Hey, my name is Victoria! I did high school debate for about three years, and now I'm a debater at Mckendree University. In high school, I did mostly public forum, but I have also done Lincoln-Douglas. (I also did worlds and ext at nationals...)

Base Rules:

• Speak as clearly as possible. I am okay with speed as long as I can actually understand you.
• Don't be rude, or disrespectful during your debate.
• I do not flow cross, so bring it up in your speeches if you want it flowed.
• Explain every argument to its fullest extent especially at the Link level. Give me clear warrants, for your arguments, and don't leave me to fill in any blanks.
• If an argument is conceded, tell my WHY that matters. (on the flipside, try not to concede arguments. Even if you do not know what to say, make something up and we can clear it up in RFD. Being able to at least touch on all of your opponents points is good practice, even if its BS lol)
• When it comes to winning round, I will always vote based on whoever has the best and most well developed arguments. Speaking well will help you with getting speaker points, but if your arguments are not fleshed out then I will not vote for you.
• I do not flow over time. If you go over, just wrap up your last sentence.
• I like clear signposting throughout speeches.
• If you are giving an off time roadmap make sure you actually follow it.

LD:

• I do not solely vote on framework. If you collapse to your opponent's v/vc, as long as you're winning under that framework I will give you the round. (as a mainly PF debater, I am not a huge fan of wasting time on framework debate, so I like it to be resolved between both debaters early on in the round.) A clean framework debate makes it easier for me to evaluate the round.
• Any other "rule" is explained under "Base Rules"

PF:

• In PF rounds, the most important part for me is the weighing. Utilize using your magnitude, probability, and timeframe as the measures to winning the debate. Using the summary and final focus speeches to do this will help me better evaluate the round in your favor. For me, it is possible to win on one argument if your weighing is used effectively.
• Any other "rule" is explained under "Base Rules"

Joe Blasdel

McKendree University / Belleville East High School

Updated: 11/14/2024

I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree in 2003 (mostly NPDA, some LD and IEs) and have been doing so ever since. I have also coached debate at Belleville East (mostly LD, some PF) for the last two years.

This is broken into four sections: #1 PF Specifics, #2 HS LD specifics, #3 NFA LD specifics, #4 NPDA / general thoughts.

#1 PF Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS PF (in no particular order):

1. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponents' arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will also flow the debate on three 'sheets' - the PRO case/answers, the CON case/answers, and the rebuttals (summaries/final foci).

2. I will not flow crossfire but I will still pay careful attention and view it as an important part of the debate.

3. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

4. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#2 HS LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS LD (in no particular order):

1. I have researched and coached students on the current NSDA topic and am broadly familiar with the issue.

2. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponent's arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will flow the debate on three 'sheets' - framework, AFF case/answers, NEG case/answers.

3. I view the value/value criterion portion of the debate as framing the rest of the debate. When the framing part of the debate is not clear, I generally default to a cost/benefit analysis in evaluating the substance part of the debate.

4. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

5. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#3 NFA LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging NFA LD (in no particular order):

1. During the debate, I will flow what's being said rather than read the speech docs. I will review speech docs between speeches and after the round.

2. While carded evidence is obviously important in this format, I also appreciate warranted analytic arguments - probably more than the average NFA LD judge.

3. Having not judged a lot of LD of recent, I'm unsure if I can flow the fastest of debates. If I cannot flow due to clarity or speed, I will indicate that's the case.

4. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

#4 NPDA / General thoughts

Section 1: General Information

In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.

On trichotomy, I tend to think the affirmative has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I don’t see a lot of good fact/value debates, I am open to people choosing to do so. I’m also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.

If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If you’re calling multiple irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.

I’m not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then explaining/warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ‘new’ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ‘new’ PMR arguments.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).

Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I’m open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than the average NPDA judge. I approach the K as a sort of ideological counterplan. As a result, it’s important to me that you have a clear, competitive, and solvent alternative. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, it’s likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.

Performance based arguments…

Same as above.

Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position that’s run; it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework – I’m not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an ‘average’ threshold. I don’t vote on RVIs. On spec/non-T theory, I have a ‘high’ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, I’m probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.

Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?

All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I don’t have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?

All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighing claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?

I tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.

I like neat well-structured debates, tell me where to look on my flow. Arguments need both a warrant and a claim. In the rebuttals weigh your value/value criterion and tell me how it impacts the round, otherwise I default to impact weighing. Feel free to go as fast as you would like, but if your opponent asks you to slow down, please do or it will impact your speaker points.

• Prefer traditional LD style of debate. I do not prefer policy style debate OR new progressive styles of debate.
• Clarity over spreading of arguments.
• Not interested in policy debate style (Avoid spreading, avoid cases that are non-topical (structural violence can work as aVC, but make sure it fits into the resolution
• Especially in your opening arguments, make sure that I know exactly what your contentions are, values, etc. Clear quality of evidence over the quantity of evidence. ,so long as you are clear.
• Stress impact, impact, impact: Make sure you stress how the claims you are making affect people, the country, etc. Tell me what's at stake, what the consequences are of each argument.
• WEIGH your impacts! As a judge I am looking for weighted impacts throughout your case, and especially in your voters issues. What is the scope, the magnitude, the urgency...of your claims. etc
• .Sign Posting: This is an essential tool for me as a judge to follow your case. It doesn't matter how good your arguments are if I can't follow along.
• Framework important to me, but not critical (and totally accept conceding a framework if it is not crucial). Just make sure your VC has a lear link to topic.

