I am a traditional judge who coached the Marriott's Ridge High School debate team for four years and I now also coach middle school debate. I have judged over 50 tournaments and I have extensive college debating experience. I judge both on value criterions and contention level arguments. I am willing to hear and consider progressive arguments but I do not prefer them. I do not like excessive speed. I prefer quality over quantity.

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters let it overcomplicate their arguments or worse. Some may even allow it to further make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you will probably be sad at the end of the round.

I began coaching in 1969 and coached high school and college debate, mostly policy, until 1997. Having retired from university teaching and administration, I returned to coaching high school Lincoln-Douglas debate in October 2015.  As a judge I prefer for the debaters to present their arguments and to explain why said arguments should win the debate. An argument must have a claim, support (data) and a warrant. I find that many LD debaters think they can simply assert information for the data--I want to hear a source and expect the student to have the full citation available if it is requested. As a value debate activity, each side needs to present a value and a value criterion. Not only should they present them, but it is necessary to explain why and how your position is superior in the debate. While I expect the negative debater to have his/her own position, I prefer to have clash in the debate and believe that arguments applied directly against the affirmative case are stronger and more persuasive that one presented as a negative contention. I also am not a fan of arguments being presented that are not relevant to the opponents's case. I also am not apt to vote for a kritik. In terms of speed, I flow what I can understand. If I can't grasp the argument due to speed, it is not my fault. I strongly believe that debate is a communication activity and therefore it is the debater's responsibility to adapt to the judge. If you see that I am not flowing, I suggest you slow down. I do find it annoying to have a student fly through the speech only to end up with time left over. Debate should be fun and debaters should enjoy the activity. I don't like rudeness in the debate.

From JudgePhilosophies Wikispace:

 

Heidt, Garreth

I've been coaching LD for almost 20 years. I’ll accept just about anything, but the burden is on you to teach it to me. Thus my paradigm is one of education--being a teacher I have a good idea of what that’s about, and being a student, you should know what it’s about as well.

 

Your job is to teach me about why your position on the resolution is the one that should be the most valid in the round. As a teacher, you should strive for clarity and concision because education is a communicative act and a clear, concise message offers you the greatest chance to communicate successfully.

 

As far as adjudication, I need to know why something is important for me to learn in the round.  Whatever you chose to run in a round, then, should be explained so that I grasp the argument at hand, the support for that argument, and the reason why that argument is important in the round.A lot of that is self-evident, I know, but you should consider that I won't finish arguments for you.

 

Consider the round a type of test you're giving me. First, it should be clear to me what’s on the test and second why certain arguments are more important than others. If you write a test I understand and can learn from, you'll win the round. Thus, your victory is a type of merit pay.

 

Theory: I'd rather not vote on this. I think too many debaters use it as a way out of the more substantive ethical matters at hand. That said, I'll consider it if you run it well.

 

Critiques/DAs/ and other CX cross-overs: Sure, if you have the time to teach me, I have the time to learn. Just tell me how it's to function in the round.

 

Rebuttals: Crystallize and write the ballot for me.

 

Standards: They give me a clear manner by which to weigh the round. If you use a traditional value/criterion structure, then understand that links and impacts to standards are important to me, but they’re not the only way I’ll weigh the round. Given my paradigm, you could run anything else, so long as you are clear, weigh it, and tell me why it’s the best way to adjudicate the round.

 

I invite creative, innovative ways to frame the debate, but they require an extra burden on the debater’s part to make things clear and conscise.

 

Not very picky as to what arguments are used, just please do not spread (no speed reading please). 

Judging LD I look for framework arguments above contention arguments, and I'm fine with logical arguments. 

Judging PF you must have hard evidence to back up your claims, I may request to see it. 

Always looking for good sign posting and clash, please don't forget about your opponent's side of the flow. 

I did LD for four years in high school for Dowling Catholic and graduated in 2015. Since then, I got my BFA in theater and MA in Performance Studies focusing on performance philosophy and theory. I've been mostly out of debate other than some sporadic judging since 2017, so please be extra clear and have a good ballot story for me in the rebuttals!

I primarily debated Ks, but am comfortable with most arguments. On shorter arguments of any kind, including but not limited to theory, please slow down. Not a huge fan of "tricky" debate, but please be sure to include and be clear on the warrants. Do as much work in evidence comparison and weighing as possible.

