I have been judging various events for 2 years. I always try to bury any personal knowledge or belief about topics and judge solely on what is presented in the round by the debaters.

I look for well-defined arguments that are educational and don't assume previous knowledge. I prefer hearing fewer well-defined arguments than a litany of arguments that are spoken at a rapid pace to deliver as much information as possible. I strongly prefer a debater to not use spreading as a method of debate, it sounds like jibberish to me.

I look for respect toward opponents. I like a natural flow of speech and a tone that is passionate but not shrill.

I am a new judge and what I will look for is clear defined arguments that are backed with good and multiple evidence.

My preferences:

• Please speak clearly/slowly (do no spread!).
• I appreciate arguments backed with relevant statistics.
• Make sure you connect your arguments/contentions to your framework.

This is my first year as a judge, but I love it.

Here are a few things I have learned I prefer over this past year.

1. Focus on your clarity both of your argument and your speech over the speed of which you are speaking. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge what you are saying. I am not a fan of spreading.
2. Show me you understand your argument and use evidence to support it.
3. Be confident and have fun.
4. Be respectful of your opponent.
5. If you have any questions of me please ask.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

Charlotte Latin School (2022-), formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that sometimes and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I can't do all that work for you.

GENERAL:

COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key!

If you present a framework/ROB, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).

I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.

I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.

Not a fan of tricks.

LD:

Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is, and give me clear judge instruction in the round (the trad rounds I judge have much fewer win conditions, so explain to me why your arguments should trigger my ballot. If I can't understand what exactly your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.)

PF:

Please collapse the round!

I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.

CONGRESS:

Argument quality and evidence are more important to me than pure speaking skills & polish.

Show me that you're multifaceted -- quality over quantity. I'll always rank someone who can pull off an early speech and mid-cycle ref or late-cycle crystal over someone who gives three first negations in a row.

I reward flexibility/leadership in chamber: be willing to preside, switch sides on an uneven bill, etc.

WORLDS:

Generally looking for you to follow the norms of the event: prop sets the framework for the round (unless abusive), clear intros in every speech, take 1-2 points each, keep content and rhetoric balanced.

House prop should be attentive to motion types -- offer clear framing on value/fact motions, and a clear model on policy motions.

On argument strategy: I'm looking for the classic principled & practical layers of analysis. I place more value on global evidence & examples.

This is my first year judging as an LD parent judge. Do not spread or excessively use jargon. Please go slow, give voters, signpost, and weigh. I value well reasoned and logically sound arguments.

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

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

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

You can sit or stand, either are fine.

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

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

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

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

Parent judge, please slow down and explain your arguments clearly.

Sending docs would be nice but you don't have to - xhm1031@hotmail.com

Lynne Coyne, Myers Park HS, NC. 20+ years experience across formats

GENERAL COMMENTS

I have coached debate, and been a classroom teacher, for a long time. I feel that when done well, with agreed upon “rules of engagement”, there is not a better activity to provide a training ground for young people.

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is parallel to that of an instructor. I will evaluate your performance. I see my role as to set a fair, but stringent, set of expectations for the students I am judging. At times, this means advancing expectations that I feel are best for the students and, at times, the broader community as well. I see myself as a critic of argument , or in old school policy lingo, a hypothesis tester. The resolution is what I vote for or against, rather than just your case or counterplan, unless given a compelling reason otherwise.

Below please find a few thoughts as to how I evaluate debates.

1. Speed is not a problem. In most of the debates I judge, clarity IS the problem not the speed of spoken word itself. I reserve the right to yell “clear” once or twice…after that, the burden is on the debater. I will show displeasure… you will not be pleased with your points. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable but I recognize that low point wins are often a needed option, particularly in team events. The debater adapts to the audience to transmit the message-not the opposite. I believe I take a decent flow of the debate.

2. I generally dislike theory debates littered with jargon (exception is a good policy T debate that has communication implications and standards—if you’ve known me long enough this will still make you shake your head perhaps). Just spewing without reasons why an interpretation is superior for the round and the activity is meaningless. Disads run off the magical power of fiat are rarely legitimate since fiat is just an intellectual construct. I believe all resolutions are funadamentally questions of WHO should do WHAT--arguments about the best actor are thus legitimate. I am not a person who enjoys random bad theory debates and ugly tech debates. I judge debates based on what is said and recorded on my flow--not off of shared docs which can become an excuse for incomprehensibilty. I look at cards/docs only if something is called into question.

3. Evidence is important. In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues (particularly empirical ones), in addition to a comparison of competing warrants in the evidence, is important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, I am likely to prefer your argument if the comparison is done well. All students should have full cites for materials.

4. I am not a “blank state”. I also feel my role as a judge is to serve a dual function of rendering a decision, in addition to serving a role as educator as well. I try not to intervene on personal preferences that are ideological, but I believe words do matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic etc will not be tolerated. If I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round, I will intervene.

The ballot acts as a teaching tool NOT a punishment.

5. Answer questions in cross-examination/cross-fire. Cross-ex is binding. I do listen carefully to cross – ex. Enter the content of CX into speeches to translate admissions into arguments. Do not all speak at once in PF and do allow your partner to engage equally in grand cross fire.