Hello, my name is Ari! I did LD debate my junior and senior year of high school, while competing my sophomore year in Public Forum. So, overall, I am more knowledgeable in LD. In general, please attack value criterion in rounds, if you can convince me that your value criterion takes precedence over your opponents, then you have a strong advantage in the round. Keep in mind, that timeframe, magnitude, and probability arguments help me weigh out impacts and understand the scope of the situation in the round...so it would be in your best interest in the round to emphasize this. I also enjoy strategic voter issues that help me weigh out impacts as well, so feel free to implement those into your final speeches. Finally, I do not care if you are a good speaker as much as I care about the quality of arguments being made. If you are a good speaker, but do not come in clutch with a good argument backing up your skills, then your talent does not really matter. I will always pick the speaker with the better argument that provides me with in depth statistics and evidence to back up what they are talking about, even if speaking skills are not the best. In general, I expect debates to be civil and respectful because the point of debate is not to win, it is to expand our knowledge about topics and learn how to process our thoughts adequately. Also as a general note, I do not flow during cross-x, so if there is a point that is made that would be beneficial to your argument, make sure to address it during your constructive speeches. Besides that, everything else in the round is up to you, have fun with it because the round will be what you make of it!

Current head coach at Homewood-Flossmoor High School since 2014.

Previous Policy debater (Not about that life anymore though...)

If you start an email/doc chain - kcole@hf233.org

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

When it comes to LD, I am 100% more traditional even though I've spent time in policy. I don't believe there should be plans or disads. LD should be about negating or affirming the res, not plan creation. You should have a value and value criterion that is used to evaluate the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

Traditional PF judge here. I dont want to see plans or disads. Affirm or negate the res.

Card Calling ----- If someone calls for your cards, you better have it very quick. I'm not sitting around all day for you to locate cards you should have linked or printed out in your case. If it gets excessive you'll be using prep for it. Same for obsessively calling for cards --- you best be calling them because you actually need to see them instead of starting card wars.

IN GENERAL

I'm not into disclosure so don't try and run some pro disclosure theory because I won't vote on it unless it's actually dropped and even then I probably wont vote on it.

I'm not going to fight to understand what you're saying. If you are unclear you will likely lose. I also feel like I shouldn't have to follow along on a speech doc to hear what your saying. Fast is fine, but it should be flowable without reading the docs. Otherwise....what's the point in reading it at all.

BE CLEAR - I'll tell you if I cannot understand you. I might even say it twice but after that I'll probably just stop flowing until I can understand you again. Once again -- Fast is fine as long as you are CLEAR

I am an advocate of resolution specific debate. We have a resolution for a reason. I don't believe running arguments that stay the same year after year is educational. I do, however, think that in round specific abuse is a thing and can be voted on.

K's- Most of the common K's are fine by me. I am not well read in K literature. I will not pretend to understand it. If you fail to explain it well enough for me and at the end of the debate I don't understand it, I will not vote for it. I will likely tell you it's because I don't understand. I will not feel bad about it.

Be a good person. I'm not going to tolerate people being rude, laughing at opponents, or making offensive comments.

Dr. Samantha Dolen, Coach, Palatine High School

LD Judging and Coaching: 3 years

Teaching areas: biology, chemistry and physics. I'm a scientist, I will be skeptical of the information presented if you don't provide quality evidence to back it up.

Speed of Delivery: I prefer a moderately paced speech. If you speak faster, then it is your responsibility to make sure that your speech is easy to follow. When speaking quickly, there is a greater chance that I won't be able to flow all of your contentions. I will also not view your attempt to spread your case using a fast pace of delivery. Presenting a litany of contentions or sub-points with the hope that your opponent will not have time to address them all is not the goal. Quality over Quantity is where my vote will land.

Framework: I place more consideration on your value criterion than your value. You have selected this VC as the way to measure your V because the value is a broad concept that is difficult to measure. If I am to make a decision based upon that VC, you need to clearly and substantially tie your impacts back to that VC. You need to articulate this; don't leave it to me to try and find the connection. I want to know specifically why one VC is more aligned with the resolution; if you collapse, then make sure you begin tying to the agreed upon framework and not the original one you presented. I want you as the debater to identify the clash between the AFF and NEG; how are these two worlds different and how is that important to the resolution.

Contentions & Impacts: Don't spread. Your contentions are your opportunity to make your case; they should be clearly articulated, well reasoned, and well supported. If they are unique, then even better! As a coach, I have researched, read and judged this resolution dozens of times before I hear you debate so unique and interesting is best if you want to keep my attention and my vote. Impacts are where you are going to win with me. You can present dozens of cards, but if they all amount to very small impact on a very small group of people, then you will have a hard time winning. I want you to provide strong contention tag lines, indications of separate sub-points, etc. If you are just reading a laundry list of cards, then I will eventually lose track and wonder how all of these points are related. Minor points are just that minor; if you have an insignificant point left un-attacked at the end of the round, that doesn't necessarily give you the win. Remember, it is about showing how your contentions support your framework and why that view of our moral obligation outweighs your opponents.

