence and reasoning/warrants to tie all of it together. Failure to provide clear links is a good way to lose on a particular contention.

If your opponent doesn't respond to a claim you made in their next speech, you win that claim (it's called burden of rejoinder and debaters ignore opposition claims all the time and this will be seen as a drop).

Next: evidence/cards/citations. Please have them prepared and shared with your opposition prior to the start of the debate. I don't like wasting time during a debate while a team takes several minutes to find the source for the card...it often leads to an unfair prep time disadvantage. If you press your opponent's evidence, please make sure that both sides are clear as to what part of the evidence is being called into question.

Framework: if you're going to use one, stick to it and extend it throughout the entire debate. Don't casually reference it; make it the essence of your constructives.

Impact: Make it clear and reference it often. Your impacts tell the judge why he or she should care. Don't just casually say them once and then never have any ties back to it. Make sure to directly link your impacts to your contentions. In close matches where both teams make valid well-presented claims, decisions are ultimately made on the power of the teams' impacts.

Rebuttals: You have to respond to the claims made by your opposition in your very next speech. This is called the burden of rejoinder. If your opponent argues contentions x, y, and z in their first constructive, but you only address contentions x and z in first cross or rebuttal, that's a drop by you and they win on contention y. Don't bring them up later or you will be docked.

Off-time Roadmaps: I find them helpful especially if you speak fast. I will try my best to flow all arguments so anything that helps me do that appreciated. That said, keep them short and don't attempt to squeeze in any off-clock arguments.

I am an energy and environmental attorney with a background in economics who spent 17 years litigating cases in multiple forums. When I judge public forum, I think about what would be convincing and understandable to a group of lay people who don't have much background on the issue. In your debate I'll be looking for you to:

1) Moderate your speed. If you are going so fast that I can't understand your argument, that is not helpful. If you are going so fast that it becomes hard work for me to keep track of all the things you are saying, that does not bode well. I want your argument to be easy to follow, clear, and concise. I would rather hear one good contention than three contentions that move so quickly I can't absorb them.

2) Focus on quality not quantity. It's not always about the volume of citations, but rather how you use the very best proof points to assemble a persuasive argument. Each citation should be put in context and clearly relate to the point you are trying to make.

3) Emphasize your main points. I find it very helpful when each main point is clearly and strongly emphasized.

4) Be yourself. You have your own way of telling a story and constructing an argument. Try to improve upon what you do best, rather than fit into a mold someone else has set.

You have worked hard to prepare for this debate, and you know your stuff. I hope you spend most of your time really engaging with the material rather than reading off a screen. Cross is a great opportunity to really dig in on your and your opponents' positions, and I find I am often heavily influenced by what I hear in cross.

Have fun!

Name – Joe Kelly

Current institutional affiliation – Hired judge

Current role at institution – Hired per tournament

Previous institutional affiliations and role: East Kentwood, Michigan State University - debater. East Lansing High School, Waverly Middle School - director of debate.

Debating experience

High school and college debater – graduated college more than 10 years ago

If you debated what speech did you do most often? 1N/2A

What do you view your role as the judge in the debate? If you don’t put me in another paradigm, I will default to trying to choose the best policy option. That said, I'm familiar with policy and kritik debates.

Purpose of Philosophy

In what ways do you intend this judge philosophy to be helpful to debaters? In other words, what would you hope debaters would do with this philosophy?

It has been a few years since I debated, and I will recommend that students adapt in a couple ways:

1) Slow down. I believe the ink on my flow will be maximized if you speak at 85-90% of your top speed.

2) Look at me. I tend to be rather expressive. If I’m not writing something down or if I look confused, it may help you if you elaborate on your position.

Evaluative Practices and Views on Debate Round Logistics

Do you take flash time as prep time? In other words, when does prep begin and end with you? Do you expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time?

I don't count flashing /emailing as prep. I will keep track of time.

Do you have teams provide you speech documents throughout the debate by flashing or emailing them to you? Do you have teams provide speech documents throughout the debate by emailing them to you?

If you could email me, that would be great.

If you do, why have you adopted this practice? If you do not, have you made a conscious decision not to and if so why?

I think it provides greater transparency and clarity. I will try to flow your information during the round, and so, I won’t always be able to read your evidence while you are. This is still a speech activity.

What is your normal range for speaker points and why? What can earn extra speaker points for a debater? What can cost speaker points for a debater, even if they win the debate?

My normal range is 26-29.5. You can lose points by being rude, behaving unethically. You can earn points by speaking clearly, making good strategic choices and good arguments.

Do you say clearer out loud if a debater is unclear? Is there a limit to the number of times you will say clearer if you do? Do you use other non-verbal cues to signal a lack of clarity?

I will say clear. I will also give non-verbal cues. Debaters can check to see if I am flowing or if I look confused.

Do you find yourself reading a lot of evidence after the debate?

I may read evidence if there is a question as to what the evidence says. If evidence is uncontested, I will probably not read it after the round.

Do you evaluate the un-underlined parts of the evidence even if the debaters do not make that an argument?

I may provide commentary about it, but I will try not to let it affect my opinion of the round if it was not brought up.

If you read evidence after a debate, why do you tend to find yourself reading the evidence?

If it is contested.

What are your predispositions or views on the following:

Topicality

I generally think it is a voting issue, but I could be persuaded otherwise.

Theory for the aff versus counterplans and/or kritiks

Theory is great. I'm generally persuaded to reject the argument, not the team.

Affirmative’s need to read a plan in order to win on the aff

I think there are some pretty good arguments in favor of the aff having a stable advocacy.

Performance teams that use elements other than spoken word (such as songs, dance, poetry, silence) to support their arguments

Sounds good.

What types of debates do you enjoy the most and why?

Could you list out some situations here?

For example, “I prefer a DA and case debate.”