6. Debating with a laptop is a choice, if you are reading from a computer I have three expectations that are nonnegotiable:

A) You must jump the documents read to the opposition in a timely manner (before your speech or at worse IMMEDIATELY after your speech) to allow them to prepare or set up an email chain.

B) If your opponent does not have a laptop you need to have a viewing computer OR surrender your computer to them to allow them to prepare. The oppositions need to prep outweighs your need to prep/preflow in that moment in time.

C) My expectation is that the documents that are shared are done in a format that is the same as read by the debater that initially read the material. In other words, I will not tolerate some of the shenanigan’s that seem to exist, including but not limited to, using a non standard word processing program, all caps, no formatting etc..

7. Weighing and embedded clash are a necessary component of debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. A dropped argument will rarely alone equal a ballot in isolation.

8. An argument makes a claim, has reasoning, and presents a way to weigh the implications (impacts). I feel it takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments. If an argument is just a claim, it will carry very little impact.

POLICY

At the NCFL 2023 I will be judging policy debate for the first time in a decade. Here is the warning: I know the generic world of policy, but not the acronyms, kritiks, etc., of this topic. You need to slow down to make sure I am with you. As in all forms of debate, choice of arguments in later speeches and why they mean you win not only the argument, but the round, is important. If you are choosing to run a policy structured argument in another format--better be sure you have all your prima facia burdens met and know the demands of that format.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Please ask me specific questions if you have one before the debate.

As a parent judge, I offer patience, fairness and I can empathize with the trials and pressure that each debater experiences during the rounds of competitive debate. With that being said, I value a cordial and respectful environment during each round.

Here is some insight to a few things that may encumber my ability to evaluate information and arguments fairly and impartially.

Structure: I am very much a traditional flow judge. I am not comfortable with progressive styles. Please make your Value and Value Criterion clear at the beginning, weave them into your case, and tell me explicitly why your framework is better than your opponent's.

Speed: I prefer a well-developed argument to spreading. Stay on topic and debate the merits of the given topic. It will allow for my fullest engagement and fairest evaluation.

Style: I appreciate assertiveness but dislike aggression. Explain to me the reasons for why you believe you won the round. Clarity of thought and logic for me will trump fast speech and bravado every time.

Traditional LD judge. This is not policy. I look for a solid clash of values throughout and would prefer that you avoid jargon as much as possible. A thoughtful and well-supported value structure is more important to me than individual cards.

I prefer that when you are speaking you speak clearly. If you are talking too fast and I miss some of your information I consider that to be your fault.

I do not mind if you sit or stand.

Kindly request you to go slow during the debate process.

Be respectful to your opponent.

Be positive in your approach.

I'm a flay judge with experience in PF and LD.

I don't fully flow cross; if you want something to be flowed, extend in the next speech.

Make sure to extend in summary/final focus/final speech.

Please SIGNPOST any speech later than 1st rebuttal so I know where to flow.

Always weigh so I have a clear reason to vote for something. I'm not very experienced with metaweighing. I know some judges don't evaluate probability, but I will as long as you implicate your reasoning.

If you're going to use ACRONYMS, please establish them with me before the round.

I don't like spreading; I need to be able to understand what you're saying to put it on my flow.

I don't evaluate theory or K’s.

Hello! This is my first time at Nationals and I'm really looking forward to judging at the National level for the first time. I have been judging for the past 2 years and have judged both Debate and Speech events.

Please know that I am always listening, but I do look at my computer a lot or writing on my notepad during the round. I want to make sure I am giving fresh feedback, and I want to be sure that I am following the rules of your individual event if I haven’t judged your event before.

Please Do not spread. If I can’t keep up with what you are saying, I will drop you.

Additionally, please speak so that I can hear you. Enunciate and show your passion for your topic and event.

Finally, be respectful and try to have fun!

Philosophy Overview: In evaluating Lincoln-Douglas debates, I prioritize clear, logical argumentation supported by evidence and reasoning. I value debaters who engage respectfully with their opponents and the topic, showing a deep understanding of the issues at hand. Speaking with speed is fine, but make sure your points are clear and understandable.

Framework: debaters should establish a clear value criterion and framework that logically supports their case. They should use this framework to guide their arguments and demonstrate how their case upholds the value criterion better than their opponent's.

Contentions: Debaters should present well-structured contentions that are supported by evidence and reasoning. I value depth over breadth, so I prefer to see fewer, more developed arguments rather than a large number of shallow ones.

Rebuttal: In rebuttals, debaters should directly engage with their opponent's arguments, pointing out flaws in reasoning or evidence. I value responsive arguments that adapt to the opponent's case rather than pre-scripted responses.

Cross-Examination: Cross-examination should be used to clarify arguments and expose weaknesses in the opponent's case. I value respectful and productive cross-examinations that focus on substance rather than trying to score points.

Speaker Points: I will award speaker points based on clarity, persuasiveness, and strategic thinking. I value debaters who can communicate their arguments effectively and engage with the audience.

Final Thoughts: Overall, I am looking for debaters who can think critically, communicate clearly, and engage with the topic and their opponents in a meaningful way.

Debate is an intelligent game that requires understanding of a problem, research, critical thinking skills, effective communication, time management and intellectual flexibility. It is a learning experience for the debaters as well as judges.