Format of Rebuttals: If you provide a roadmap, then follow it. I track attacks made on concepts and not individual cards. I would rather see you recognize the commonality of cards presented and attack the main idea. I like it when opponents are able to understand and attack big ideas instead of the individual cards as it demonstrates a level of complexity of thought during the debate. I want rebuttals to prioritize which contentions are most important. Provide analysis of why your framework and contentions are better aligned with the resolution; do not simply tell me to disregard your opponent's contentions, this must be articulated to win points on the that argument. When disputing your opponent's case, be respectful and disparage the contentions or framework and not the person.

Flowing: I will flow everything except for the cross. I tend to flow main ideas and not each individual card you present. I do consider your ability to ask and answer questions when determining speaker points.

Voter Issues:When providing voter issues, don't just restate why your framework is better or how your contentions have gone un-attacked. Voter issues are about WHY your remaining arguments are more important. How odes your side realize a better outcome for the society in question? Are you winning on scope, magnitude, reversibility, probability? This is your opportunity to make the case for why the issues you have presented are more important to meeting the moral imperative of the resolution.

A few other things: Overall, I work very hard to leave my own ideas, biases and knowledge out of the debate. If something isn't true, is an exaggeration, or is actually supporting the other side, I expect the opponent to point this out. If it isn't acknowledged as false in the round, I try to vote on it. But I can only suspend reality so far...if what you are saying isn't plausible, then I can only ignore that for so long. So, if your opponent is saying weird stuff, acknowledge that so I know that you also see that an argument is faulty. If you don't say it, I might have to let it flow through.

HIGH SCHOOL

A basic overview:

--Don’t be offensive or rude. Passionate is fine, rude is not. Be respectful in CX!

--Please contextualize cards, don’t just read evidence. Be able to explain it and apply it in round.

--Clash please, don’t be two ships sailing past each other.

--If someone asks to slow down, please do.

--Don’t maliciously/intentionally lie.

--Overview/Underview's are very appreciated!

--Range is 26-30 USUALLY. 27.5 means you gave speeches. It was average. Basically it is my baseline where I adjust up and down.

--Impacts please!

--I love it when people read my paradigm

--Have fun and learn a lot!

If you want more knowledge, feel free to read the college section.

COLLEGE

I prefer to go by Nora now, though I will not be upset if you use my birth name. It is not traumatic for me personally, more of a comfort thing for me (I use They/She pronouns, but won't be offended if you make a mistake.)

Important Stuff (PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE):

--Do not use ableist slurs. It is offensive and personally traumatic for me. This is a potential vote down on the spot issue, if warrented out. (I'd prefer if you didn't use the terms p*ranoid/p*ranoia or d*lusional/d*lusion unless talking about the conditions, just a personal preference).

--DO NOT Misgender someone on purpose, (including being corrected on pronouns, but refusing to use the correct ones) . I have no tolerance for transphobia in debate. Also a heads up I tend to ask pronouns before rounds start to insure I do not mmisgender. In genrtal. Do not be a bigot

--Please do not lie or be unethical in round. (You can make guesses and extrapolate, and even be wrong. Just don't tell me the sky is green without contextualizeing it)

--Please do not Lie about being a particular identity. I do not police identities (I will not force an outing or demand to know your identity), but do not lie about it. Being honest is the best policy with me I promise you.

--Do Impact Calculus please. It makes my job easier and increases the likelihood I vote your way. If no calculus is done, I default to magnitude then timeframe then probability

Overall/Background:

I have competed in Debate for 3 years. 1 year of Parliamentary Debate and 2 years of Lincoln Debate. I have also done Policy Debate at a tournament. Since then, I have been judging and helping out with McKendree Debate for 2 years judging both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary Debate for them. I am now a freelance judge when I have time. I also have judged Policy Debate for the Saint Louis Urban Debate League for 4 years.
TLDR: I've been involved in debate since about 2015.

On Kritiks/Critical Affs:

I can vibe with the Kritik. But Please explain your kritik (Underview or overview). Don’t say buzzwords and taglines and expect me to understand it. I’m not really up to date with the literature. I will be honest, I have read for fun, since dropping out of my masters, at this point and what interests me (often history). So odds are I have not read the literature on the K (Last critical lit I read/listened to was Capitalist Realism in August/Sept of 2022). So don't expect me to know it and do work for you. I also have comprehension issues when it comes to this. Please Know your Kritik. Also, I am open to kritiks on the language used in the round (Ableism for example). You can be non topical in front of me. But you must be able to defend it.

On T/theory:

For Potential Abuse: I’d like some example of abuse or a reasonable disad/cp that could not have been read (you don't have to read the disad that no links, a simple here's a disad I could have ran works fine). Because they are so potent, I like the team to be winning at every level and the majority of standards. I would also like some form of impact coming off of T, something you can argue why this is bad and such.

Cross-X:

I do hold cross-x as binding. However, I do not flow it, but I will take notes and pay attention. But you can extend argumentation and answers said in cross-x on the flow and I will consider them as arguments/stuff the other team said.

Perms (Mostly For LD):

I want some warrants or explanation on why Perms will work. I need an explanation on stuff such as Perm do the CP on why I should allow that.

Procedurals:

I am willing to hear out procedurals outside of T. My favs include Conditionality. Now I will hear out frivolous procedures, however I will warn you it will be an uphill battle. Like my threshold for this is you absolutely have to be winning everywhere to win a frivolous/joke procedural. So do with this what you will. I however will not hear out racist, ableist, transphobic, or bigoted procedurals.