Counterplan, Disadvantage, Case is a pretty good debate. Line-by-line refutation is important. This is just what I’m most familiar with. I’m open to other debates as well.

Hi! My name is Sean and I've debated PF at Cranbrook for three years now. Pronouns He/Him/His.

my email is seanlu580@gmail.com for the email chain.

TLDR: Be nice, signpost and weigh. I can't vote if you don't tell me where to vote. When extending, please restate everything (uniqueness, link, and Impact) Don't Spread in PF. I don't believe in sticky defence, if it's important, respond to it. Please sign my ballot, tell me why you should win and why your opponents shouldn't.

Debate Stuff:

Tech > Truth, I am a flow judge. Willing to vote off of anything left in the round. If your opponents tell me that the sky is red with the correct warranting, the sky is red until you prove otherwise.

Start weighing in rebuttal if possible but at the latest in summary. Nothing new should be introduced starting after first summary. Responding to weighing is okay, but no new weighing after 2nd summary.

I generally don't think "probability" should be a weighing mechanism because it's just asking me to evaluate which side has a stronger link chain which I can do by looking at the responses on that contention.

On turns, do the comparative weighing. Tell me why the turn links into your opponent's impact.

Summary and Final Focus should mirror each other, aka extending the same args, with no new ink on the flow after summary.

Frontline in 2nd Rebuttal, Anything not responded to will be extended on my flow. I do not believe in sticky defence, extend it if it's important.

Collapse and signpost (tell me where you are at on the flow, i.e. "Now let's move onto my opponents C2 on Housing, here are five responses etc".) in the round, or else it gets messy and difficult for me to vote on.

When extending, restate the entire uniqueness + link chain + impact. If someone does not extend every part of their argument (link, warrant, or impact) CALL THEM OUT and I will not vote on that argument

I default to Util as a FW, if you choose to run a different FW, extend it throughout the entire round with the cards and warrants. Tell me why your FW is better than Util.

Good with prog args, but I need more ballot directive language to tell me where to vote and why

I don't flow cross, if you want something to be known, say it in a speech.

This goes without saying: Don't be offensive (Being Racist, misgendering, homophobic etc.), I will drop you, 20L, no tolerance for this at all. Make debate a safe environment.

Please be nice when post rounding

Speaking Stuff:

I'm good with speed, although for PF, I don't believe in spreading as PF is supposed to be accessible to the public. That being said, I will not take off speaks for solely speaking fast or spreading. If 10 is top speed spreading, then I can handle about a 8. I will try super hard to follow the round, but it'll be in your best interest to slow down. If you reach a point where I cannot understand a single word you are saying, I will yell "clear", and after that, I will start deducting speaks if you don't enunciate better.

Regardless of speed, send speech docs with ALL CUT cards and rhetoric. No higher than 28s if you don't send.

Can skip grand cross for 90 seconds of prep for both sides if both teams agree, good with open crosses.

Have fun! Debate is supposed to be a fun environment and be willing to interact with me. i am not a stone statue. Granted, don't force jokes or make the environment awkward.

If you'd like to see my flow at the end, stay after my rfd and ask.

-1 for saying "starting with an off-time road map". Just tell me what side to start and go to.

I.e "Starting on aff and moving to neg, line by line"

+1 for good synergy and energy with your partner (I won't dock you speaks if you don't because at that point you have enough problems to worry about)

Auto 30 speaks if you say "My little ops" when referring to your opponents in every speech and cross. Make it clear though if you're spreading cuz I might not catch it.

-0.5 for every time you're aggressive to your opponents in cross. Don't interrogate your opponents like they're a criminal.

If you think your opponents have no path to the ballot at any point during the round, you can call a TKO and I will look at my flow and if I agree, the round ends there. If I don't then you auto-lose the round.

Don't give speeches during cross, it's actually super annoying

I start at 28 and will go up and down from there.

I’ll give speaks based on strategy, how well i can understand you, and (if necessary) rhetoric

+1 if you make me laugh

My pet peeve is when people tell me to vote for an argument because morally I am supposed to vote there without explaining why it is morally wrong. (Don't just say "X is bad") If you want me to weigh your args as a prior question to your opponent's args, I need a solid warrant for that.

I am a parent judge. In my professional capacity, I am a Program Manager at a federal agency, where I design and implement research programs that fund environmental science projects. My educational back ground includes a BS in Biology, a MS in Marine Science, and a PhD in Ecology. My research experience focused on the reproductive biology and larval ecology of coral reef fishes. My general science interests have always centered around the question of why do animals do the things they do.

When it comes to the discussion of ideas, regardless of the topic, I do have one key philosophy. If a person makes a claim during an argument, but fails to provide any evidence to back that claim, I consider that just an opinion. An opinion is never a statement of fact. To me, evidence can only be provided by providing empirical data. Quoting an expert is not evidence to a claim and does not establish a fact. Rather than quoting the expert, one needs to explain the data that the expert used to make that quote. Basically, when making a statement, you should always ask yourself how do YOU know? Does the data that the expert gave to back their claim actually prove what the expert is claiming?

An example of my philosophy, can be seen in the claims about runaway global warming due to anthropogenic CO2. As an aside, I am not implying that the temperature of the Earth has not risen since the Little Ice Age. We know it has because we have empirical evidence. The claims that human activity is the main driver of the increase are made based on the results of computer simulations. These computer simulations are done with models that are built on incomplete knowledge of all the factors that regulate the Earth's climate. As such, they can only provide crude representations and cannot actually predict how climate will really change. The model results are not empirical data of how climate has or will change. The best a model can do in this case is tell us how well we currently understand climate and how our predictions stand against actual observations. So far, no climate model has been able to predict observed temperature correctly. British statistician George Box said it best... "All models are wrong, some are useful."