I have an engineering background and the following experience in judging debate: PF (1 year) and LD (1 year). My preferences in speech and debate rounds are as following:

1. Evaluation criteria

· Topical and coherent

· Logically sound with quality evidence

· Interactively engaged with both judges and opponent and being polite

· No excessive jargon or technical language

· All types of arguments are important in my decision-making, roughly framework (30%), contentions (50%), impacts (20%)

2. Argumentation Style

· Clearly delivered with conversational speed in a persuasive style

· Clear logic in a simple way

3. Evidence standard

· From well-qualified sources

· Empirical studies or expert opinions

4. Cross-Examination

· Assertive but respectful

· Cross-examiner in control of the time

Before I judge a round, I normally prepare myself with some context knowledge on the topic. During the round, I take notes on key points and arguments that will eventually help me write my ballot and comments afterwards. It will be great if you can manage your time and opponent’s time with me.

As I mentioned, debate is an intelligent game, and it is a learning experience not only to you as debaters, but for me as a judge as well. Thank you for your participation and giving me the opportunity to learn from you. Good luck in your round, have fun and learn!

I prefer debaters to have a clear value and criterion that they uphold throughout the round. I also believe that debaters should have a clear framework that they use to evaluate the round. No spreading please. I place a greater emphasis on rhetoric and logic. I have not seen the K used well so prefer debates that do not use that tactic.I prefer debaters to be respectful and civil throughout the round, and I will not tolerate any form of discrimination or hate speech.

Please use this email to disclose - sheezahussain@gmail.com

I am a parent judge and have been judging since 2016.

For the Novice debaters especially : I take this seriously and expect that you have invested the time and energy into doing the same. I am empathetic when I see a speaker has done the prep and is trying...I am not pleased when I see someone who is being flippant about the event or the opportunity to participate/compete.

Debate Preferences:

• I don’t mind fast talking – go for it – but I don’t like spreading. If you're going to talk fast, add me to the email chain.
• I flow….meaning I try to capture your key points and see if your opponent counters them (assuming the point is reasonable)
• If an opponent doesn’t respond to your point, I won’t automatically give you the point. I do, however, expect them to respond to every reasonable argument you put out there
• I know you will likely have a well-developed constructive speech, so I find myself more interested in how you counter and defend arguments
• I won’t tolerate personal attacks, discrimination or academic dishonesty
• I will evaluate your ability to advocate for your side and support it, realizing that both sides are usually not equal
• I enjoy clever arguments. Humor, emotive speaking and illustrative examples – we judge a lot of rounds and it’s nice to hear something creative or a creative approach to making a point
• If you have any questions for me, feel free to ask me before the round

Strike me if…

• You spread.. To me, if you're spreading, I might as well read the case myself while you sit there silently
• You are going to be so off-topic with your case that I wonder if we've changed topics
• You are going to use tricks or theory

=============================================================================

Speech Preferences: I want to get lost in what you're sharing with me -- I want to forget that I am judging and want to be left wanting more.

*For interp events (OI, DI, DUO, POI, DEC, etc), I am looking for characters that are well developed. I want it to be clear when you're building, when you hit the climax and how you make us feel in that moment. I appreciate when speakers use every tool available to them (within what's allowed) - facial expressions, gestures, vocal variety, etc. I want to see that you are so comfortable and familiar with the material that it feels natural, but I also want to feel your intensity and passion.

*For platform events (Extemp, OO, Info, etc), I look for a well-planned speech -- Does it have good structure? Do you have evidence to back up your points? Do you have a strong hook? Is it creative? Did you conclusion tie a bow on the gift that is your speech?

I'm a parent judge and I like it when debate/speech is clear and easy to understand.

I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: jkieklak@gmail.com; lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

General

You do you. Let it rip. Seriously. A judge does not exist without the debaters, and I view my role as a public servant necessary only to resolve arguments in a round to help empower young people to engage in meaningful discourse. I believe that it is important for me to be honest about the specific things I believe about common debate arguments, but also I find it more important to ensure I am prepared for debaters to persuade me away from those beliefs/biases. Specifically, I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:

1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate. One team probably is not most persuasive/ahead of the other team on every single argument. That needs to be viewed as a strength rather than a point of anxiety in the round. Do not be afraid to explain why you don't actually need to win certain arguments/impacts in lieu of "going for" the most persuasive arguments that resolve the most persuasive/riskiest impacts.

2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive.

3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.

Policy Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway to solving a significant harm that is inherent to the status quo with some advantageous, topical plan action is entirely up to you. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.

Kritikal Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway/relationship to the resolution is entirely up to you. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win framework or a methods debate. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.

Framework

This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of what is good for debate through considerations of education, fairness, and/or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. The internal link and impact are up to you. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I vote for and against framework, and I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.

Off

Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive (beyond just specific to the overall resolution, but also specific to the affirmative and specific cites/authors/ev). In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

• Perms: Be ready to explain how the perm works (more than repeating "it's perm do 'X'"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?

• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate. If I am in your LD pool and you read Nebel, then you're giving me time to answer my texts, update a list of luxury items I one day hope to acquire, or simply anything to remind myself that your bare plurals argument isn't 'prolific.'

• Case Debate: I am particularly persuaded by effective case debate so far this year on the redistribution topic. Case debate seems underutilized from an "find an easy way to the ballot" perspective.

• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.

• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.