Misc.:

Speaks for me start at 27, meaning a 27 for me is a normal speech, not exceptional but not bad. I am somewhat fine with speed to an extent (this is more for parliamentary). However, don’t use it to purposely discriminate/exclude a person from the activity. If you are going to run a you went too fast argument, make a good faith attempt to alert them (in general, I prefer you to Speed and/or Clear them 2 times minimum). If you are going to fast for me. I will say SPEED to signal to slow down (if you are becoming incoherent I will say CLEAR). If you don’t slow down, I will try to flow But I probably won’t get it all so you probably won’t like my RFD (Please be considerate, I have ADHD and autism so if you are going too fast it can cause me to end up losing my focus, I'll let you know if this is happening). I am in favor of disclosing RFD’s and can explain my reasoning, you are welcome to ask questions.

You can reach me at the following with any questions, I will try my best to answer!

justinfauszpersonal@gmail.com

Facebook: Justin Fausz

UPDATED: ???

I value logical reasoning over evidence, although compelling evidence cannot be ignored. I strive for impartiality and open-mindedness when evaluating arguments. Effective rebuttal strategies should encompass both offense and defense (not just defense), and I appreciate when debaters engage with each point individually rather than skirting around them. I have experience in college parli and have judged LD and public forum so I understand the importance of clear communication, although I prioritize the substance of arguments over delivery style. Fairness and equal opportunity for both sides are crucial to me. I value the ability of debaters to effectively establish and defend their chosen framework, though I also recognize the importance of flexibility and willingness to engage in a constructive exchange of ideas. While I appreciate debaters' commitment to their framework, I understand that finding common ground can be valuable in fostering meaningful discourse. While defending your framework is important, I don't necessarily expect you to outright win on it. If a framework is not provided by either side, I default to util. Professional conduct and adherence to debate etiquette are expected, and I rely on clear links to impacts to understand how arguments lead to their intended outcomes.

Roadmaps = Off time

Speed is welcomed I can flow as fast as you talk.

I'm an NPDA debater of 3 years and I debated for 5 generally.

all I ask is that you speak slowly enough for me to flow easily and have good clash with counterarguments.

extra points if you somehow weave the Rwandan Air Force into your argument meaningfully

Miscellaneous:

- I view debate as a game. It is not all about winning. Your round should be fun, educational, and equitable for everyone involved. Be respectful at all times.

- The more specific the argument the better. I'm open to any arguments that may come up in a round so throw anything you want to try at me.

- Please impact. A lot, preferably.

- I would prefer line-by-line rebuttals.

- I can flow speed but if it becomes unintelligible I will set my pen down and stop flowing (I will also do this if you go over time).

- Topicality debates are good.

- Tech > truth

- I will vote on presumption.

- If your frameworks are basically the same I'll ultimately collapse them to make my decision. If you have impacts that only link under your framework then by all means argue the heck out of the framework debate! BUT PLEASE NOTE: "they don't link to their FW because I actually link better as shown in my contentions..." is NOT a reason to prefer your framework, it's just a solvency argument.

- And, ask any questions you may have before the round and I'll be happy to answer them.

LD:

Values and value criterions are a weighing mechanism for the evaluation of arguments. Winning the value debate matters because it changes how I view impacts in the round and prioritize them. I understand the idea of “upholding a value” as the end goal of an LD round, and I can buy into that as a way to win a round, too. However, if that’s what you do, I probably won’t vote for impacts outside of that framework. You should choose between (1) upholding a value as a virtue or good in itself or (2) winning impacts that you will frame using your value/criterion. Both are valid, but I am inclined toward the impact style (option 2) by default.

I tend to think of LD debates in four parts: Definitions, Value, Aff Contentions, and Neg Contentions. I think it makes sense to flow LD on three sheets: One for definitions and values, one for aff contentions, and one for neg contentions. That makes the clash in definitions and aff/neg value easier to isolate and prevents a lot of strange and usually unnecessary cross-applications.

Hi! This is Hui Xin, and I will be your judge! I'm a junior in college, and I've been in debate for about 5 years. I have experience in both LD and PF.

Here are some things I would like to see in a debate:

• Clear signposting, weighing, and usage of terms.
• Speak clearly and with confidence! Even if you don't feel confident, still project your voice and minimize fillers. I do well with speed, but not with muffled words.
• I do not flow cross, so be sure to bring up any important topics in your speeches.
• Follow speech times and requirements. I will give a 10-second grace period if you need it, but failure to give what is needed in a certain speech (for example, if the negative fails to refute the affirmative's side in the negative constructive) will be counted against you.
• Walk me through the debate. Treat me as someone without any knowledge of this topic. I want you to tell me which of your arguments are winning and why.
• Treat everyone in the room with respect.

Also, don't forget to have fun!!

I am a Debate Coach at McKendree University. We compete primarily in the NPDA, NFA-LD, and IPDA formats of debate. We also host and assist with local high school teams, who focus on NSDA-LD and PF.

Email: banicholsonATmckendreeDOTedu

I have sections dedicated to each format of debate I typically judge and you should read those if you have time. If you don’t have time, read the TLDR and ask your specific questions before the round. If you do a format of debate I don’t have a section for, read as much as you can and ask as many questions as you want before the round.

TLDR

I view debate as a game. But I believe games are an important part of our lives and they have real impacts on the people who play them and the contexts they are played in. Games also reflect our world and relationships to it. Debate is not a pro sport. It is not all about winning. Your round should be fun, educational, and equitable for everyone involved. My favorite thing to see in a debate round is people who are passionate about their positions. If you play hard and do your best, I'm going to appreciate you for that.

