Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them. A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Debaters should time themselves so they can stay in the allotted time. Clash should be done civilly, please never attack your opponent. Remember it is your job to convince me to be on your side. Evidence should be cited, arguments/evidence should extend the v/c, and signpost – make it easy for me to follow. Let me know you are going off case - be sure your very clear in your delivery - slow down and make sure I'm understanding your case.

In terms of judging, I lean more on the traditional communication side of LD. While sophisticated argumentation and philosophy are integral to a strong debate, I think that presentation, speaking style, and polish are equally important. Clarity, enunciation, and strong communication skills can be the deciding factor between two equally-matched competitors.

If you lean towards a more progressive style of LD debate, I fully expect to see your Value and Value Criterion supported and referenced throughout each contention. Because LD is a Value-centric debate, even the most logical, well-supported contentions will be useless without reference to LD framework. This support should be explicitly stated: as with any other aspect of your case or the round as a whole, I will not make arguments or connections on your behalf.

Any drops made in-round should be adequately explained and impacted. It is not enough for you or your opponent to tell me to flow a drop; the significance of each drop must be tied either to your case or your opponent's and logically refuted.

Okay, my paradigm is simple. I love clash. I want to know how your case is different from other people's, especially your opponent.

If I think your evidence is questionable, I might ask to take a look at it before I make my decision.

If you can't think of something to say, REPEAT YOUR POINTS and give me voters. Voters are why I ought to vote for you. What have you proven in your case that affects the entirety of humanity? How does your opponent's case harm the world?

Give me fire and brimstone. I want to see passion! Without the volume, however. Be courteous to your opponent.

CX

I LOVE CX. But I will not flow CX unless you bring it up in your speech. Ask important questions! Try to dominate CX, appearing rude is different than being rude, and I love to see it. Do not attack your opponent's character. Do not look at each other

OVERALL
I want to be on the edge of my seat. Please make this interesting, and good luck!

Updated -- IP high school topic / Clean Energy Topic

dawsonnick02@gmail.com

a 2n and have debated 4 years of HS and on my fourth in college at Gonzaga. I love the activity and give praise to everyone who debates.

My favorite thing to see in a debate is a well researched cohesive strategy

For policy debate::

I’ve been focusing on leaning policy in college lately, and have researched critical lit less lately, but I was generally a k debater in HS. In college I’ve been a flex team reading both K and policy. That being said, I try to be a mainly tabu la rasa judge. In almost every manner I am a blank slate that is what the debaters say I should be.

Theory

T and condo are always voters, and almost never reverse voters. Almost every other interpretation is solved by rejecting the argument, unless otherwise instructed.

K's

I have a pretty good knowledge on most k lit. That being said, if you have specific questions, you can ask me before round. I'm down to hear whatever you got. Creative K's are epic.

For the Aff specifically. I will judge the aff how you tell me to judge it, unless the negative has a more beneficial interpretation of how I should instead.

What you probably shouldn't run:

Double win/loss / other rule breaking

Defending suicide alternatives/advocacies(ligotti, schope, others like these are ok)

Anything other than policy debate

I'm a blank slate judge that tries to leave all prior knowledge of the topic outside of the room.

I prefer it if debaters spent way more time on comparing the (framework/resolutional analysis/etc) to the other teams. This is, in my opinion the most important part of debate that can instruct me to shield in or out teams' offense and defense.

Impact calculus in the later speeches is necessary. It defines the most important parts of the round, and if you win it, it should mostly define who/what my ballot should be for.

any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

I consider myself a traditionalist. Lincoln-Douglas debate was created for a reason. The intent of debate is to facilitate communication, therefore use of speed should not be the emphasis in this activity. A good litmus test is the following...would Abraham Lincoln have used spread during his debate with Stephen Douglas? No? Then you probably shouldn't either. Exchange of ideas, discussion of which value is superior, respect and civility should be of paramount importance. Analysis and organization is extremely important. The debater in front of me should explain why their analysis is superior and why their value defeats the opposition.

As I noted above, the intent of debate is to facilitate communication. Speakers need to remember, and this is extremely important, that communication is not only about speaking, but it is also about listening. I have seen it happen more times than I can count, that your opponent will give you information to flip against them in the round, and that flip is not utilized. The tough part is identifying that information. Do not be constrained by what is obvious, meaning do not be afraid to ask "what if". Lateral thinking therefore, is incredibly important to consider.

