Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

I like clear and concise warranted arguments. I am fine with spreading but only if you are coherent, organized, and clear. Give me voters and tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round. 

Prefer creative/progressive arguments. I'm a little rusty (haven't really had time to judge since the beginning of the season), but can still manage moderate speed (faster than regular talking, but not full-out spreading; somewhere in between). Please be clear. If you're not clear, I will say "clear" once, and then stop writing if it continues. Prefer framework over contentional, but will still weigh both. 

Signpost clearly and give clear voters.

I need everything to explained to me and put out there clearly. If things aren't explained clearly and simply, I might not understand it, and that's only to your detriment.

Tell me what the standard is and how I ought to weigh the round, why you've fulfilled it, and why your opponent hasn't.

Clash is also very important; if y'all pass each other like ships in the night, I'm basically obligated to just go with the argument I like best, and not the one that should win.   Any other questions, please ask!

All Events:

Weigh Impacts.

Go line by line.

Try not to spread (PF>LD>CX)

Be Respectful.

LD/CX:

I'm willing to accept all arguments.

Theory is on top but if it gets muddled it's first to exit the voting calc.

If you run crazy stuff make sure you explain it properly, it's difficult for me to vote off stuff that's explained/presented poorly.

PF:

I look for clear, persuasive speaking, good argumentation, and most importantly a good understanding of evidence.

I'll work off the framework if given one to work off of. If not, provide me a clear impact calc and weighing for the round.

I'll update more as time goes on. If you're dying to ask me about something specific that's not covered here, just ask me before the round starts. It's honestly not a problem.

I coach speech and perviously coached debate at Eagan High School and am the librarian/media specialist there.

I enjoy debate, so I look forward to hearing your round!

In general you may want to know this about me:
I want to hear you debate about the resolution/legislation at hand. Theory is very rarely needed. I like to hear real world impacts, and I want to understand how your arguments will impact the lives of people. I have little interest in unique/trick/squirrel/non-topical arguments. Weighing is important...so give me a clear way to weigh a round. Delivery is important, so speak well and avoid speed at all costs. Speaking of speaking, there have been five times when I've given a 30 in my life, and the lowest end I've given was 10. In all situations the speaker points were earned. My typical range is 26-29. I rarely disclose and there will be no orals after the round. Finally and most importantly, have fun and debate with class.

Specifically, in terms of congressional debate: I'm probably going to vote for the best legislator. You should speak well...but not have canned speeches. You should show me you can speak in a variety of positions (author legislation, introduce arguments, refute arguments, and weigh/crystalize the round). You should advance your arguments through questions. You should use motions to advance/end debate when appropriate. You should play the role of a congressperson with the decorum it deserves. You are always on...even during recess. You should be a good person (don't be a jerk).

In terms of public forum: I'm probably going to vote for the team that does the best job of explaining the big picture of what happens in the pro and/or con world. Real world impacts are important. Weighing is important.

In terms of LD: I'm old school. I would gladly judge a value debate. I would gladly judge a round in which the criterions are debated.

In terms of policy: Good luck. Use everything written here to adapt your approach to me. I might not be the best judge for your typical approach. I do not want to have to vote on presumption.

Good luck!

I have competed in Speech and Debate for all four years of my high school career, and judged at multiple tournaments during that time for Junior High Schools. I have participated in PF, LD, Extemp, Impromptu, Prose, Poetry, HI, and DI. I believe that debate should be a learning experience that enriches the debaters knowledge while supplementing the knowledge of others. I do take note of the structure of the arguments (Value, value criterion, contentions) etc. I will not tolerate any personal attacks to opposing members of a debate. I do leave a lot of critiques simply to help each participant further develop their skills (as that is what helped me). I tend to listen for credibility and evidence-- if the competitor spent his or her time on the case, he/she will have plenty of evidence to support their contentions. The competitor should conduct themselves professionally, demonstrate mastery of knowledge on their given resolution, or smooth presentation based upon the nature of the event they are competing in. Overall, I urge all competitors to have fun and really take what they can out of the tournament as it is a great way to develop higher level thinking.  