The quick hits of things about my judging that you might want to know before the round:Specificity wins.

1. Most of the time, the debater with the more well-articulated position wins the debate. Get into the details and make comparisons.
2. I like debaters who seek out clash instead of trying to avoid it. Do the hard work and you will be rewarded.
3. I assume negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. I think conditionally is good. Anything more than two advocacies is probably too much. Two is almost always fine. One conditional advocacy is not at all objectionable to me. Format specific notes below.
4. I love topicality debates. I tend to dislike 1NC theory other than topicality and framework. 2AC theory doesn’t appeal to me most of the time, but it is an important check against negative flex, so use it as needed.
5. I don’t exclude impact weighing based on sequencing. Sequencing arguments are often a good reason to preference a type of impact, but not to exclude other impacts, so make sure to account for the impacts you attempt to frame out.
6. I will vote on presumption. Debate is an asymmetrical game, and the negative does not have to win offense to win the round. However, I want negative debaters to articulate their presumption triggers for me, not assume I will do the work for them.
7. I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts because that feels least interventionist.
8. Give your opponents’ arguments the benefit of the doubt. They’re probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning.
9. Debates should be accessible. If your opponent (or a judge) asks you to slow down, slow down. Be able to explain your arguments. Be kind. Debate should be a fun learning experience for everyone.
10. In evidence formats, you should be prepared to share that evidence with everyone during the round via speechdrop, email chain, or flash drive.
11. All debate is performative. How you choose to perform matters and is part of the arguments you make. That often doesn’t come up, but it can. Don’t say hateful things or be rude. I will dock speaker points accordingly or vote against you.

General

Everything is up for debate. For every position I hold about debate, it seems someone has found a corner case. I try to be clear and to stick to my philosophy’s guidelines as much as possible as a judge. Sometimes, a debater changes how I see debate. Those debaters get very good speaker points. (Speaking of which, my speaker points center around a 28.1 as the average, using tenth points whenever possible).

I flow on a laptop in evidence-based formats (LD, CX, PF) and on paper in extemporaneous formats (NPDA, IPDA). If I don’t ask you to slow down, you’re fine – don’t worry about it. I don’t number arguments as I flow, so don’t expect me to know what your 2b point was without briefly referencing the argument. You should be doing this as part of your extensions anyway.

One specific note about my flowing that I have found impacts my decisions compared to other judges on panels is that I do not believe the “pages” of a debate are separate. I view rounds holistically and the flow as a representation of the whole. If arguments on separate pages interact with each other, I do not need explicit cross-applications to understand that. For instance, “MAD checks” on one page of the debate answers generic nuke war on every page of the debate. That work should ideally be done by debaters, but it has come up in RFDs in the past, so I feel required to mention it.

In theory debates, I’ve noticed some judges want a counter-interpretation regardless of the rest of the answers. If the strategy in answering theory is impact turns, I do not see a need for a counter-interp most of the time. In a pure, condo bad v condo good debate, for instance, my presumption is condo, so the negative can just read impact turns and impact defense and win against a “no condo” interp. Basically, if the aff says “you can’t do that because it is bad” and the neg says “it is not bad and, in fact, is good” I do not think the neg should have to say “yes, I can do that” (because they already did it). The counter-interp can still help in these debates, as you can use it to frame out some offense, by creating a lower threshold that you still meet (think “some condo” interps instead of “all condo”).

I look to texts of interps over spirit of interps. I have rarely seen spirit of the interp clarified in the 1NC and it is often used to pivot the interp away from aff answers or to cover for a bad text. If you contextualize your interp early and then stick to that, that is fine. But don’t use spirit of the interp to dodge the 2AC answers.

I start the round with the assumption that theory is a prior question to other evaluations. I will weigh theory then substance unless someone wins an argument to the contrary. Critical affs do not preclude theory in my mind unless a debater wins a compelling reason that it should. I default to evaluating critical arguments in the same layer as the rest of the substantive debate. I am compelled by arguments that procedural issues are a question of judging process (that non-topical affs skew my evaluation of the substance debate or multi-condo skews the speech that answers it, for instance). I am unlikely to let affirmative teams weigh their aff against theory objections to that aff without some good justifications for that.

A topicality interpretation should allow some aff ground. If there is not a topical aff and the aff team points that out, I'm unlikely to vote neg on T. That means you should read a TVA if you’re neg (do this anyway). I am open to sketchier T interps if they make sense. For instance, if you say that a phrase in the res means the aff must be effectually topical, I can see myself voting for this argument. Keep in mind, however, that these arguments run the risk of your opponent answering them well and you gaining nothing.

NPDA

My philosophy has changed over time – especially in relation to NPDA as a format. I think you’d do well to read through this in detail if you feel like you already know me as a judge. I still want you to explore arguments you care about and are interested in, but there are new boundaries explained here that I feel are necessary to the maintenance and growth of this activity that I will not negotiate. Please, still advocate for your positions, but you may need to adapt your arguments to me more than you have in the past.

I’m going to start with the three biggest changes in my NPDA philosophy.