Another example is the claim that on average as a whole women salaries are 30% less than those for men. Although some making that claim do provide empirical data to show that result, the data in this case is not applicable because the question is not that simple at face value. In order to understand the differences between women and men salaries, one has to consider many other aspects. Are they are working the same or comparable jobs? If so, are they working the same amount of years/hours? One needs to correct for these differences and then look at the new data in order to determine if there is indeed a difference based on sex when it comes to wages.

As a scientist, there is another key philosophy I was taught. When looking at one's data, one needs to always consider that there may actually be alternative explanations to what we have found. Before one makes a conclusion, one needs to consider all possible alternatives. It is possible that more than one of those alternative explanations could explain our observations. In such cases, it is always prudent to consider the most simple explanation as the most likely. I have based this philosophy on the concepts of Occam's Razor and the Principle of Parsimony.

One last thought that I would like to make pertains to science and its practice in modern times. You will often read and hear claims that consensus has been reached on a scientific issue and thus the question is settled. Science as a discipline is one of constant inquiry. Science is never settled because one never knows if/when new observations will provide new insights on a scientific question and completely upend how we thought about the topic. Also, science is never done by consensus. Many scientists can agree on a theory but that does not make it true, much less a scientific law. It only takes one scientist to make new empirical observations that run contrary to current theory to make it null and establish a new understanding of the topic.

So I leave you with this take home message:

1) Beware of those that do not show you empirical data to back up a claim.

2) Beware of those that do not consider a question properly and look at the data without bias.

3) Beware of those that do not consider any other alternatives before making their claim.

4) Beware of those that do not understand that science is never settled and is never done by consensus.

As an old school judge I tend to make my decisions on the clash in the round and how well/clearly the arguments are developed/responded to. A dropped argument does not mean an automatic win for the team if it is not key to the main argument being presented. Evidence is important to me and arguments based on quality of sources, analysis on importance of post dates info, etc are acceptable but should not be the main focus of the debate. I also consider how well the teams treat each other, and rudeness can impact how I view the round. Finally, the last two speeches should be narrowed to winning arguments and articulated in such a way to be convincing. I will make my judgments based on what you say in the final speech, not what I think you meant.

Email - robbpluta@gmail.com - please include me on the email chain!

As an FYI, I don't coach for any teams currently, and last debated as a senior in high school, so I probably have a little less experience with the intricate details of a lot of arguments than other judges, especially as the season is starting. Explaining everything out to me, no matter how obvious it might seem, is a great way to earn my ballot.

Judging Philosophy - My default position is that debate is an educational competition, and that by exchanging arguments in this space we gain knowledge on the topic, the world, political mechanisms, activism, etc. I can be convinced out of this reasoning but sans framework it's where I default.

I am adamant that I vote only on the arguments presented to me in the round. If an argument is clearly abusive, doesn't link, makes no sense, has no supporting warrants - I am counting on YOU to be the one to point it out. This is a test of your skills, not mine. I've voted for DAs that clearly don't link simply because the Aff let's Neg get away with it - always call out the other team and don't count on me to do it.

A dropped argument is a conceded argument - but you need to point out why this wins you the round.

Slurs or abusive language/arguments designed to hurt others (racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc), is an auto-ballot against the violating team. "Fascism good" arguments fall under this category as well.

Sans above, I will be willing to vote for any argument, but historically, I've noted what I find more persuasive below.

Topicality - I'll be honest that I have rarely voted on T's that were not dropped in whole/in part. The neg needs to make the argument that T is a priori (as I will not assume this). The Neg should attempt to prove what education/ground has been lost by the aff with actual examples, otherwise I tend to be unconvinced. If you're going for T, make it the whole 2NR.

DAs - always cool (Unless you're going for "climate change good / isn't happening" in which case I will laugh you out of the room)

CPs - always cool - Neg run what you want, aff run theory it's abusive. Arguments that tell me "this is what debate will look like if we allow ______" are a must if you're arguing abuse.

Ks - cool if explained well. A layperson's explanation is a must, especially on psychoanalytic Ks. It's not necessary for K's critiquing Aff's specific plan epistemology to have an alt, but is never a bad idea. Ks that critique the resolution/general format of policy (IE 'state bad') should absolutely have one. Aff - always question the link.

FW - super cool - needs to be in every round.

Theory - cool - I'm probably in the minority of judges who think so. But debate is a competition, and debating best practices that allow everyone to play the competition are intriguing to me. Statements like "Debate becomes _______" or "Debate will look like ________" are essential.

Performance Affs - cool, but should still be "topical". At minimum, a "plan text" that states "We [do the resolution] by ________".

Impact Calc - absolutely necessary. Probability / questioning the link always seems neglected in favor of magnitude, which would be a mistake for me.

General Things I like:

- SLOW DOWN on your Tags! and tell me NEXT when moving on!

- Explicitly contrasting FW/Role of the Ballot.

- Explaining the benefits or drawbacks of the world of the alt

- Questioning the warrants of cards

- Reading more than just the T or Theory shells.

- Theory debates where we are having honest discussions on game theory/what is best for debate, and moving beyond shell arguments.

Things I'm not the biggest fan of:

- Running Condo with less than 4 off case

- 5 or more off case

- Elections DAs more than 6 months before an election

- Sticking ONLY with T or Theory Shells

- Reading off standards/voters in T/Theory without explaining what they mean (What the heck is "reasonable"? Or "education"?)

- Not explaining the warrants/alt of the K to me.

- Heck, reading any K and not being able to explain it with current / relevant examples outside the space of the round

I debated all throughout high school, so I am very familiar with the mechanics of PF debate. Here is what I ask of you in each round:

1. Be kind and polite to your competitors. Being rude will affect speaker points, and in some extreme cases, the outcome of the round.