Impact calculus. Don't spread. And if you are going to even though I told you not to, just be slow and clear on the tag lines and warrants or I wont be able to flow it all.

(Don't exactly know what all paradigms entail, but this is everything I like to see/hear during a debate round)

Clear articulation is a must! I judge very strictly on the content that I am given from the speaker (Criteria,Values, etc) and so for me to be able to judge you to the best of my ability I have to understand you.

Educate me on the topic. I'm not well versed in modern day politics so I'm going to need you to help me understand exactly what's going on and the why your case is clearly better than your opponent.

Topicality matters! I do judge on topicality but that being said don't bum rush me with excess info. If it isn't content that will help me understand your case, don't include it.

Be exciting! Don't just read me your case that's boring anybody can read. Show me some character that will get you some brownie points out of me.

Although frowned upon by some I like to know how ethics play into every case so have some ethics in there if you can. I will be impressed and entertained. Having ethics in your case will keep me interested

Last but not least, and you should already know this, Do NOT look at your opponent ever for any reason. You are here to sway my opinion not theirs.

I am currently a student at the University of Houston. I am currently a student at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Hospital in the Houston Medical Center. I graduated High School in 2014, and debated all 4 years of my High School career so im relatively up-to-date on debate styles, jargon, etc. I debated in LD for all four years and PF (on and off) for the last 2 years of HS. Out of High-School, I judged regularly on the NFL/TFA/UIL/HUDL circuits for the first two years. I haven't been judging since my acceptance in to MD Anderson.

SPEED

I have a relatively high threshold for speed, so i am able to keep up with spreading for the most part. If anything, go as fast as you need to but SLOW DOWN on tag lines and important information so that i know where your information goes on the flow. I'll pick up the main ideas of whatever card or philosophy you're spreading, but for the sake of clarity for the rest of the round, slow down on tag lines, last names, etc.

ARGUMENTS

Generally, I'll accept whatever you have to run, simply because you put in the time and effort to present that. With that being said, if you've never run a topicality before, and you read a topicality that isn't unique to what's being argued on in the debate, it'll be obvious. Run things that you're ready to run, and well versed in, because doing the contrary looks really bad and just gives your opponent room to call you out.

EVIDENCE

Evidence is really important, but not a make or break. I will accept empirical argumentation, as long as you're willing to defend it. With that being said, there will always be conflicting evidence, and when it comes down to that, I'll ask for your cards, preferably uncut, with the source, date, and original text (in context).

WHAT I WANT

I love line-by-line debates, where everything is addressed to the debaters' best ability. It makes the round easier on me, because i know where to make drops, extensions, etc. Give me something to weigh the round on. If there is an agreement between debaters on what is most important in the round, it makes it a lot easier on me to decide on who won the round, and makes it easier on the debaters since they know what to focus on. 

TlDr: Fine with speed, slow down on tags. I'll accept anything as long as you run it well. Make sure your cards are legitimate, but evidence doesn't always mean a card. I love line by line, tell me what the round boils down to. 

Lana McClean

High School: Cypress Ridge

Current School: University of Houston

Major: Human Resources & Marketing

Experience: I am fairly a new judge as I just started judging for HISD HUDL tournaments back in September 2014.

Although I'm fairly new, I have judged all form of debate including CX, LD, World School, and PF.

LANA PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM

Before I begin my specifics in PF debate, here are the main ideas that I look for:

1. Display solid logic, lucid reasoning and depth of analysis

2. Utilize evidence without being driven by it

3. Present a clash of ideas by countering/refuting arguments of the opposing team

4. Communicate ideas with clarity, organization, eloquence, and professional decorum

With the understanding that PF debate is made to be more focused on rhetorical skill and simple argumentative analysis, I don't expect the same level of technical analysis and policy crossover that I see in LD and Policy.

Weighing: The more weighing between competing arguments and layers in the debate you do (especially if you preemptively do it in your constructives) will give you immensely high speaks. This is the one part of debate that most people lack; laying out the decision calculus is extremely critical to you winning the round.

A few specific pieces of advice:

-Give me some sort of weighing metric on which I evaluate the round. Define this very specifically for me in the rebuttals. This may prove especially useful to you as a way to limiting the impact or importance of certain arguments the opposing team is putting forth.