Ultimately - I'm open to whatever kind of debate the debaters bring to me, as long as it is not discriminatory in any way. No matter what kind of debate you want to have, just be sure to tell me how and why to vote for you.

email is catikalinoski@gmail.com

I did LD in high school. I can flow. I'm not the best with speed but I'll tell you to slow down if I start to miss stuff. 

Beyond that, I'm unlikely to vote off dropped arguments and will probably vote off whatever clash there is.

In terms of what I like to see, try to say things that seem important and that you can back up as truth.

I used to compete in Lincoln Douglas debate and American Parliamentary Debate. I have some but minimal exposure to policy, public forum, congressional debate, and British Parliamentary debate (as a debater and judge).

In my view, debate ought to foster a meaningful educational environment, so I will not tolerate abusive or unproductive tactics. I am very opposed to spreading and I do not tolerate discriminatory language.

Your job as a debater is to persuade me as to why your form of debate is best/why you are right. That said, your burden is to clearly demonstrate the validity of your position through impacts; if I don't understand why your argument actually matters, I will not be convinced to vote for you based solely off of cards, unless the debate is so bad that that there is absolutely nothing else to vote off of.

My name is Joe McPeak and I am an LD Coach for LaSalle College High School. When judging I try to be as "tabula rasa" as possible-I do not like to intervene in a round. I will not vote an argument down just because I believe it is silly. This means that I do not care if you run traditional arguments, kritiks, plans, counterplans, theory, narratives, etc. I just want you to give me some kind of standard to weigh the round, show me why it's the appropriate standard, and show me why you win it. As for speed, I can keep up with certain levels, but spread at your own risk. I won't ever jump in and vote you down based on speed. I do not care if your opponent can or cannot keep up. But if I cannot understand what you are saying, then it might not make it on my flow. I will say clear or louder when I cannot understand you but i will only do this so many times. I'm also OK with debaters talking to each other and swapping materials during prep time.  I do not take off time for road-mapping before your speech.  Finally, I want all discussions about paradigm/preferences to take place before the round starts. I will ignore any questions about preferences that are asked mid round.

There is one situation where I might drop someone for non-substantive reasons: when a competitor behaves inappropriately or is distruptive during the round. Examples include, but are not limited to, the debater who takes huge sips of a drink after a question in cross and then asks for the question to be repeated in an attempt to eat up cross time, or the debater who hands off the wrong materials to an opponent during the round when the opponent asks to see her case, card etc. I haven't ever had these things happen in round but depending on the sitution, I might consider it "inappropriate or unethical behavior" and drop the debater for actually disrupting the round.

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". In the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

I was a Lincoln Douglas debater as a student, and have about ten years of experience judging. I prefer traditional Lincoln Douglas debate, however, I can follow spreading and have become fairly familiar with progressive LD. I tend to vote on framework.

I have been coaching all four categories of debate for First Colonial High School for the past decade. I have judged hundreds of rounds of both LD and PF. I also moonlight as a congress judge when needed/called upon. I don't subject myself to Policy unless it is an absolute necessity.

Etiquette is important. While I may not vote down a debater for rudeness or lack of etiquette, it will affect their speaker points. Since debate is about education, dialogue, discussion, etc., I personally believe that lacking manners is a major problem (since people do not want to engage with those who do not know how to treat others properly). You can be assertive, and even aggressive, without being a condescending jerk. Maintaining one's composure and displaying self-control (even in a heated round) is critical to me as a judge.

In LD, I do not want to be a part of the use of progressive tactics, as I strongly prefer more traditional LD debates. So absolutely no spreading, please no kritiks or counterplans (things will just get weird as there is just enough time in round to try and do it properly), and if you come into the round lacking a value and/or value criterion (because you plan to debate like an individual policy entry...) then you can pretty much count on me NOT voting you up. If you do not personally agree with this, please feel free to strike me (trust that I will not be offended).

In PF, there are couple notes I like to share. First, in the god awful periods of the round known as Cross-Fire, I do not flow anything that is said unless it is brought up in an actual speech afterwards. Just something to keep in mind. Also, see the brief paragraph on etiquette (cross-fire seems to make us forget about politeness in the heat of the moment). Second, (although this should go without saying) if you cannot produce a proper card or the article from which you base your evidence on during the round, then I wont flow it. I have this happen a few times in PF. Also, please have things organized to quickly pull up source info if it is requested. I wont make you use prep time to find cards unless we get way behind on time because it takes you all forever to find the requested info. I only bring this up because it has seemed to be an issue in at least half a dozen rounds this year. Lastly, (this is more of a personal preference) I do not find single contention cases to be very persuasive. While I have voted up teams with single contention cases on occasion, these types of cases tend to be gimmicks and lessen the overall quality of debate.