• Please do not drop condo or some other well-extended/warranted theory argument on either side of the debate. Also, choosing not to engage and rely on the ethos of extending the aff is not a persuasive way to handle 2NRs all in on theory.

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

Be your best self. My ranks reflect who I believe did the best debating in the round (and in all prelims when I parli).

The best debaters are the ones that offer a speech that is appropriately contextualized into the debate the body is having about a motion. For sponsors/first negs, this means the introduction of framing and appropriate impacts so that the aff/neg speakers can build/extend specific impact scenarios that outweigh the opposing side's impacts. Speeches 3-10 or 3-12 (depending on the round) should be focused on introducing/weighing impacts (based on where you are in the round and where your side is on impact weighing) and refutations (with use of framing) on a warrant/impact level. I value structured refutations like turns, disadvantages, presumption, PICs (amendments), no solvency/risk, etc. The final two speeches should crystallize the round by offering a clear picture as to why the aff/neg speakers have been most persuasive and why the motion should carry or fail.

The round should feel like a debate in that each speaker shall introduce, refute, and/or weigh the core of the affirmative and negative arguments to persuade all other speakers on how they should vote on a pending motion.

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

• Arguments are claim, warrant, impact/justification and data when necessary. Speeches with arguments lacking one or more of these will not ever be rewarded highly, no matter how eloquent the speech. It is always almost more persuasive to provide data to support a warrant.

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

• Presiding officers should ensure as many speeches as possible. The best presiding officers are direct, succinct, courteous, organized, and transparent. Presiding officers shall always be considered for ranks, but ineffective presiding is the quickest way to a rank 9 (or lower).

• More floor debaters are experimenting with parliamentary procedure. Love it, but debaters will be penalized for misapplications of the tournament's bylaws and whichever parliamentary guide is the back up.

• Nothing is worse in floor debate than repetition, which is different than extending/weighing.

• Decorum should reflect effective communication. Effective communication in debate often includes an assertive tone, but read: folx should always treat each other with dignity and respect.

Arkansas Debate

Woo Pig. I am not here to force you to capitulate a paradigm that you find in someway oppressive to what your coach is teaching you to do. I will drop you for clipping/cheating, and I do not reward (and will rank low in congress) bad/no arguments even if they sound as rhetorically smooth as Terry Rose and Gary Klaff singing "Oh, Arkansas."

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

Amy Love Klett

This is my third year judging LD as a parent judge. Please add me to the email chain: omicsoft@gmail.com

Preference: Traditional or Policy-oriented arguments > Mainstream Critical=Mainstream Philosophy > Theory > Esoteric concepts that can't be explained fully within the time limits.

I prefer traditional rounds with straightforward weighing and voter issues. I value clear logical connections between your arguments and your impacts. Furthermore, I will not extend anything for you. Please sign post, give an off-time roadmap, and try to stay organized.

Under any/all conditions on a lay circuit:

• No spreading
• No theory
• No tricks
• No spikes
• No Ad Hominem
• No Bigotry/Disrespect

For progressive debaters -

• Limit speed to <250 wpm for ALL your speeches - you don't need to email me your rebuttal speeches.
• DAs/CPs are perfect
• Keep your DAs topical

Good Luck!

I am a parent judge and have been participating in local and national high school LD debates since 2018. I prefer sound evidence, compelling arguments and solid voter issues. I enjoy LD debates and hope we all have fun!

Philosophy Overview: In evaluating Lincoln-Douglas debates, I prioritize clear, logical argumentation supported by evidence and reasoning. I value debaters who engage respectfully with their opponents and the topic, showing a deep understanding of the issues at hand. Speaking with speed is fine, but make sure your points are clear and understandable.

Framework: debaters should establish a clear value criterion and framework that logically supports their case. They should use this framework to guide their arguments and demonstrate how their case upholds the value criterion better than their opponent's.

Contentions: Debaters should present well-structured contentions that are supported by evidence and reasoning. I value depth over breadth, so I prefer to see fewer, more developed arguments rather than a large number of shallow ones.

Rebuttal: In rebuttals, debaters should directly engage with their opponent's arguments, pointing out flaws in reasoning or evidence. I value responsive arguments that adapt to the opponent's case rather than pre-scripted responses.

Cross-Examination: Cross-examination should be used to clarify arguments and expose weaknesses in the opponent's case. I value respectful and productive cross-examinations that focus on substance rather than trying to score points.

Speaker Points: I will award speaker points based on clarity, persuasiveness, and strategic thinking. I value debaters who can communicate their arguments effectively and engage with the audience.

Final Thoughts: Overall, I am looking for debaters who can think critically, communicate clearly, and engage with the topic and their opponents in a meaningful way.

Email: ethan3768@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Ethan and I debated for West Broward in Florida for 4 years. I received 9 bids and broke at the TOC - won the Valley Mid America Cup, Harvard RR, Florida States, etc.

There are a couple of things that generally contextualize my views on debate and how you should probably debate in front of me.

I am Tech > Truth. Naturally, if your arguments are both technical and true, that makes you a better debater. I will not assume something is true though just because a "claim" is dropped. It actually needs to be an argument with justified implications that follow.

My threshold for what constitutes a warrant is fair, but high for LD's standards - you need to justify the assumptions that your arguments make. The standard for what is considered a "votable" argument in LD has become exceptionally low and you should keep that in mind when you debate in front of me. I see this issue most when people "justify" theory paradigm issues.