-Spend your final focus on telling me how I should be writing out my ballot. What is the weighing mechanism for this round? What arguments are you extending and defeating? How do they preclude your opponent's arguments, and why should I evaluate them first? How do they link to some sort of impact, and why does that impact outweigh all others? Why should I be pulling the trigger on these specific arguments? How does this prove that you are upholding the weighing mechanism better?

- Use your CX advantageously. Instead of pure clarification, use it to create some sort of contradiction or assumption that your case will exploit. CX is binding, and any responses made can be used against you.

Speed: I do not mind the speed as long as I can understand your points. Sometimes a debater will talk very fast but is confusing me as the  judge because he/she is just rambling on to cover a flaw or ignore an issue he/she don’t want to cover. Also, when reading, I like for a debater to give me some eye contact and try not to be mono toned.

Speaker Points: I'll average between 27-29.5. Argument comparison, good overview structure, speaking ability, and quality of weighing will get you higher speaks. Poor argument interaction, poor speaking, and messy debating will result in lower speaks. Rudeness & unnecessary vulgarity will give you a 25.

I think that public forum is, at its core, the melding of sound argumentation and solid speaking. You should present not only well-structured, rational, strongly warranted arguments, but you should also do so in a way that can be relatable to whomever is in the back of the round.

That being said, I don't mind some speed - but be sure you are articulate and clear, especially with tags and authors. Sacrificing quality for quantity is a poor choice if you cannot handle (or your judge cannot handle) the speed. Make wise choices.

In terms of 'atypical' arguments. I think that it is very hard to run a K argument well in PF. I don't believe that it cannot be done, just that it is very rare. If you are running theory, then you better have extremely solid warrants and you should have it explained to the level of access of understanding fitting to this style of debate. DO NOT just read cards that you got from your Policy friends/teammates and call it a day. ALSO...YOUR ADVOCACY SHOULD MATCH YOUR ACTIONS. Do NOT use theory arguments as a cheap tool to surprise unwitting opponents and get the ballot when you have engaged in no actions that match the advocacy of your theory arguments. If you are running disclosure theory, there better be a history of you disclosing at EVERY round and you engaged in multiple forums, workshops, discussion boards where you are ACTIVELY engaged in increasing disclosure in a way that promotes education and fairness. If you get up and read disclosure in front of me and do not have this, it will be an automatic loss. I am not joking.

I think that framework is a solid strategy - if there is a purpose. Frequently teams have f/w just to have it and then don't touch it for the rest of the round. If it is there, then you should extend.

On the issue of extensions, be sure that your arguments are carried through the debate. Do not read at the beginning and then bring back up in the final focus and expect me to grant them to you.

Finally, there should be a clear advocacy in the round - and a clash between teams. I hate debates that are like ships passing in the night - no clash.

Individual events: in extemp, I'm looking for you to first answer the question and then answer the question with the best possible information that you can give that is factual. My expertise is more on the domestic side but I can do international extent with some basic knowledge of what it is that's going on around the world. Also what I'm looking for is a person that reads like a human encyclopedia or a human archive newspaper person who knows all the facts of the question that is being given them. I can also be flexible in terms of politics but the politics has to still come across as somewhat neutral in nature.

In drama and humor, what I look for the most is a performance that makes me forget that you are performing the peace and that you have somehow become the characters that you have portrayed. The more I get into your peace the better your chances at winning in this event.

My favorite category is original oratory. In oratory all that I look for is for you to tell me a topic and give me all the information that is there. Make sure your sources are correct and that you're not trying to be too showy and sometimes even more natural will get the job done for me.

In duo interp what I always do is that I always look at both performers I'm not looking for a performance where it's just an exchange of lines but what feels like a real dialogue. I'm also looking to see what happens when the other partner is not speaking and if they are performing their character while not being able to speak. You must be in character at all times during the performance.

In prose and poetry, it is similar to what I look for in drama and humorous. I'm looking for performance where I'm no longer seeing a person reading something and more like feeling like you are very much in character in telling a story.