2. Talk at a pace that is reasonable to everyone in the round. I can flow speed and will clear you if you are just going too fast, but if I think that you are using speed as a tool to make the round inaccessible to your competitors, that may affect speaker points/outcome of the round.

3. Provide a clear explanation of why you should be winning the round. This will help you to be more sure of the outcome of the round. If you leave me to weigh impacts or compare frameworks, you are giving me a lot of control over the outcome of the round.

4. Provide evidence in a clear and accessible manner. I am totally fine with "Author Name, Year" citations (and in fact, I think this is how you should always cite after the first time you mention the card), but make sure that your citations are consistent and accurate. I will not ask for evidence at the end of the round (unless there is some major disagreement about what the card actually says in the round) because I feel that this is the responsibility of the debaters.

--If evidence is requested by your opponents, you must produce it in 90 seconds, or it will eat into your prep time. When reviewing evidence, that is your prep time. If I think you are using evidence request as a means to steal prep time, I will call you out and it will be reflected in your speaker points.

5. CrossX is a time for asking and answering questions. If I think that you are abusing the purpose of CrossX to respond to your opponent's answers, I will interrupt you. If it continues, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

6. Please feel free to ask me any questions you may have. Debate is an excellent learning opportunity, and if there is anything that I can do to make it more educational, just let me know. I am always available via email: rmreilly@umich.edu.

Thank you! Good luck!

Hello competitors! (Email if you need it: markremington05@gmail.com)

I'm Mark, (He/him) and I'm a senior at Dexter HS. I have debated PF for 5 years and counting. With that said, I'm very familiar with this format, so I'll be timing, flowing, disclosing, and all that good stuff. I'm writing this pretty last second, so lmk if you have any questions. Don't do/say anything that your coach wouldn't approve of, and you'll be great! Good luck!

Hello, my name is Sydney RG and I am a senior at Dow High who has debated for the last 4 years at the state and national level in both PF and LD. Feel free to ask me questions before or after the round. I like to keep it simple with judging so feel free to debate how you want as long as it is within the topic. I will be watching time but please keep your own.

Some important things to remember-

• Try to weigh the impacts in your case vs your opponents
• Framework is important but only when used successfully
• Persuasion is a key element in the debate
• Have fun!!

Public Forum Debate:

I competed all 4 years of high school in Public Forum at Dexter High School, and have been coaching/judging since 2018. I mainly judge on use of impact weighing, cohesive arguments and responses, and unique/compelling arguments.

I judge on a mix of tech/truth. I won't necessarily drop a rebuttal or response with theory and no evidence as long as it makes sense, but for larger arguments that your case relies on, evidence is necessary. Decorum during the round (rudeness, interrupting repeatedly during crossfire, et cetera) will affect your score, more on this below. I don't flow crossfire and I don't judge on it, but I will be paying attention for contradictions or lack of knowledge/an answer. I'm not a fan of offtime roadmaps, considering they waste time during the round and serve very little purpose. If you signpost your speech properly, you won't need an offtime roadmap.

At the end of the day, I'll judge mostly on voter issues mentioned in the summary/FF, in terms of what arguments have been dropped, responded to, or are still standing, so make sure to collapse and/or mention your strongest points during the round at the end.

If any of the students in the round are having decorum issues, it will greatly affect my decision. I've noticed that most of these issues happen during crossfire, due to how easy it is to get frustrated with your opponent. While I was competing, I was definitely quick to make a crossfire heated - there's a pretty easy fix for this. Your speeches and your arguments should be addressed to me, and not your opponent. Your job is not to wear down your opponent until they concede, your job is to convince me that your arguments are more important. I hope this reframing of the debate can help some of you, even if crossfire isn't something you initially struggle with. Remember, we're here to learn and have fun, not to get angry at each other over arguments that really don't even matter in reality.

Forensics:

Now that forensics is slowly moving to Tabroom, I'll add a little blurb here about it. I competed in both interp and PA events, but found the most success later on in my forensics career in Broadcasting. I am more inclined towards the PA events and will probably be far more helpful as a judge in those events. If you're in interp and you've gotten a basically blank critique sheet from me, I sincerely apologize (if I have nothing to say it means I had nothing bad to say and didn't really notice you doing anything wrong).

That being said, in interp, there are a few things that I do not appreciate. First, adding too much emotion to lines that don't need that much emotion. If the only way you can come across as upset is by screaming your lines, try something else, like using facial expressions. I know a lot of you have pieces that require you to make loud noises, which is fine, but remember that there are usually people competing right next door. Screaming your entire piece is going to give me a headache and it's going to interrupt the round next door. Secondly, adding in incredibly dramatic scenes that make no sense with the cutting/story you're trying to convey. If you're conveying a character arc that has nothing to do with mental illness or suicide and then out of nowhere your character commits suicide, I will find it in bad taste unless there's a reason for it to be there. I don't take lightly to specifically issues of suicide and it won't give you extra points for having a more "emotional" program. Third, if you can do a cartwheel or a back handspring or whatever sort of gymnastic feat, please do not put it in your piece unless your piece calls for your character to do a gymnastic feat. I once judged a round where three people randomly did cartwheels and I had to decide who had the best cartwheel - please don't make me do that again. Thank you.

I've been a public forum debater for six years, and competed in 3 years of extemp and two years of duo commentary in forensics. State champion in public form and DC.

About Me: I went to a small high school and took debate class for all four years. I participated in policy debate, but we often did not compete in co-curricular events. I also joined the CMU Debate team for a semester and participated in Lincoln Douglas debate. In 2007, I judged forensics for MIFA as a student teacher at Utica High School. It has been about 10 years, but I just started coaching and judging Public Forum debate for Utica High School.