1. Debates need to slow down. To help enforce this rule, I am flowing on paper again. I will try to be proactive in calling speed issues early and often in rounds to help debaters who may be used to my previous threshold adapt to a slower speed threshold.
2. Affirmative teams must affirm the topic. If you “reject the topic” in the 1AC, I will vote negative on presumption. (This is explained in more detail below.)
3. NPDA should be a rigorous, extemporaneous debate format. I expect you to read new arguments that you wrote in prep that talk about the topic in some detail. Generics are a critical part of the prep process, but we should all be adapting our generics better to the specifics of each topic.

NPDA is a strange beast. Without carded evidence, uniqueness debates and author says X/no they say Y can be messy. That just means you need to explain a way you want me to evaluate them and, ultimately, why I should believe your interpretation of that author’s position or the argument you’ve made. In yes/no uniqueness questions, explain why you believe yes, not just that someone else does. That means explaining the study or the article reasoning that you’re leaning on and applying it to the specifics of the debate. Sometimes it just means you need an “even if” argument to hedge your bets if you lose those issues. I try to let these things be resolved in round, but sometimes I have to make a judgment call, and I’ll do my best to refer only to my flow when that happens. But remember, the evidence alone doesn’t win evidence debates – the warrants and reasoning do the heavy lifting.

Arguments in parliamentary debate require more reasoning and support because there is no printed evidence available to rely on. That means you should not just yoink the taglines out of a file someone open-sourced. You should explain the arguments as they are explained in the texts those files are cut from. Use your own words to make the novel connections to the rounds we’re in and the topics we discuss. This is a beautiful thing when it happens, and those rounds show the promise that parli has as a productive academic endeavor. We don’t just rely on someone else saying it – we can make our own arguments and apply what others have said to new scenarios. So, let’s do that!

Affirmative teams must affirm the resolution. How you do that is up to you. The resolution should be a springboard for many conversations, but criticizing the res is not a reason to vote affirmative. You can read policy affs, value affs, performance affs, critical affs, and any other aff you can think of as long as it affirms the res. Affs should include an interpretation of the resolution and a weighing mechanism to determine if you’ve met this burden. That is not often necessary in policy affs (because it happens contextually), but sometimes it helps to clarify. I am not asking the aff to roleplay as oppressors or to abdicate their power to pose questions. Instead, I want the aff team to reframe questions if necessary and to contextualize their offense to the resolution. Be creative and adapt your arguments to the topic of the debate. Do not read the same, unmodified argument in every round.

Negative teams must answer the affirmative. How you do that is up to you. You should make sure I know what your objections to the aff strategy are and why they are voting issues. That can be T, DAs, Ks, performances, whatever (except spec*). I vote on presumption more than most judges in NPDA. The aff must win offense and affs don’t always do that. I think “risk of solvency” only applies if I know what I’m risking. I must be able to understand and explain what an aff, CP, or alt does on my ballot to run that “risk” on their behalf. With all that said, articulate presumption triggers for me. When you extend defense in the MO, explain “that’s a presumption trigger because…”.

I can buy arguments that presumption flips aff in counter-advocacy debates, but I don’t see that contextualized well and is often just a “risk of solvency” type claim in the PMR. This argument is most compelling to me in PIC debates, since the aff often gets less (or none) of their 1AC offense to leverage. Absent a specific contextualization about why presumption flips aff in this round (bigger change, PIC, etc.), I tend to err neg on this question, though it rarely comes up.

*On spec: Spec shells must include a clear brightline for a ‘we meet’ – so ‘aff must specify the branch (judicial, legislative, executive)’ is fine. Spec shells often only serve to protect weak link arguments (which should be improved, rather than shielded by spec) or to create time tradeoffs. They are sometimes useful and good arguments, but that scenario is rare. In the few cases where spec is necessary, ask a question in flex. If that doesn’t work, read spec.

Condo: 1 K, 1 CP, and the squo is fine to me. Two Ks is a mess. Two CPs just muddles the case debate and is worse in NPDA because we lack backside rebuttals. Contradictory positions are fine with me (procedurally, at least). MGs should think ahead more and force bad collapses in these debates. Kicking the alt doesn’t necessarily make offense on the link/impact of a K go away (though it often does). I am open to judge kicking if the neg describes and justifies an exact set of parameters under which I judge kick. I reserve the right to not judge kick based on my own perception of these arguments. So probably don’t try to get me to judge kick, honestly.

I don't think reasonability (as it is frequently explained) is a good weighing mechanism for parli debates. It seems absurd that I should be concerned about the outcomes of future debates with this topic when there will be none or very few and far between. At topic area tournaments, I am more likely to vote on specific topicality. That does not mean that that I’ll intervene on T if you’ve attempted to affirm the topic; it just means you need better T answers if topics are released in advance of the tournament. Reasonability makes more sense to me at a tournament that repeats resolutions (like NPTE).

NFA-LD

I tend to think disclosure of affs (once you’ve read them) is good and almost necessary and that disclosure of negs is very kind, but not necessary. The more generic a neg position is, the more likely I am to want it disclosed, but I’ll never expect it to be disclosed. I won’t take a strong position on any of this – disclose what you want to disclose (or don’t disclose at all) and defend that practice if necessary.

Affirmatives should stake out specific ground in the 1AC and defend it throughout the round. I don’t care how you do this, whether it is a plan, an advocacy, a performance is up to you. I think that topical plan debate is often the easiest to access, but I don’t believe that makes it the only accessible form of debate or the only good form of debate. So, read the aff you want to read, but be prepared to defend it. Affirmative debaters can (and sometimes should) kick their advantage offense to go for offense on a neg position. I don’t see this enough, and I really wish it was more common in plan debates, especially.