General:

I won't evaluate

1] new 2nr arguments and/or implications that directly are used to answer something in the 1ac. Weighing is fine but I will not evaluate arguments that answer something from the 1ac. That means no GSP or skep turns case in the 2nr unless it was in the 1nc. Only exception is if new offense was read in the 1ar.

2] non-sequitur arguments or arguments where conclusions don't necessarily follow from premises.

3] won't evaluate speeches early INSIDE of the speech the argument was read in. Yes eval after 2n in 1nc, No eval after 2n in 2n.

Theory: One of the things I feel most comfortable evaluating. Coming up with a smart combo shell or making cool strategic decisions are awesome and make judging a lot more fun. I'm perfectly fine with theory as a strategic tool so if this is what you like to do, I'm all for it. There's no such thing as frivolous theory.

Defaults - DTA, Reasonability, No RVIs. NSM vs IRA assumption depends on offense to the shell. These are paradigm issues, not voters. These are the defaults because this is what any paragraph argument on any flow would look like as long as an external impact (fairness, bindingness, scope, etc) is justified.

I don’t default voters (Fairness/Ed/Etc) - they’re impacts to arguments. I will assume there’s no impact to the standards if you don't read an external impact.

You NEED to justify drop the debater and fairness is a voter. I do not like having to hold the line on the impacts to the shell but it has become considerably common for debaters to assume warrants that aren't there. Please warrant your paradigm issues; yes, that means you need to explain why dtd "deters abuse". I think the warrant is best when it's comparative to dta because if the baseline for why dtd matters is it just "deters" abuse, that's a low bar for dta to meet.

Don't read new paradigm issues for a 1nc shell in the 2n, it's new.

T: I view it as an endorsement > punishment model. It's a methods debate so winning the shell is prob enough to independently justify voting on it. These are just defaults if no one reads paradigm issues though. Obviously, I'll evaluate the shell under whatever metric you justify.

Policy: I never debated this way but I'll evaluate these debates the way you tell me to. The jargon is not exactly vernacular to me so I'd probably err on the side of explaining the implication of something for like 2 seconds if you think I wouldn't get it. Underrated strategy though against phil debaters and I do like it.

Tricks: Sure. I like warrants though. I'm also tired of analytic dumps where arguments are all over the place.

K: Better off preffing someone else. I'm a sucker for extinction o/w and frankly true arguments that say 1nc evidence has no warrants. If you cut good evidence though, that's solid. Bar for explanation is high and I don't listen to arguments that demean another debater's identity. Theory of power needs to be clear and 2n explanation needs to be found in the 1nc.

My name is Melissa Matson, and I am a lay judge.

NO SPREADING! If you feel the need to speak so quickly that no one else in the round can understand, you need to shorten your case and/or speech. Not only is it unfair to your opponent, but I will likely miss many of your arguments. This means I cannot flow them or consider them in my decision. Fast conversational speed is generally acceptable.

I am most familiar with traditional debate and prefer attempts to engage directly with the resolution. If you decide to go another route, please explain it EXTREMELY WELL so I don't get lost.

Signposting and roadmaps are appreciated. Appropriate language and sportsmanship are expected.

LD specific: I enjoy hearing diverse frameworks. If you use a less common value (i.e. something other than morality, justice, etc.) or VC and support it well, I am inclined to vote in your favor and award higher speaker points.

I am a parent judge relatively new to speech and debate this year, though I have now judged several tournaments.

Please limit spreading. I will be less able to effectively judge you on your merits and arguments if I am unable to track what you are saying. Speed and volume are not substitutes for well articulated arguments!

Depending on the event, I will likely take lots of notes and often be heads down. I will be engaged whether making direct eye contact or not. Be explicit regarding what supports your case and/or what detracts from your opponent.

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

While I will keep time for appropriate events, I expect you to be responsible for your time.

I will not reveal my decision or give feedback after the round (except in higher rounds with multiple judges), but I will make every effort to leave notes in Tabroom for the round and each individual.

Good luck and enjoy!

Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)

Email for email chains:

melindocs@gmail.com

If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.

-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.


I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.

In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.

That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.

Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.

l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.

I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.

One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.

I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.

I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.

Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.

Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.

I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.

Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.

Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.

You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.

Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.

Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.

Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.

Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.

Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.

Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.

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

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

Overview

Hi, I am Jacob Palmer (he/they). I did 4 years of policy at Emory. I also did 4 years of LD at Durham and have coached at Durham since I graduated. I mostly judge LD but occasionally find myself in a PF or Policy pool, so most of this paradigm is targeted at LDers. Regardless of the event I am judging though, I will do my best to adapt to you and evaluate the round solely off the flow. TDLR: Don’t cheat. Be a good person. Make real arguments. Do those things, and I will adapt to you.

Add me to the chain: jacob.gestypalmer@gmail.com. I won't backflow off the doc, and I will yell clear or slow if needed. Docs should be sent promptly at the round start time.