Judging Criteria: Providing framework is important, along with clear road mapping throughout your speech. Repeat your framework throughout the speech and adhere to that in your final focus. I usually flow the entire debate and judge primarily off of the flow, but I also weigh persuasiveness, evidence, logic, and refutations. I pay close attention to "dropped" arguments, so I suggest that you and your partner flow as to refute their arguments. Clash is very important to me in a debate. Use all of your speaker time - I am looking for your speech to refute the other teams' arguments, then strengthen your teams' arguments with supplemental evidence. Clear communication is important. Make eye contact as frequent as possible, I also prefer a conversational style, opposed to jargon that a "lay" judge would not understand. I am judging based on the quality of your arguments made - not the quantity. Speakers should appear confident, with clear, logical relevant arguments and recent evidence.

I like confidence in a speaker, but I do not like cockiness or being mean while debating. This is supposed to be fun and educational, so I expect you to keep it classy. Do not look at each other during cross fire - you are trying to persuade me - not your opponent. Do not make statements during cross fire - save that for your summary or final focus. Ask meaningful questions during cross fire, as it can be a turning point for a debate. I am not going to judge a debate based on how "pretty" you speak, but I take your communication style along with case, evidence & arguments into consideration.

Hey, my name is Jake, not "Judge".

Addressing me as "Judge" just makes me feel not human and not present in the conversation we're having.

Since the Fall of 2019, I have judged and coached predominantly public forum and congressional debate for Dexter High School. I graduated from MSU with a degree in international relations. I am currently pursuing a Masters in Integrative Management and am a graduate admissions counselor for Michigan State.

I competed in policy debate with MSU from Fall 2015-Spring 2017. I attended Canyon Springs High School in North Las Vegas, Nevada. I’ve done all the forms of debate throughout middle and high school (PF for two middle school years, LD for one year, Congress for a few tournaments, and Policy my sophomore through senior year).

I want to give back to the activity that gave me so much.

I have paradigms written in the order:

1. Public Forum

2. Congress

3. Policy

4. Lincoln Douglas

Public Forum

Please remember that Debate is much more about developing skills than winning a singular debate. I conceptualize Public Forum as an event which can be watched by anyone. You are encouraged to speak clearly rather than "spread". You should strive to learn all the short-hand, technology, and research skills of any other debate. Don't imitate the speaking quirks of other debates.

I'm very much a "flow" judge. I don't care about the things I know about the topic outside of the round, I hope to be completely tabula rasa. If a team says the sky is orange, and it goes uncontested, I will vote assuming the sky is orange. If your response to "The sky is orange." is "That just doesn't make sense, because it's not." I do not want to be the one who does the work for you to assume that because it is not orange it is blue.

I strongly believe that teams should time themselves and call out their opponent when it is "time". If you say you want to use 30 seconds of prep, I will not tell you when those 30 seconds are up, unless you explicitly ask me to be your timer. I will just keep running your time.

You have 3:00 minutes of prep. Use it well. Do not steal prep before speeches. You should be ready when you say you're done. You should immediately go into cross-ex or the next speech. Setting your timer or document up to read is part of prep. Please get better at being more efficient.

Constructives:

I believe the first speaker holds the responsibility of providing definitions and the necessary context for understanding the topic. I do think definitions and context can be framed strategically in favor of the side in which the team is arguing; therefore, I would entertain counter definitions (and warrants to use one definition over another). Also, see the paragraph below about Framework.

I believe that if you are the second speaker, it is strategic for you to have a plethora of contentions that you can draw from to form a case that has built-in answers or "turns" for your opponent's case. For example, you know that you can only fit three contentions into your case to be within time. Yet, you have 5 or 6 possible contentions that you can put together to make a cohesive case. Reading one of your contentions that you know gives you a leg up on your opponents by either turning their argument or refuting their argument is strategic. It will also limit the ability of the first speaker to spread you out after their first rebuttal because the second rebuttal has to not only answer the first rebuttal but provide answers to the opponent's case.

I like it when teams use a lot of evidence, but if you have evidence that is using percentages, decimals, and whole numbers, please just do the conversion so they are all the same. I generally don't like data laundry lists, unless you specifically tell me why each point of data matters.

Summary:

Your summary should invest a lot of your speech time in impact comparison. Go through magnitude, timeline, reversibility (whether there is a brink point), etc. You need to be contextualizing your link scenario. You can not jump from an overview to saying that causes nuclear war without telling me who is fighting and why.

I catch maybe 50% of the authors/citations from the constructives. You can not just say "Extend Krueger" as an answer or extension. I probably don't know what evidence you're referring to. I would prefer if you say, "Extend Krueger which says...". At that point, I will usually catch the citation and call for the evidence if I really need to. I rarely call for evidence.

Final Focus:

Your final focus should start with a Reason for Decision. Tell me at the start the reasons I should vote for you and what my ballot does (does it fiat, actually save lives, decide on a decision about the rules of debate, or is it just a logical decision for which side I think is best.). The best teams can rehash the debate and close all the doors line-by-line.

Cross-Examination:

You should not be asking your opponent to reiterate anything. You should be asking leading questions like, "You said [paraphrase], correct?", "Your first contention was X, correct?". Asking "What was your first contention?" or "Can you explain your link scenario?" just gives your opponents more speech time and often leads to filibustering. If you ask these questions, you're lucky if you get good speaker points. I like teams who filibuster if their opponents don't know how to cross-examine them. I would like cross-ex to end at 3:00 minutes, not 3:30 because you're allowing the other team to ramble.

I don't typically flow cross-examination, but if you're asked a question like, "What is Iran's motivation to attack Israel?" and your response is, "Their feud goes way back." That doesn't give me much confidence that you actually understand your argument. This means your extension of that argument in the speech is just a reiteration with no contextualization, and that's not a good argument.