Most of all, I like debate and I love teaching, so I want you to know that I am still up for learning (and do not mind kids taking risks or chances in their tactics/strategy in rounds). I only give you the previous notes/comments to help you tweak your tactics and/or strategy if you feel it is necessary (and I like to give the LD debaters who only wish to do more progressive LD stuff a chance to strike me as a judge). I am fairly easy going, and I will always be happy to answer any clarifying questions before the rounds start.

I think I hit everything, if not... oh well (trust me, it will be okay).

Just because I like to end this with something you will likely think is weird, ambiguous (and possibly stoopid) --> In the end, everything and everyone that you have ever known, cared about, stressed over, etc. will be dust and will one day be forgotten by all others who will exist... so stop worrying and remember that everything is nothing, and nothing is everything. Live in the moment, and Godspeed to you all.

Oh yeah, remember that I will not be offended if you strike me as a judge. Just saying...

Aimee Sann Paradigm

Policy is a fascinating debate format! I love it, and I am still learning it. If I am your judge and you are sending emails, please include me: sanna@notredameprep.com.

1. Be organized. I prefer claims numbered, deliver tags clearly and with emphasis, roadmaps, and signposting. Otherwise, my flow will just fall apart. My flow will be on paper.

2. Lay out your framework clearly and don’t fail to say why you won. In the end, I need to hear what you believe carries the most weight in the round. How you met your burden. How the other side failed to meet theirs.

3. Don’t assume I know all the jargon. I have familiarity with most of it, but explanation matters.

4. Treat statistics with care. If there is clash on them, I will be attentive to your knowledge of how they are collected and how to measure their strength.

5. In Ks, I will be looking for specificity with reference to the AFF’s plan, and I will be listening for your alts.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Schmidt%2C+Joshua

I debated policy 4 years for Lake City High School in Coeur d'Alene Idaho (ok, technically I debated 3 years for CdA and then 1 year for Lake City which was a brand new school). I did this in the 90s. Policy debate was different back then.

I did not debate in college and have coached for many years now (PF and LD).

Lincoln Douglas

I value the resolution. I believe Aff has a burden to show the resolution is, generally speaking, a true statement. Neg has the burden to show it is a false statement.

The method by which we typically answer the question of the resolution is the criterion (value-criterion or standard). I should note that I am completely open to other methods of answering the question of the resolution. What most people mis-understand is that these methods must actually address the question and not some other question that you wish we were debating.

When it comes time to decide the round I will do the following: First - I will try and decide which criterion to use as a method for deciding the round. This means that you are extremely well advised to compare and contrast your criterion with your opponents. If both criterions are shown to be not worth using then I will just weigh generic “impacts” broadly defined and largely up to my own personal biases. You don’t want this to happen.

If I happen to choose your opponents criterion then you want to link into it and show how you also win the round under your opponents method of deciding the victor. This is a very good idea and I encourage you to do it.

Second - I will use the best criterion to decide the round. This is where I look at your contentions and impact level arguments and decide how they interact with the criterion I am using. Make sure your impacts are clearly applicable under your criterion.

General Notes: Speed - I can handle some amount of moderate speed that is getting less and less as I get older. I will generally not say “clear” because my main problem with speed is that your argument stops making sense to me, I can understand all the words just not the overall meaning. I wouldn’t say “clear” if you made a poor argument and I won’t say “clear” if you make a poor argument quickly.

Warrants - I highly value warrants that are explained well by the actual debater in rebuttals. Thus, you should extend the reasoning behind each piece of evidence in addition to just mentioning its name and assuming I will do the hard work of applying its logic to the round.

Author names - Refer to arguments themselves and not just “author name and #” and expect that to convince me of anything. I am generally unconvinced that something is true just because somebody got it published somewhere. (see point above about actually understanding and explaining your warrants, especially in rebuttals and especially in how those warrants interact with the argument).

Off Topic Arguments - these are generally a bad idea. I only consider the hypothetical world in which we enact the resolution (for the Aff) or negate the resolution (for the Neg). I do not consider “real world” impacts. That being said, if you have a particular argument that actually addresses the resolution then go for it, just be very sure that it actually answers the hypothetical question of the resolution and doesn’t do something else.