Feel free to read the arguments that interest you. If you make warranted arguments and tell me why they matter in the broader context of the debate you will do well. I will evaluate any argument that has a warrant, clear implication, and isn't actively exclusionary. I am tech in that I will keep a rigorous flow and evaluate the debate solely off that flow, but there are some limits to my tech-ness as a judge. I will always evaluate every speech in the debate. I will not evaluate arguments made after speech times end. I think arguments must be logically valid and their warranting should be sound. I think lazy warranting is antithetical to technical argumentation. As a logical extension of that, spamming arguments for the sake of spamming arguments is bad. Reading truer arguments will make your job and my job substantially easier. I won't vote on something not explained in round.

Be a good person. Debate often brings out the worst of our competitive habits, but that is not an excuse for being rude or disrespectful. Respect pronouns. Respect accessibility requests. Provide due content warnings.

Since other people do this and I think its nice to respect the people that helped me in my own debate journey, thank you to the all the people that have coached me or shaped who I am as a debater: Jackson DeConcini, Bennett Dombcik, Allison Harper, Brian Klarman, DKP, Ed Lee, Becca Steiner, Gabe Morbeck, Mikaela Malsin, Marshall Thompson, CQ, Nick Smith, and Devane Murphy. Special thanks to Crawford Leavoy for introducing me to this activity.

Specifics

Policy – Advantages and DAs shouldn’t be more complicated than they need to be. Plan and counterplan texts should be specific and have a solvency advocate. Spec is fine against vague positions but the sillier the shell the harder it will be to win an actual internal link to fairness or education. I'm generally fine with condo, but the more condo you read the more receptive I'll be to theory. To win the 2ar on condo the 1ar shell needs to be more than a sentence. Judge kick is fine, but I won't do it unless you tell me to. The 2nr in LD is not a 2nc. If your 2nr strategy relies on reading lots of new impact modules or sandbagging cards that should've been in the 1nc, I am not the judge for you. To an extent, carded 2nr blocks are fine, e.g. when answering a perm, but all the evidence you should need to win the 2nr should just be in the 1nc.

T – Don't be blippy. Weigh between interps and show what Affs, Advantages, DAs, etc. are actually lost or gained. The worst T debates are an abstract competition over ethereal goods like fairness. The best T debates forward a clear vision of what debates on the topic should look like and explains why the debates based on one interpretation of the topic are materially more fair or educational than others. I think affirmatives should generally be predictably limited. I think functional limits can solve a lot of neg offense if correctly explained.

K – These debates are also probably where I care the most about quality over quantity. Specificity matters - Not all Ks are the same and not all plans are the same. If your 1nc shell doesn’t vary based on the 1ac, or your 1ar blocks don’t change based on the kritik I will be very sad. I generally think I should vote for whoever did the better debating, but y'all are free to hash out what that means.

More often than not, it seems like I am judging K debates nowadays. Whether you are the K debater or the Policy/Phil debater in these rounds, judge instruction is essential. The 2nr and 2ar should start with a clear explanation of what arguments need to be won to warrant an aff or neg ballot and why. The rest of the 2nr or 2ar should then just do whatever line-by-line is necessary to win said arguments. I find that in clash debates more than other debates, debaters often get lost in extending their own arguments without giving much round-specific contextualization of said extensions or reasons why the arguments extended are reasons they should win the debate. You need to tell me what to do with the arguments you think you are winning and why those specific arguments are sufficient for my ballot.

Non-T/Planless Affs – I am happy to judge these debates and have no issues with non-t affs. Solvency is important. From the 1ac there should be a very clear picture of how the affirmative resolves whatever harms you have identified. For negatives, T USFG is solid. I’ve read it. I’ve voted on it. Turn strategies (heg good, growth good, humanism good, etc.) are also good. For T, I find topical versions of the aff to be less important than some other judges. Maybe that’s just because I find most TVAs to be largely underdeveloped or not actually based in any real set of literature. Cap and other kritiks can also be good. I no qualms evaluating a K v K or methods debate.

Phil – I love phil debates. I think these debates benefit greatly from more thorough argumentation and significantly less tricks. Explain your syllogism, how to filter offense, and tell me what you're advocating for. If I don't know how impact calc functions under your framework, then I will have a very hard time evaluating the round. If your framework has a bunch of analytics, slow down and number them.

Theory – Theory should be used to check legitimate abuse within the debate. As with blatantly untrue DAs or Advantages, silly theory arguments will be winnable, but my threshold of what constitutes a sufficient response will be significantly lower. Slow down on the analytics and be sure to weigh. I think paragraph theory is fine, but you still need to read warrants. I think fairness and education are both important, and I haven’t really seen good debates on which matters more. Debates where you weigh internal links to fairness and/or education are generally much better. I think most cp theory or theoretical objections to other specific types of arguments are DTA and really don’t warrant an RVI, but you can always convince me otherwise.

Tricks – If this is really your thing, I will listen to your arguments and evaluate them in a way that I feel is fair, granted that may not be the way you feel is most fair. I have found many of the things LDers have historically called tricks to be neither logically valid nor sound. I have no issue with voting on arguments like skep or determinism or paradoxes, but they must have a sufficient level of warranting when they are first introduced. Every argument you make needs to be a complete argument with a warrant that I can flow. All arguments should also be tied to specific framing that tells me how to evaluate them within the larger context of the debate. Also, be upfront about your arguments. Being shady in cx just makes me mad and sacrifices valuable time that you could spend explaining your arguments.