Framework:

In most of the PF debates I've seen, framework is not argued properly, and it has become an unnecessary 10 seconds of everyone's speech time. If a framework is not mentioned, I assume I should vote for the team attempting to do the greatest good for all people (general utilitarianism). If you want to provide a framework that tells me to vote for the good of America, the poor, the few, etc. tell me, and my ballot will assume that framework unless argued against. If you do not want to contest your opponent's framework, you don't have to. If the framework goes uncontested after the first constructive on either side, I don't need you to extend it through to your summary and final focus.

I think you can tell me whether my ballot has any actual meaning in the world. Does my ballot have a real world impact as soon as I vote? I would also entertain a framework that tells me to vote for the team that provides the best education/practice of skills because my ballot does not impact real policy.

Evidence Sharing:

Public Forum evidence sharing rules are dumb and unclear.

Any evidence read/cited in the round must be made available to the opponent upon request. Teams ought to be able to find and electronically share their evidence very, very rapidly. If the time spent finding a piece of evidence is beyond 90 seconds, I will begin taking prep away from the team asked to provide the evidence. The lack of prep time CANNOT be a reason to deny a team the chance to see their opponent’s evidence.
If a team simply cannot produce their evidence or is out of prep time to find it, it will be dismissed.
Time spent reading the opponent’s evidence must be timed in some way, either as prep time or while another speech/crossfire is underway.

Kritiks:

PF has not evolved to include Kritiks, from what I've seen. I don't think it should evolve in that direction. Four minutes doesn't really allow you enough time to make a good case for a Kritik like argument, and I think Public Forum should really be about developing real-world skills.

Word Choice:

I started to say “y’all” instead of gendered pronouns, but I don’t think what you say outside of your speech or cross-ex should be a reason to lose the debate; unless the team is clearly sexist/racist/etc.

Conduct:

If you enter the room while someone else is talking, I will hold a vendetta against you forever. I’m okay with everyone acting casual and having a good time. I always enjoyed the debates I had against my friends and with judges that I knew. Don’t be afraid to roll up your sleeves, loosen up, and wear whatever. I'll be happy if we are all comfortable and relaxed.

Congressional Debate

My ballots are typically short and include whether you've made an appeal to ethos, logos, or pathos. I try to judge congressional debate as interactive original oratory. Therefore, you should be hold yourself in the role of a senator and making the most appropriate appeal. I judge based on persuasive your speech was in relation to the other debaters, but also how well you held to the appeal you thought was most important on the topic. Make sure you're reading the entirety of the legislation, and speaking to the legislation as written and not the top line idea. Please cite your evidence or at least introduce your author.

Politics is a cut-throat world. I find it humorous that most of the congress rounds I've watched have devolved into this utopian atmosphere where you find a way to make sure everyone can give a speech. I do not like to reward students for being cordial in a competitive event. The presiding officer has the responsibility to give everyone fair and equal opportunities to speak. The other competitors can strategically use the rules of order to be more competitive. If you are consistently overriding the rules to allow multiple Pro speeches in a row, you are not doing anyone favors.

You should be preparing speeches for multiple legislation per round. If you missed your opportunity to speak on the one legislation you had prepared, that sounds like your fault. I also think there are plenty of pieces of legislation that are debatable on both sides, so if you can't play the devil's advocate on lop-sided legislation, you are not "playing the game".

Each speech should have clash. Rebuttal (with a direct reference to the senator who made the argument) is an example of clash. Adding nuance to another senator's point that was on your side is clash. If you are rehashing the same points, you are not clashing, and will not be rewarded for doing so. As the author of a bill, or first speaker on the bill, I evaluate your positive clash by seeing whether you have introduced all the major talking points on your side. I think you can introduce the talking points briefly, and allow other legislators to add evidence.

I think it is very difficult to judge the presiding officer. So long as the presiding officer is staying organized, and doesn't make mistakes, they typically do well. I think presiding officers hold the responsibility of encouraging good debate. They do not have to entertain every motion to postpone the rules and allow the last person to speak if the previous speeches on the topic have only been rehash. Given that presiding officers typically do well, I think it should be a competitive appointment. Unanimous decisions for who should be PO typically mean the kids know who the best in the round is.

For all points of order, I try to use Robert's Rules of Order. I'm no expert, but you should be: http://www.rulesonline.com/index.html

Policy Debate

Speed: You do you. I’m pretty good at following arguments if you’re clear and do work signposting. I have experience debating in front of flow and lay judges so I understand any experience level. Some speeds are impossible to follow unless you have a speech doc; don’t go that fast. I don’t think I ever want to get in the habit of flowing on my computer so you will most likely see me flowing on paper.

Theory: I’d vote on theory if it was dropped. Everyone has to lose on condo at least once in their life. If you’re going to make theory the only thing left in the debate, it needs to take up all of your time and you need to do a good job explaining why they’re abusive. Condo is really only abusive if there is more than 1 of each argument, but I can see either side. I’d still vote on condo (in some cases) if the neg met that interpretation but dropped condo.

T: I really only like watching T if the aff is clearly untopical, or if it’s a Kritikal affirmative. I evaluate the analysis of abuse the same as if it were theory. I don’t mind you putting T in the 1NC if you think it would be a viable 2NR option. I went for “T quid-pro-quo” on the Latin America topic quite a bit, but I knew it was really silly. I can also justify T if it is purely for laughs.

CP/DA: 99% of the time these were my go-to arguments in high school. Go for anything here! Extra bonus if you have aff specific arguments. I don't have too much experience going for politics as the Neg. I always went for PC isn't real as the aff and winners win. It's hard for me to vote on an unquantifiable influence token. I am willing to evaluate the evidence and determine my opinion of politics in the round.

K: Don’t read things that you haven’t done background research on. I read the security k and cap/neolib k throughout high school because I read a ton of books about them. I wrote a 25 page research paper on reevaluating American capitalism during my senior year of high school. I have background with any queer theory/gender/sexuality arguments you might have. Other than that, I’m not very familiar with most arguments, but if you do a good job explaining it, I’ll vote on it. Anything is fair game if it isn’t absolutely absurd. Coming from a background with little experience against the kritik, I can sympathize with the teams that freak out when a Kritik is read against them, but I won’t vote for them if they don’t answer the argument. If you can teach me new things, I’ll be happy.