Negatives should answer the aff. How you answer the aff is your business, but I like specific links for negative arguments. On case, I love a good impact turn, but I’ll settle for any offense. In terms of DA choice, I think you benefit from reading high magnitude impacts most of the time, because the aff likely outweighs systemic DAs or has systemic impacts of its own.

For criticisms, I just want to understand what is happening. Most of the time that’s not a problem, but don’t assume I’ve read your lit or understand the jargon. I would prefer if you can articulate your criticism in accessible language in CX. I tend to prefer a K with a material impact, but I can vote for impacts that are less material if they’re explained well and interact with the aff impact in a meaningful way.

Negative procedurals should be limited to topicality if possible. T isn’t a voting issue because of “rules”. It’s a voting issue because of how it impacts debates. I default to competing interps and don’t usually hear a good justification (or even definition) for reasonability. I will still weigh based on reasonability if it is explained and won.

Spec, speed bad, and norm-setting arguments (like disclosure) generally don’t appeal to me. I understand their importance in some strategies and sometimes they are required. If someone refuses to slow down, I understand the need to say speed is bad. But I don’t care about rules, I care about how people are being treated – so make speed debates be about that. Spec and norm-setting arguments should be about the impact on research practices, education, and fairness in rounds.

2AC/1AR theory is not my favorite. I want debates to be about the aff case and when the affirmative debater decides to introduce additional issues, that often takes away from discussion of the aff itself. I know sometimes people go too far, and you have to read condo or delay bad or whatever. That’s fine. But use your best judgement to avoid reading theory in unnecessary situations and when you do have to read theory, keep the debate about the aff if possible.

I expect clear interpretations and voting issues for theory shells. I’ve noticed that this is not always the case in the NFA-LD theory debates I’ve seen, and teams would benefit from a specific statement of what should and/or should not be allowed.

Negative debaters should prioritize impact framing and delineate a path to the ballot for themselves. I have seen quite a few debates where the NR gets bogged down in the line-by-line and the aff wins by virtue of contextualizing arguments just a bit. In your NRs and 2ARs, I’d like to see more comparative analysis and focus on what my ballot should say, rather than exclusively line-by-line. You still need to answer and account for arguments in the line-by-line, but absent a clear “mission statement” for your speech paired with necessary analysis, it is hard to vote for you. Aff debaters can’t go all big picture in the 2AR. You have to deal with the line-by-line. I can’t ignore the NR and let you give a 3-minute overview. Get short and sweet with your overview. Clarify your path to ballot and then execute that strategy on the flow.

IPDA

Most of the NPDA notes will tell you how I feel about extemporaneous debate formats. Here are some quick hits from my experiences with IPDA that might influence your decision-making.

1. If you read a value, you need a criterion. (The NSDA-LD section has more on this subject.)

2. I prefer more academically, and policy slanted topics, strike down accordingly.

3. Make a clear statement of why you should win. I prefer overviews to underviews and one or two sentence I win statements to a list of disconnected voting issues.

NSDA General

I’ve heard many things referred to as “cards” that are not cards. A card needs to be a direct quotation, read in part (marked by underlining and highlighting) with a citation and a tagline that explains that argument. Present it in this order: Tagline, Author/Year, Evidence. Referencing a study or article is not a “card.”

You should be reading cards in debates. And you should be prepared to share those cards with your opponents. If you’d like help learning how to cut evidence into cards and how to share those cards quickly with your opponents and judges, I’ll gladly walk you through the process – but there are many resources available to you outside of me so seek them out.

Seek out clash. Don’t say “my partner will present that later” or dodge questions. Find the debate and go to it. We’re here to answer each other’s arguments and learn from the process, so let’s do that.

Time yourselves and each other – you should keep track of your prep time and your opponent’s prep time and time every speech in the debate. This is a good habit that you need to build.

NSDA-LD

Values and value criteria are a weighing mechanism for evaluation of arguments. Winning the value debate matters because it changes how I view impacts in the round and prioritize them. I understand the idea of “upholding a value” as the end goal of an LD round, and I can buy into that as a way to win a round, too. However, if that’s what you do, I probably won’t vote for impacts outside of that framework. You should choose between (1) upholding a value as a virtue or good in itself or (2) winning impacts that you will frame using your value/criterion. Both are valid, but I am inclined toward the impact style (option 2) by default.

I tend to think of LD debates in four parts: Definitions, Value, Aff Contentions, and Neg Contentions. I think it makes sense to flow LD on three sheets: One for definitions and values, one for aff contentions, and one for neg contentions. That makes the clash in definitions and aff/neg value easier to isolate and prevents a lot of strange and usually unnecessary cross-applications. Thinking of negative values as “Counter Values” that answer the aff value makes a lot more sense to me. You don’t have to do this in your round or on your flow, but it should help you conceptualize how I think about these debates.

I have not judged many plan-focused rounds in NSDA-LD, but I’m open to that if that is your style or you want to experiment. If you do this, I’ll flow top of aff, advantages, and neg positions on separate sheets like I would in a policy debate, and you can ignore the stuff about values above.

I am open to the less traditional arguments available to you. I love to see the unique ways you can affirm or negate using different literature bases than just the core social contract and ethics grab-bag.

Public Forum

I don’t have a ton of specific notes for PF. Check out the general section for NSDA and feel free to ask questions.