Further, I consider myself a pragmatist. Originally, Lincoln-Douglas debate was designed as a values-oriented platform. This has evolved into a policy-values hybrid so while I will look at a round from a purely values perspective, the values and values criteria have become more of a means/end assertion. The use of real world links and impacts should support your decision. If you are able to demonstrate why your real world analysis/evidence supports your values/values criteria and you set that parameter up front, I will strongly consider that as a voter. I would however note the following:: the links to your impacts are absolutely critical to establish in the round. Off time roadmaps are also important. Organization is absolutely critical. It is your responsibility to tell me where you are on the flow.

Impact calculus is one of the major concepts I will weigh in your round. That is an incredibly huge point to remember where I am concerned as a judge. However, it is important to consider the nature of the impact. This is where the aforementioned links come into play. Of further note, since LD has become a hybrid, I buy off on solvency being an issue as a means to justify the resolution. Those of you who have had me before as a judge know why that statement alone can determine an entire round. In short, back to the point on the "what if" issue I broached earlier, that would be a very good place to start.

I also look at framework. If you are going to run something out of the norm...i.e. counterplan, Rights Malthus, general breakdown of society, etc., you need to make sure your links are airtight, otherwise I will not consider your impact. The two would operate separate of each other if there is no link.

I started my involvement in LD in 1982, I also debated policy from 1980 to 1982, competed in speech from 1980 to 1984, and competed at the college level in the CEDA format in 1985 and from 1988 to 1990, and have been judging since 2014 in the Spokane, WA area. I also judged policy in the Chicago, IL area in the early 1990"s.

A couple of administrative notes. Eye contact is really important if for no other reason, to see how much time you have left. One of my biggest pet peeves is cutting off your opponent during CX. I have no problem annotating that you did so on your ballot so your coach can discuss the matter with you after the tournament. Civility and decorum are important, and I can surmise several of you have had this happen to you. I also do not have a problem with you timing yourself or sharing evidence, provided it does not detract from the overall use of time in the round.

Finally, it is extremely important to remember....this activity can be fun and it will help you in ways you can't even imagine later down the road. Everyone at this tournament, whether they are coaches, judges, your peers, etc...started as a novice. Bad rounds happen. They are a part of the landscape that is debate. This teaches an important life lesson. How do you bounce back from adversity? How do you apply what you have learned to make things better next time?

Remember that the case/argumentation you start off with at the beginning of the semester, will not be what you end up with at the end, provided you do a self assessment at the end of each round. Ask yourself what was supposed to happen. What did happen? What three things went well for you. What three things happened to you that are opportunities for improvement. If you are consistently applying these criteria, and using your coaches/opponents/peers as resources, by default your weaknesses will get shored up. Incidentally, this is a really good life skill as well and can be applied in the real world. Good luck to you going forward!

I am a 4 year debater with LD being my primary focus. I am comfortable with any argument you wish to run, but be prepared to defend it. When I look at the round I like to look at the round through the lenses of the value and value criterion and then look at the voters that may be present. Please signpost where you are in the flow, it makes it easier to follow you and if I can’t get it down or get it down in the wrong spot it doesn’t end well for you. I don’t flow crossx but if there is something in there you wish to bring up I will flow it.

im not super big on speed, but I can sorta deal with it. If something is dropped don’t just say oh it’s dropped, impact it and show me the significance of that drop.

Signpost, articulate your card names, and everything will work out. Clash is good; T, Ks, etc. are fine. I rely on my flow, and I’m reasonably competent at flowing. You can spread.

I’m not very particular on style or structure (as you may notice from my punctuation): this is your round, and I am here to occupy the position of judge according to the whims of tab.

Run whatever you want, and have fun! I am more interested in what you think is an interesting argument than I am in being catered to on a stylistic level.

email chain: avreneephil@gmail.com

Centennial High School-- 2015-2019

Gonzaga University-- 2019-2024

Strong preferences:

Tech > Truth, but you still need to extend warrants to dropped arguments and explain the implications

Re-highlightings need to be read aloud, not just inserted.