Independent Voters - I think arguments should only generate offense through specific framing mechanisms. Somewhat tied into this I feel incredibly uncomfortable voting on people's character or using my ballot to make moral judgements about debaters. I also don’t want to hear arguments about events outside of the round I am judging. If something your opponent did truly makes you feel unsafe or unable to debate, then you should either contact me, your coach, tab, or the tournament equity office. We can always end the round and figure something out.

I am a parent judge and have judged LD novice and varsity since 2019. I appreciate well formed arguments, encourage you to weigh and take care not to drop arguments put forth by your opponent. I do not like spreading or fatalist arguments. I appreciate common sense and arguments that have a logical progression. Students who take an aggressive tone with their opponent are not gaining any speaker points with me. Be respectful and convincing!

.
I have previously judged debate, primarily Congress. In general, I prefer a reasonable to fast rate of delivery. I am comfortable with jargon and technical language if it is appropriate for the topic. I take notes during rounds, though I generally limit notes to writing down key arguments (and if relevant any immediate reactions). I value argument over style, in particular argument that emphasizes logic and supporting evidence. I do not react well to statements that are unsupported by evidence. I expect debaters to be thoughtful, respectful, and careful in listening to arguments from the other side. I am particularly impressed by debaters who distill the opposite side's argument fairly and accurately but nonetheless offer strong responses.

Hi! I'm Samad (he/him). I did LD at Providence High for 4 years, and I am currently studying Public Policy and Philosophy at UNC

Email for Disclosure if you want to do that: Samadrangoonwala@gmail.com

Feel free to ask me questions or find my after the round for more feedback, this is (supposedly) about education so happy to try and help.

Important things

1. Don't be a jerk or a racist/sexist etc. etc. '
2. Tech>Truth but don't lie to me or say outlandish nonsense, you can extrapolate from cards but that has to be logically done and the cards themselves have to be quality. I'm not gonna believe that the SAT leads to Nuclear war because some talking head from CATO says so unless their logic makes sense too.
3. You can talk fast but I'm rusty and might ask you to slow down, if I can't write it down then it probably wont do any good. (Anything above like 200wpm is probably too fast)
4. No new stuff in the last speech
5. Please at least adress the framework debate, I like philosophy and its the key part of the event.
6. Tell me why arguments matter under the FW(note if you can tell me why you win under either FW then you don't actually need to win that debate to get the ballot)
7. Personality is cool, and card dumps are fine and can get you the win, but your analysis of evidence is important, too.
8. Side note on that last bit: you can be passionate and aggressive without being mean; don't be mean. have fun :D
9. Give voters if you want to, please for my sake say something more then "i win because i said X"- like ok why do I care? Draw the connections for me!
10. Specifically for TFL states, unless the circuits changed dramatically in the last 3 years, I'm assuming a lot of trad arguments. That said I'm open to K's, T, plans, etc.
12. Rough Speaker point breakdown

I don't know how speaker point inflation has changed in the last few years but this is give or take what i'll use

30- Best I've seen all day, if you don't place top 5 I will be incredibly surprised

29- Very good! May have had some minor slipups but you are still easily one of the best

28- Great! Some more major issues, this is probably the highest you'll get with an L, about average for a W

27- Getting into tricky territory, average loss, or a messy messy win. I'd recommend changing your strategy moving forward

26- Major major errors, at some point you done goofed and lost the narrative, you almost certainly need to make adjusts to either in round strategy or case structure. If you got this with W something catastrophic happened for the other guy.

<25- You probably said something vitriolic. This is me trying to tell you to never do anything like you did in the round ever again.

I'll probably give you a speaker points bump just for taking risks, being creative, doing some fun little strategy stuff that makes me smile etc.

Background

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

General Preferences

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

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

Speed

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

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

Theory

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

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

Kritiks

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

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

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

Bonus

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

For a brief background, I competed in Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum debate for four years for Apex Friendship High School.

Make sure to connect your arguments back to your framework throughout the round. Be clear about how you are moving down the flow and when you switch between cases. Provide an off-time road map before you begin speaking. Please be respectful of your opponent at all times and make sure to breath and have fun, debate is not that deep.

If you have any questions about anything please ask.

After the first aff, It's important to refute speakers that have spoken before, contextualize the debate, and weigh in. All speakers should question as much as possible and questioning is almost as important as speeches for me.

Call out bad arguments, if an argument does not have strong logical reasoning behind it or you don’t explain the argument or an argument that doesn't make sense will get dropped. Substance trumps style flourish for me.

However I rhetoric which I believe is the underpinning of a good debater. Supporting arguments with good examples goes a long way in persuading me.

I believe debate is about reasoning and convincing others and therefore constructing your case logically and then articulating it well is what I expect to see.

Background info: Former Policy Debater (Ohio), History, Government and Econ Teacher (NC), American History Professor (NC) BA in History and Poli sci, MA in American History (emphasis on Women's history). I now coach LD, PF, Congress and Speech events and have had the pleasure of jumping into World Schools.

I'm pretty easy going and do not mind spreading in LD so long as you are clearly speaking when doing it. Not such a fan of PF speaking super quickly as that's not really the point of that event. Make good use of time but don't rush it. Outside of that in these events feel free to ask for any other concerns you may have. Happy to answer before a round starts.