I like when the aff team speaks first. It makes debates cleaner and encourages negative responsiveness to the aff. You don’t have to choose first if you’re aff and like speaking second. But keep it in mind and do what you will with that information.

I don’t flow crossfires. I pay attention, but you need to bring up relevant crossfire moments in your speech and explain why they matter for me vote for them or include them in my decisions.

I know this is long, and hypocritically so since I ask you to be concise in-round. This just grew over several years because I judge a bunch of different events. Instead of paring it down, I've decided to leave it but point you to what actually needs your attention. For an overview, read the TLDR paragraph. Key words are bolded in the middle section to help with skimming (I know you don't have a ton of time between rounds). Then look for your event in bold at the bottom. Feel free to skip what's not relevant to you. If you have questions about what happened after receiving your ballot, coming back here and reading more thoroughly will likely answer your question(s). If it doesn't, feel free to talk to me about it when you see me next.

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

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

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

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

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

This doesn't mean I just want to seestock cases. Unusual and inventive arguments are often a major plus. Traditional judges don't want to see the same round over and over again, either. Just make sure you're warranting these arguments and that they're topical.

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

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

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

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

No matter what value and criterion you choose, make sure you're linking all of your impacts back to your framework throughout the round. A brief mention at the top of each speech is not nearly enough attention to framework in LD. Also, please don't make your value "morality." That's redundant. All of these resolutions have the word "ought" in them; morality is implicitly valued in the round. You're not actually giving me any real information here about how you're using a theory of value to evaluate the resolution at hand.

For Public Forum: Evidence matters here even more than in the other debate events. Make sure you're reading all of your sources in their entirety before cutting cards. I'm always paying attention, and so are most of the other debaters: if you're using something out of context, you will get called on it eventually by one of your opponents or judges. I will call for evidence in close rounds, so be prepared to hand over your cards. Making empirical assertions without providing empirical evidence will make it very hard for me to vote for you, and misusing evidence will make it nearly impossible. Additionally, spitting out cards and contentions you're hoping your opponent will drop is not the path to my ballot. Well-reasoned and charitable argument is.

For Congress: It is to the whole chamber's disservice to get stuck on one bill or one series of bills. Even if your favorite bill is being discussed and you haven't gotten a chance to speak yet, it's in your best interest not to extend a tired debate. I would rather see fresh debate on a bill that is less familiar to you than continue to see the same arguments recycled over and over again.

Congress is meant to be an extemporaneous event. I don't want your speeches to be pretty and polished like a speech event, or even like a constructive speech in PF or LD. I want you to show me that you have a range of knowledge and interest in an even wider range of topics in current events, and can speak extemporaneously on these topics in the chamber. There's little I dislike more in debate than for a Congress chamber to take a recess so everyone can "write their speeches." This fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of Congress. The best advice I can give Congressional debaters for prep isn't to write polished speeches, but to regularly read (not watch) reputable news sources like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and The Economist. If you must watch your news, go with the PBS News Hour or something international (i.e. the BBC), not partisan entertainment-oriented channels like CNN, FOX, or MSNBC. Podcasts are fun, but not a substitute for reputable news organizations with full-time fact checkers.

For Extemporaneous Debate, most of the above goes in various degrees. If one person runs a framework in this event, I'll weigh it against whatever framework is the best fit for the other debater's arguments (usually cost-benefit analysis, occasionally a rights-based theory). I won't just default to the person who has an explicit framework since it is not a norm to always have one in this event. Other than that, this is a rapid-fire version of the other events. The most important thing is to warrant, warrant, warrant, whether we're talking about arguments, evidence, tangible impacts, or a framework. Like with PF, spitting out cards and contentions you're hoping your opponent will drop is not the path to my ballot.

For Big Questions, the NSDA briefs are usually weird and unhelpful. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is your friend. Think very carefully about what makes a good argument, and nuance is most often the key with these kinds of resolutions. Trying to do something tricky or gimmicky (such as saying that objective morality is real because of natural selection instead of arguing in favor of actual normative moral truth) is usually going to work less well than offering a substantive, multi-faceted account of the issue at hand. However, I'm not totally opposed to these kinds of arguments and have voted for them in the past. Just tread carefully as the bar will be higher for them.

This event (usually) isn't about the empirical, but the metaphysical, and you should approach it as such. This means that looking for "evidence" from science instead of philosophy is often the wrong tactic. Reasoning and logic is evidence, as shown by the entire history of thought. Think about it this way: you can't find numbers in the natural world, but rockets still wouldn't work without mathematics. The same goes for logic, which is just verbal mathematics.

Add me to email chains: sharpedebate@gmail.com

Lol - contention taglines should be no more than 3 words max. These sentence long taglines gotta go. Please liberate me.

Short Verison:

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

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

TLDR:

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

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

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

*Prioritize impacts, the strategy is important

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

*Be Clear

Former Debater at Homewood-Flossmoor

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

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

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

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

Hello; I have debated for two years and have been judging for one. I want to see debaters attach strong impacts to their contentions. Without any impacts, an argument can’t be weighed on the pro/aff or the con/neg, and therefore can’t be flowed through.

I also want to see strong signposting throughout the round because it makes it easier to flow. Furthermore, I won’t flow cross ex, but I expect to see meaningful questions and meaningful answers during this time.

Additionally, I will weigh framework debate heavily, and would like to see some framework argumentation and discussion in each debate.

Above all else, be respectful in round, have fun, and learn something.