I am uninterested in evaluating debates involving interpersonal problems and situations occurring outside of the round.

I am not easily convinced that debate is bad and/or that it isn't a game.

Clarity is fundamental. It should be obvious when you are switching between tags, reading evidence, and moving on to the next card. You should go slower on analytics and number your arguments.

Impact calc/defense wins rounds

Conditionality is a reason to reject the team. For all other theory things, I will reject the argument. I don't find "performative contradictions" to be the gotcha moment some people do and think conditionality answers it sufficiently. I default to judge kicking the CP.

I do tend to read cards after the round, but I won't do it randomly and it is always compared to what I have on the flow. Thus, warranted explanations are key (don't just do tagline extensions) and if some evidence is extra important, tell me to star it in your speeches.

Okay, now just a couple of notes on some argument-specific things---

Framework debates:

I tend to believe that resolutional restrictions on affirmative ground are good for fairness and education (both of which are terminal impacts). The TVA is good defense to have, but you dont need to win one to win framework. I am much more persuaded by switch-side debate and research/clash focused arguments. Often the competing interp/reasonability portion of these debates are underwhelming and I default to competing models. I really do not enjoy FW debates where the aff and neg are just reading blocks at each other. Adapt and be genuinely responsive.

While I have a disposition that would be better for a neg fw team, I do my best to bracket my personal perspectives when adjudicating debates. Good and technical debating from a team running a K-aff will win my ballot 100% of the time over a sloppy execution of fw by the negative.

If you are a nontopical K-aff in front of me, some of my prefs:

a) dont just go for the impact turn, have defense to the substantive claims from the negative (except in the 2ar if the neg really messed up)

b) tell me if you have a big overview so i can get another sheet, but the overview should not replace nor sacrifice time doing technical debating and direct clash (the less embedded clash the better)

c) im really bad for metaphorical and other non-definitional counter-interpretations. if you cant provide me a counter interp with limits, then you need to spend more time making an argument against competing interps/models of debate

d) if you are doing a performance style of debating, like reading poetry, playing music, telling stories, etc. i need an explanation of how i am supposed to weigh that, and not just an assertion that "our performance is offense"

e) there needs to be a role for the negative under your model/understanding of debate. explain to me what that is.

Ks on the negative:

Are cool.

If FW isn't decisively in favor of the neg, and most other things are equal, I find myself leaning aff on the permutation. The negative should be attentive to doing refutation to aff fw answers and not just extending their standards/offense.

Im not super good for high theory ks. Nothing against the literature, I just think they're often poorly executed and too confusing for their own good.

The alternative debate shouldn't come across like it is forgotten. If it isn't an important part of the K strat, make that explicit. If it is, spend time there and explain it thoroughly.

Topicality v Policy Affs:

Default to competing interps

Go slower on analytics in these debates.

Counterplans:

Sometimes I find myself getting lost in the sauce of the highly technical and complicated competition debates. The permutation is often a critical evaluation point, so try to be extra clear and organized going through that portion of the argument.

Less is more with permutations. I would rather have 2 clearly explained perms than 7 sneakily dropped ones.

Counterplan solvency needs to be explained, not assumed. It should be specified to the affirmative and not just explained broadly.

Lean slightly neg on CP theory. I dont particularly enjoy evaluating theory debates. But if you have to go for it because you are losing substance, it happens. It's an important last line of defense.

Disadvantages

Are good. I dont have any outlandish preferences. Be technical, do impact calc, read lots of cards.

update for the 2025 conway: everything below is still true but i have genuinely zero topic knowledge. start your speeches slower so i can get used to your voice which is especially true for online!!

Current debater at Gonzaga University

baxter5326@gmail.com

tldr:

Do what you're good at.

Make fewer arguments and explain them more - i will hear and comprehend more of your arguments and we both want that. Quality > quantity.

I need to understand an argument to vote on it, which is a statement on speed (you can spread but i am kind of a slow writer. so probably go slower on analytics) and on content (i'll vote on stuff that i don't think is true but if i can't explain an argument back to you i'm not voting on it)

If you love going for counterplan theory or the minutia of topicality, please overexplain. I want to give the best decision possible and these are not my wheelhouse.