Update on WSD: I do value the flow but also want to see WS norms happening in the round. Take POIs and engage with each other when time allows. I'm not a huge fan of first speech getting into refutation as two other speeches do that I would rather 1st speech take some POIs and develop your sides case. Please remember this is WSD US centric arguments happen based on the motion but I really value some international attention happening regardless of motion as I think it shows broader understanding of the World as a whole .Not to mention a countries decisions do not occur in a bubble and international events do impact other countries decisions, US included.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m a novice judge that strives to be impartial, open minded and fair at all times. I will make notes and give written feedback only via tabroom afterwards.

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

1) Manage your time well

2) Be prepared with material for evidence

3) Respect your opponent

4) Effective communication rather than speed is key

5) Use logical reasoning to strengthen your points

I have been judging LD debates since October 2021 as a parent judge. While English is my second language, I have been in the country for more than 20years and am a professor in the field of marketing. Therefore, I don't expect you to purposefully slowdown just for me.

Some basic principles I follow for the judging:

1) Logic and impact come as the most important factor for winning the debate;

2) Techniques matter: please speak at a reasonable speed to clearly communicate your evidence and arguments in an organized manner;

2) Professionalism is the bottom line: be respectful when responding to the opponent's questions or arguments;

3) Enthusiasm and energy will be always appreciated.

Hi!
I am a lay parent judge who is very new to debate, I was a speech judge for several years so make so to talk clearly.

Couple of key things

This paradigm is written mostly for LD debates, which I frequently judge. Towards the end, I have specifics for PF debates, which I also judge, though less frequently.

What preferences do you have, as a judge?

Any progressive arguments, tricks, theories, I can't evaluate. Substantive arguments only, please.

Keep in mind that I am a lay judge. Most lay judges don't have knowledge of or even interest of knowing the nitty-gritty of public debates, and I am certainly one of that kind. You can think of lay judges as ordinary Americans watching politicians debating on TV, or as jurors sitting in a civil court and watching lawyers presenting their cases.

Generally speaking, if you defend your contentions well and put serious dents on your opponent's, you would have a good chance of winning the debate.

In a neck-and-neck round where AFF is winning this argument but NEG is winning the other, I would weigh the importance of each argument. If that still cannot break the tie, it may boil down to tiny things here and there that I won't elaborate here. Fortunately, I rarely had to do a coin flip for tie-breaker.

Logistics

I prefer normal conversational speed because English is not my native language.

If you plan to spread during the debate, it's imperative that you send your scripts/docs in advance, with clear highlighting. Tabroom's doc share feature is good enough, but if you'd like to include me in the email chain, here it is: michael.zhou@gmail.com.

Along the same line, please reduce the usage of jargons to get the most credit out of your claims and arguments.

It's my habit to take notes during the debate and write comments while debaters use their prep time. The purpose is to give instant and candid feedback to both debaters from a judge's perspective and lay out my reasoning for win/lose decision. I hope that helps debaters improve their cases, sharpen their skills and prep for next rounds.

How should debaters approach constructive speeches?

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. I am an engineer and practice the principle of reducing complex concepts to the simplest meaningful terms. You may often hear Alert Einstein being quoted "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Sometimes, less is more.

Arguments should each be addressed individually in a concise manner, with a clear pause before moving to the next argument.

Now, the most important thing! Arguments should be coherent. Let me give an example. If you claim US military presence is the main factor of regional instability and next second you suggest US forces be redeployed from Middle East to Indo-Pacific region, that creates a self-inconsistence. These types of logical mistakes are extremely detrimental to your case's credibility. It's like shooting yourself in the foot. Let me stress this: logics and coherency.

How should debaters approach rebuttal speeches?

I prefer each rebuttal making a brief reference to the specific issue advanced in constructive speeches.

Same as constructive speeches, rebuttals should be delivered succinctly, with emphasis on the key issues.

How should debaters approach evidence?

Citations after article introduction.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

Build the value that is not overly complicated, relatable, and criterion should not be over technical.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Empirical.

Here are the reasons.

I am genuinely interested in many disciplines but I rarely read philosophy books, so I can't judge if you approach the resolution from a philosophical angle.

An ideal world exists only in a utopian ideology but we are living in a real world, and an imperfect one. Countless things theoretically ideal or with wonderful intentions have led to total disasters in human history.

So I prefer empirical arguments ONLY.

Please explain your views on critical arguments.

Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Make sure they have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand.

For PF

While most of content above is still generally relevant for PF, I am adding a couple of points specific to public forum debates that help you understand my preferences.

• Have a clearly outlined constructive speech. It would be a huge plus if you start with each of your critical points in an emphasized one-liner, because that saves me time to summarize it for you.
• I generally don't question or ask for evidence, unless your statements are outrageously contradicting with common sense or my knowledge. That does not mean the opponents won't poke holes and challenge you. Which brings my next point.
• I value quality rebuttals and that counts heavily toward decision making of who wins/loses. Meaning if you cannot refute your opponent's critical points effectively, those points will stand. You can think of this process as point reduction. Both you and your opponents start at a perfect 30-point. Every time you have a strong rebuttal, you are reducing points from your opponents. Every time you defend your constructive points well, you are reserving/keeping points for yourself.
• Last but not least, substance is more important than presentation. It's even okay to stutter during debates, and it won't count against you unless your arguments are not cohesive, which shows you are less prepared.