Circular arguments - most value debates come down to circular arguments where somebody will say without value X then value Y is meaningless and then the response will be, but value Y is necessary in order to fully realize value X. Understand that you should respond to these arguments if your opponent makes them because a dropped argument is a true argument. But these are unlikely to actually advance the debate in your favor. On the other hand, very specific arguments about values grounded in the resolution can be extremely convincing to me and are often very strategically wise to make.

Policy Debate

Basically, everything I said above about Lincoln Douglas is still true with a couple of relatively minor exceptions. First - Neg has presumption in policy debate and I will vote Neg if no Aff impacts carry through the round.

Second - I want to reemphasize that I view my role as the judge to compare the hypothetical world in which the Aff implements their plan to the Neg world (SQ or CP). The role of the ballot is to endorse the team that best does that and to explain my thinking about that question. I do not listen to any arguments about other ideas you might have about what the role of the ballot or the judge is in the round. Utilitarianism is not the only method for making this hypothetical comparison and I will listen to moral arguments (and indeed welcome them), but they must be grounded in the hypothetical debate world and not the “real” world.





Old Philosophy (basically the same as above, but I felt that I must have been unclear about a few things so I tried to explain better above).
I feel that debate is a game. Games have goals. The Aff's goal is to show that the resolution is generally a true statement. The Neg's goal is to show that the resolution is generally not true. My job is to evaluate who has accomplished their goal better.

The traditional value/value-criterion is a very efficient way of acheiving your goal; I understand what you are doing and therefore you do not need to spend much time clarifying how this causes you to meet your goal. I am open to other ways of meeting your goal, but make sure you are clearly explaining how your argument impacts the resolution. Also, you are probably being much less clear than you think you are, so explain your argument as clearly as you can and then clarify it more.

Speaking of clarity, talking fast really only works if the idea is simple to explain. For complicated ideas you should slow down (and almost *all* of philosophy is pretty complicated). Remember to explain your criterion particularly well as this is where I look to see exactly how you want me to evaluate the round. You want me to understand this very, very well so don't speed through it.

How I decide between two competing arguments. A good argument does the following: it is clearly explained (yes, this is a theme), it is relevant (i.e. it addresses your goal or it actually addresses the argument you are attacking), it is properly explained why your argument might be true (i.e. it has a warrant). It is important to note that bald assertions are not warrants and that quoting an "expert" who then makes a bald assertion is not particularly persuasive to me and can easily be overturned by your opponent's original analysis.

Arguments that the game of debate is fundamentally unfair are not persuasive to me (nothing in life is fair and much of what is perceived to be unfair in one way is actually tilted the other way).

Finally, I love crystallization. At the end of the debate I like a nice tidy list of things I should vote for you on and clear reasons why you are winning that list (it is also very helpful to weigh the arguments you are winning vs. the arguments your opponent might have won).

LD is my first love. I prefer clean, well laid out arguments that include philosophy. The philosophy must be explicitly defined and explained. I do not appreciate CX like arguments with impacts, etc. I cannot handle much speed. I won't make arguments for you, please do so yourselves. I prefer crystallization on both sides.

My name is Angie Yu and I am a parent judge from Marriotts Ridge High School.  I favor a more traditionnal style of argumentation. I am not very comfortable with speed.  Please clarify arguments at the end and make evidence very clear on the flow. Other than that, I like clash and logically sound arguments.  

Good luck and have fun!

Topicality is crucial in debate, while a debater may bring up a creative point or piece of evidence , that doesn't mean it will weigh in the debate round if it is not topical.  I recognize that a debater should not only defend their case, but put out evidence refuting their opponent. In LD debate we are dealing with a values based debate so, we should have evidence besides emphircal facts and figures and a debater would do well to use philopshy to show why something "ought" to be a certain way. Performance is a part of debate. Debaters should be able to communicate effectively and not just speed thru a round. It is the quality of the evidence, NOT the amount of evidence that wins a debate case. I do not support the use of counterplans in LD. A critique could work in LD, BUT I have seen very few supported effectively, so this should be done with extreme caution. Avoid using jargon, in the real world people don't use "cards" they use evidence. Speed should be like you were giving a speech, not selling at an auction. Debaters who use philsophy in LD have the advantage because they can prove what is suppose to be and not what merely is in the real world.