Thoughts

Ideally, my RFD should be the top of the final rebuttals. Explicit judge instruction is awesome. So is impact calculus. Tell me which stuff matters and why and we'll both be happier. If you don't, then I have to figure it out, and neither of us want that.

Disadvantages -- who doesn't like them?

Same deal with counterplans. I think clever CPs are fun and interesting, for the most part.

Kritiks are cool and where I'm most comfortable. Know what you're talking about and display that knowledge through your debating. Contextualize, explain, so forth. I have 0 remorse voting against something I didn't understand (this applies to other stuff too)

Topicality is important. I'm more convinced by fairness than other impacts. Probably err on the side of over-explaining here.

Theory isn't something I'll NEVER vote on but i don't really get it a lot of the time. The amount of work you'd have to do in order to get me to vote for you is definitely way higher than with any other argument.

Bad arguments are...bad. But I like silly stuff. If it's a bad argument, you should be able to beat it really easily. All dogs are blue?

Make good arguments you enjoy, be nice, have fun! If you have questions about anything just ask me before the round.

LD

not super familiar with what y'all do. The more you can frame it like a policy round the better I'll do. overexplain acronyms, theory, phil, etc.

ALL EVENTS: I WILL NOT VOTE ON ANYTHING RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, OR ANY OTHER HATE SPEECH. Please do not use speech and debate as a platform to spread any type of hatred. You will not win my vote.

This is my sixth year judging. Past Asst. Coach at Middle School for Public Forum. Asst. Coach at Gonzaga Prep High School. I debated in High School. I have one child in LD.

DEBATE:

I am happy to go where ever you case leads me as long as it makes sense and is backed up by evidence. I like the clash, but keep it polite. My biggest pet peeve is poor sports-person-ship. I do not mind if you take control of your cross-ex. Argue your points, and refute your opponents. Back up with facts, quotes, stats. Use impacts and YOUR VALUE!!! Use your VC as a weighing mechanism. I am a flow judge and follow my flow and arguments made there. I am a tech over truth judge. Lead me through your evidence and tell me how to vote. I will take the path of least resistance to a ballot. Don't make me guess or make my own conclusions, as they may not match what you are presenting. In other words, impacts and voters.

Slow down on tags and contention tags. If it is critical to your case, slow down for that portion and taglines. Enunciation is key for me to understand your case. If I am trying to figure out what you said, I miss your case. Spreading is an art form that has guidelines, breathing patterns, and rhythm. Don't confuse talking fast with spreading, they are two different things. If I cannot flow it, I do not judge it. If I stop typing, you know I am not getting it.

I do not judge on cross-ex. I will flow it, because I have the memory of a goldfish, and if you bring it back into round, I want to have notes on it. But if you do not bring it into round, it flies away and never comes back again. If it is a good point, don't let that happen.

IEs:

I will count stutters/missteps and crutch words. If a round is close I will rank off who has less. Tone/Infection are important during any speech, use them. Work on not yelling to show all emotions in any speech. Anger/Sadness has many faces, explore these to rank higher. Those who have their presentation memorized will rank higher than those who do not.

Informative: You got to pick your topic. Make it FUN and INTERESTING to me. Show me your passion and excitement about the subject. Be a human in your speech, not a robot. Please do this by making jokes, puns, or using conversational speech to keep me hooked. Pieces with good transitions, hooks, and conclusions rank higher.

Impromptu: I look for a framework. If you set a framework for your piece, I expect you to follow it. You don't have to have 3 points if you have a strong speech with 2.

Have fun and good luck! :-)

Price: $4.99 adjusted for inflation

Thanks for debating and reading my paradigm.

4 years LD experience in HS, not real versed in progressive debate theory or format. Flow judge.

-As a judge, I want to hear everything you have to say. To weigh your arguments to the fullest, I need to be able to understand what you're saying. I have a hard time keeping up with significant speed and the resulting lack of clarity. When reading your case, you already know what it says and so it's easy to get the words out quickly. When listening to your case, it will be new to me and will take more time to digest the words you're saying and take notes. Please be aware that if you go too far past a conversational pace, I may miss important parts of your case and that could impact the round. I will say slow and clear a few times if need be. Totally understand in a 3-judge panel situation if you want to disregard to play to the other judges, but I will have a hard time. Realizing I may sound like an old fogey saying this, but personally I think some of the best rounds are the ones where a totally lay person could reasonably follow the arguments being made because they are being explained well and in an accessible way.