In big questions, your arguments are still important but just like in public forum I look at what it is that is said during The question period. More information can be gleaned from asking questions then what it is that is said during regular arguments.

LD: I will honestly say the I don't judge LD in the traditional sense and I draw my decisions based on my IE and PF experiences. Like PF your cross and rebuttal speeches usually wins the day in my eyes so if you can extract good counter information in cross and use it in rebuttal, then you'll likely get the win.

PF: I put more weight on crossfire than anything else. Be efficient to get your points across and you will win the debate.

I put more emphasis on your time during crossfire because of the shared time for all four speakers. If you use the time efficiently, you should get the win.

Congress: the key to winning Congress is a simple case of taking the chamber seriously and delivering your speeches to say three things. The first thing that you're saying is that you read the bill completely and understand it. The second thing you want to say is that not only do I understand it but my position is this way because I researched it. And the third thing you want to say is that you want to be able to say that you put the time and the effort to push the bill forward because it's the right thing to do. As long as you move the legislation and you don't bother down the bay with amendments and points of order that are unnecessary you are going to go far. If you aren't designing officer it's almost the opposite of what has to happen because as long as you are not cold out and as long as you stay fair and if you keep yourself practically anonymous during the session you'll also do well.

Being the presiding officer it means that you have to dedicate your life and your time at the chamber to the speakers and making sure everybody speaks when they're supposed to. I compare being a presiding officer in a congress chamber the same way of football offensive lineman in a football game. When they barely know you, you've done your job. When you're constantly being pointed out for the mistakes that you made, then you haven't done your job. Presiding officers will always rank high and in the top half of my ballot as long as the chamber is running well and everybody seems satisfied in his or her control of the chamber and considering it's a thankless job that has you not even being able to speak.

I judge on the premise of what did you do to move legislation forward during a session.

My primary judging experience includes the Northeast and Texas regions.

Do not lie about or manipulate evidence. All arguments and rebuttals must be across my flow throughout the round. Do not make a point in rebuttal and drop it in summary and final. You must weight and you must link to impacts. I appreciate good speakers but will award low point wins in any round where the better speakers fail to cover the flow, weigh, link to impacts or address framework (when applicable).

Do not lie about or manipulate evidence. All arguments and rebuttals must be across my flow throughout the round. Do not make a point in rebuttal and drop it in summary and final. You must weight and you must link to impacts. I appreciate good speakers but will award low point wins in any round where the better speakers fail to cover the flow, weigh, link to impacts or address framework (when applicable).

Public Forum:

Display solid logic, coherent reasoning, and a clear depth of the analysis being presented. Utilize evidence to the best of your ability without being driven by it. All debaters should present a perceptible clash of ideas by countering/refuting arguments. Do not merely read your evidence but show the impact coming off of each card (weigh impacts). Will go line by line (signpost). A firm understanding of the topic is more admirable than simply reading off a lot of information.  

In general: be respectful to your opponent, judge, and others in the round. I do not tolerate any discriminatory, harmful, or profane language. This is a space to show what you have prepared and showcase your talent. You wouldn't want any other factors overshadowing your performance.

Arguments: I am open to any arguments as long as they are well thought out, and have sufficient EVIDENCE to support them. I value quality over quantity. Do not try to overwhelm your opponent with tons of arguments that lack depth and support.

Speed: I can understand spreading; however, when not done well will only hurt your case. Therefore, I prefer clarity over speed.

Please ask for any clarifications as needed.

I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.

NSDA update:

I love judging here. Principally this is because the schools who compete the most robust circuits have to slow down and I get to be a meaningful participant in the debates. I am not fast enough to judge the TOC circuit and even my home circuit, TFA can have me out over my skis trying to follow. But here, my experience has been that the very best schools adapt to the format by slowing their roll and this allows me to viscerally enjoy the beauty and rigor of their advocacy. Do not confuse my pace limitations with cognitive limits.

Who I am:

Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Athens in East Texas. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.

I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.

Likes:

Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.

Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.

Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.

Dislikes:

Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.

Circuit level speed.

I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.

Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you are functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.

One More Concern:

There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.

Policy Debate:

I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.

LD Debate:

Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.

I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.

PF Debate:

I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.

Congress:

1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.