K Affs: I really don’t understand the purpose of Kritikal affirmatives that don’t have a plan text. Most of the time I just hear implications of what voting aff means without getting a concrete answer. You should have a reason to vote aff, and I’m not sure what the reason is without a plan. I’ll vote for you if you do a good job explaining it. I have a litany of ways I’d scrutinize performative arguments that come from my background in interp. Go for what you do best.

Performance arguments: Most of my high school success came from Humorous Interpretation, where I qualified to the NIETOC twice. While I don’t think this will affect how you debate, it should make you think about how you read any performative arguments in front of me. I have been a 2A, 2N, and double 2s. I had a different partner every year in high school. I was mostly self-taught in policy, and my coach advised me to do a lot of silly things. I was part of the only policy team our school had. Therefore, I understand if you aren’t familiar with certain arguments or have limited backfiles, because I was in the same boat. I always preferred judge philosophies that were broke up into categories after the intro; therefore:

Offense vs. Defense: I feel like there are scenarios where the neg can win if they only have defensive arguments at the end of the debate, but don’t make that your priority. In that instance, I would evaluate that scenario as the world is better without the aff. Yet, I’d vote aff in that scenario if they proved benefits outweighed the cost.

Flashing/Prep/CX: Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves the computer/email is sent unless there is a clear computer malfunction. Otherwise, it’s just inefficiency on your part. Don’t steal prep time. I am alright with tag team cross-ex, but don’t take all of your partner’s time. Cross-ex is a good opportunity to elaborate on arguments that have been/will be made.

Word Choice: I started to say “y’all” instead of gendered pronouns, but I don’t think what you say outside of the 8/5 speech or cross-ex should be a reason to lose the debate; unless the team is clearly sexist/racist/etc. I’m okay with some cussing, but don’t make it like you’re talking to your best friend. If the other team reads an argument against you for cussing, I’ll laugh and vote for it if it is good.

Conduct: If you enter the room while someone else is talking, I will hold a vendetta against you forever. I’m okay with everyone acting casual and having a good time. I always enjoyed the debates I had against my friends and with judges that I knew, because it was fairly laid back. Don’t be afraid to roll up your sleeves, loosen up, and wear whatever. If you can make me feel comfortable, I’ll be happy.

Bonus points: I like people that express Spartan pride. Make good jokes and puns while speaking. Dance at any appropriate time during the debate. Make a reference to someone you know from Las Vegas. My dad is a magician. If you can do a relevant magic trick, I’d be amazed.

Lincoln Douglas:

I am predominantly a public forum judge and a former policy debater. I'm still learning the nuances of Lincoln Douglas, but hopefully, I can provide you with a clear paradigm. Most importantly, I want you to debate in whatever manner you feel comfortable debating. I can adapt.

I'm very much a "flow" judge. I don't care about the things I know about the topic outside of the round, I hope to be completely tabula rasa. If a team says the sky is orange, and it goes uncontested, I will vote assuming the sky is orange. If your response to "The sky is orange." is "That just doesn't make sense, because it's not." I do not want to be the one who does the work for you to assume that because it is not orange it is blue.

I strongly believe that teams should time themselves and call out their opponent when it is "time". If you say you want to use 30 seconds of prep, I will not tell you when those 30 seconds are up, unless you explicitly ask me to be your timer. I will just keep running your time.

In Lincoln Douglas, I think it is important for each side to present a value and value criterion. If one side has the two, but the other side does not, I will assume I should follow the uncontested value and value criterion.

I am familiar with most philosophies from either my policy experience or the classes I took in college. I'm not a huge fan of advertisements of nihilism, but could be persuaded to understand that some life events are inevitable or needed.

Hi, my name is Leah and I'm a graduated senior from Apple Valley, Minnesota who debated LD for three years. I occasionally coach and judge today.

I will stop flowing when the timer goes off, finish your sentence and wrap it up!

Congress:

I have never judged congress before + have seen one round, not familiar with community norms or the format. I value argumentative quality higher than presentation. I would like to see strong clash and courtesy to your fellow debaters!

WSD:

I will knock once at 1 minute, 7 minutes, 8 minutes, and keep knocking at 8:15. I understand argument norms are different and I'll do my best to adhere to them, but I do have a background in LD that can tell you how I value different arguments. I personally value argumentative quality stronger than presentation, but will still allocate points for speaking ability. I also think clash is really awesome, please respond to your opponents arguments- the easiest way to get higher points. WEIGH- this style of debate will end up with tons of loose ends and tying it all together for me is the best path to the ballot. Yeah, I get you're winning your offense, but you have to explain to me why its important even if your opponent is winning all of their offense.

PF:

I have only judged a PF tournament once, so the thing I am least familiar with is community norms. With arguments, hopefully, anything in my paradigm about LD will tell you how I'll view the round. I'm not sure how important framing is in PF, so if its significant to your case, explain that in your speeches. If winning framing means you win the round, tell me that and tell me why. I've found so far that winning framing does not usually do much for debaters in the round. Weigh your impacts against your opponent and point out when they aren't responding to your arguments. Be clear in the way you speak and be respectful of your opponent.

I will keep time for you, but I expect you to keep track of it once it has been established and be able to cut yourself off once your speech time is over. If you tell me when you're starting/ending your prep time, that is ideal for me. I will cut you off and stop flowing once time is over.

TRADITIONAL/NOVICE LD:

Make sure to let me know when you are starting and ending prep!