-I think mutual respect and good faith debating make for good rounds. It's totally cool to play to win, be direct and assertive, but no need to be impolite in the way that we go about it. We are all friends here, ideally.

-Please stay humble in cx and utilize it to the best of your ability. Pointed questions are good, but try not to force an unnecessary yes or no answer to get ammo for your argument. I never liked being told to only answer yes or no and you probably don't either. I think the main function of CX needs to be clarifying your opponent's position so you can respond accordingly and accurately. In that vein, when your opponent sufficiently answers your question, feel free to move on to the next. Feel free to ask to see your opponent's case during CX or during your prep time. Also, CX questions and answers should be directed at the judge instead of directly at/facing each other.

-*Signposting as you go*, roadmaps, down the flow/ line by line speeches, anything to keep the debate flow organized is much appreciated. It helps so much when you are very clear about which side of the flow you're on and which numbered point you're responding to. This will really help me stay with you and flow all your arguments into the places you want them. At the end of most rounds I look at my flow, prioritize the framework arguments, and then apply those frameworks to the contention level debate. If impact calculus wasn't already provided or is contested, I'll look to see which points I felt went to each side and do my best to weigh them up on the whole.

-If you want an argument cross applied or it addresses multiple parts of a case and the way it does so isn't immediately apparent, please explain.

-If your opponents drops/doesn't sufficiently respond to a significant point, feel free to argue that it's conceded in the round and apply that argument/ impacts to the debate. That said, there are instances where it wouldn't be fair to vote on or heavily weigh some tiny argument that wasn't directly addressed. If a case is structured well imo, there's a few main points to focus on and not a laundry list. No hate on the homies running 15 contentions but it's tough to flow and time runs short.

-Progressive arguments are cool, but please accommodate both me and your opponent in terms of speed and accessibility. Please know that I don't have a solid knowledge of specific progressive structure or lingo. That said, outside the box cases which aren't built on speed/jargon but rather view the resolution or the debate in a different light are v fun as long as they can interact with the opposing case in a meaningful way.

-I love a nice synergy between the value and criterion. Especially where the value is the goal or moral standard and the criterion is the lens for how we know we're achieving that goal. Please note: it is difficult to evaluate a framework argument such as "justice is needed for safety", because the same could be said in reverse. Please explain how or why you believe that the frameworks differ (if they do) and why one is better/ more useful/ of higher moral quality than the other.

-All your time is your time, so please don't feel bad if you want to use it to collect your thoughts, breathe, consult your flow, make notes, etc. Taking a few seconds to collect your thoughts and think it out if you need to usually doesn't hurt. I believe it's in your interest to take advantage of all your prep time, and any down time in cx even if you don't have more questions. However you feel comfortable presenting is good, I don't bother too much with needing to stand for speeches or how much eye contact you have (even though at least some is nice :D). You won't get less than 25 speaks unless there are major issues or inappropriate behavior.

-Impacts: a good impact has clear evidence showing how and why it happens, the scale and time frame of the impact, etc. I know you know this but claiming something will or won't happen is not the same as providing evidence to demonstrate.

Thanks for reading, and feel free to ask me any more questions you have before the round. Good luck and have fun!

I believe in fair and respectful discourse. During debate rounds all speaking should be directed towards me. I base my determinations on who has the better arguments/cases and on who flows the most impacts through the round.

My experience is primarily in LD, and while I have roots as a traditional debater, I am more moved by progressive arguments. I work mostly off of impact calc, framework when it's emphasized and am a sucker for a good Kritik. But please don't spread too quickly, I will have a hard time following you if you are not clear in your speech. Organization is key, please make your arguments flow in an orderly fashion and always signpost; if you're going to say "my opponent said this..." it needs to be followed by "in response to my second contention..." or something like that. Please provide a link between your claim and your impacts, if something is going to lead to nuclear war, you need to provide a logical argument for how we're getting there. If you drop framework or certain arguments, you do not automatically lose in my book. The opponent HAS to bring up drops for it to score them any points, if they drop the drop, then I don't care about it. You also need to tell me why it matters that they dropped the argument and how that impacts the flow.