I am familiar with a good amount of philosophy run on the local MN circuit and I enjoy clashing framework debates more than util. That said, I will still evaluate fairly in a consequentialist debate. I can keep up with decent speed, but clarity is important. If you are a novice and you are running theory/Ks/T/spikes/etc and your opponent clearly doesn't know how to handle it, I will not vote on it. I think the circuit is a great way to test skills in JV or Varsity but when you're first learning how to debate it's more important to understand the basics first.

I will weigh the flow under the winning framework, but tell me what the most important impacts are and relate your voting issues back to that framework. If winning the framework means you automatically win the round, make sure to lay that out for me. Weigh your impacts well.

JV/VARSITY LD:

circuit voting preference is stock>Phil>T>LARP>Ks>Theory. Don't run tricks please. I have a higher preference for legitimate theory arguments or actual in-round abuse, but mostly, I just would strongly prefer not to evaluate a theory debate for your own good because I'm super unfamiliar with the hundreds of one-line analytic arguments that you need to win a theory debate. Also not really sure how to evaluate any layers outside of topicality coming first, so please lay it out in round if theory or the K comes first before substance. Anything you run circuit you run at your own risk. If there is an email chain, please add me : leah.kay.willingham@gmail.com . I can keep up with speed more than a local circuit round, but anything much faster than that I may not catch all of the arguments you are making. I have some background in basic circuit debate and understand arguments like cap K's, philosophy, T, and other theory. If you are making a theory argument, I am more apt to vote on a legitimate argument than frivolous one. If your case is complex and nontraditional, make extra sure to explain the line of reasoning. Same thing with Queer Ks, Afropess, Setcol, or Fem Ks: I understand the basics of these but do a good job with the line of reasoning and the voting issues. I will probably not buy any argument saying my role as a judge is to do anything other than vote for the better debater. Don't use guilt-tripping as a mechanism to get me to vote for your social K, you will get lower speaks.

Other than all of that, have fun and enjoy the debate! Please be respectful to your opponent and I will automatically drop you + give 0 speaks if you are being racist/sexist/xenophobic/homophobic/etc. But hopefully, we won't have to deal with that.

My background

I’m a financial compliance attorney in my professional life.

Professionalism

Please conduct your debate respectfully toward the judge and your opponents.

General

I try to weigh arguments and style equally. I weigh arguments and analytics equally as well. Your arguments should be clearly articulated at a reasonable pace. Eye contact with the judge and opponents is important to me.

Overall, every debate is unique in its qualities and I try to review them them each based on their own merits. Therefore, my final decision may be swayed by different qualities each time.

Please feel free to ask me any questions after the debate. I like to give feedback in person.

Have a great tournament and have fun!

I’ve been coaching for West Bloomfield High School and judging for 7 years. I do not like to intervene and put my personal opinions into the debate. It is up to the debaters to decide how the round will go and to back up their claims through sufficient evidence and reasoning.

DECORUM

Above all else, you are learning and growing as debaters. Any abusive or overly competing behavior does nothing for the educational activity that debate is intended to be.

I do not like when debaters cut each other off during CX. This is a time to understand your opponents case, how are you going to do that if you won’t let them finish their response to the question YOU asked? Keep it down to questions, this is not time to argue. I prefer you address your opponents'caseinstead of addressing them directly.

SPEED

When I'm judging, I don't get to ask you clarification questions in the round like your opponents do, so -- above all else -- prioritize being understood by ME and not just trying to read fast so you have more on the flow. Remember, for me to flow it, I have to be able to listen to and understand what you're going for; prioritize clarity over speed.

Do NOT spread (speed-read). Anything over 300 wpm (look up a video for reference) is "speeding". It's not like I can stop you from speed-reading, but I only flow the things I can listen to AND understand, not just the remnants of things you vaguely enunciated at 10000mph. I don't care if you've disclosed your entire speech verbatim; if you can't read that speech in a way that I can understand without me looking at your disclosed speech doc, you'll have a tough time with the flow.

SPEECHES

Please signpost your arguments! "Signposting" is stating what argument you're responding to before you start responding to it. It helps to organize and understand what you say for both your opponents and the judge.

Cross-examinations: I have always thought CXs were the most important part of any debate round, so listen closely. If you or your opponent say something in VERY stark contrast to your case, that goes on my ballot. Essentially, anything that raises a big red flag goes on the flow. This, however, does not happen often and can be arbitrary since there's no definitive scale for what's considered "in stark contrast" to a case. Thus, your best bet is to mention anything from CX that's of importance in a speech as soon as possible to ensure it gets on my flow.If you ask good questions & are polite here, I typically give high speaks.

STYLE

I'm a mix of Tech and Truth judging. Tech means judging exclusively on what's said in the round; Truth means judging based on how true your args are to the real world. I think any good judge should consider both -- it can prevent debaters from substantiating args that are exceedingly unrealistic but also holds debaters accountable for making realistic args (or at the very least, bringing them up at the appropriate time).

I fact-check any and all "Truths" before I use them in a decision. If it's highly controversial, out of date, or not concrete enough, I just don't use it in voting and default to whatever you told me in the round. In other words, unless you literally have me trembling in utter fear about being nuked to extinction/pandemic'd to oblivion/whatever, I'm probably going to factor in the more realistic impact.

THEORY & Kritiks

Preferably not in PF... Theory/Ks maybe, but it should be topical and relevant by the time you bring it up. I would vote for theories/kritiks if they're outstandingly clear, but I should be shaking in my boots at the mere thought of not voting for your theory/K.No tricks whatsoever-- they're super abusive and I'm not voting on that.

PET PEEVES

Please do not say "Judge, we've won this debate," because you don't know that.

When you are done with your speech, let me know by saying some variation of "we urge a (pro/con) ballot" or some indicator that you are done. Otherwise I might just think you are taking a long pause.

TLDR

Don’t be an abusive jerk and you’ll be fine.