Your job is to persuade me, and that requires effective communication. I strongly disfavor spreading, pressured speech, and fast-paced speaking characteristic of the progressive debate style.

You know your arguments. Put the computer down and speak to me like a normal person. Do not read your case to me. Make eye contact. Educate me on your worldview using the speaking style you would with a real person and persuade me!

I am a flay judge who votes truth>tech. I can handle speed but I don't care for spreading. I am not a fan of theory and am very unlikely to give you the ballot if you employ that tactic. If you link to nuclear winter, you better convince me that if I don't live in your world, I am actually going to die. I am a parent of a speech and debate kid so I understand how this works but I am more likely to be persuaded by the ideas and impacts you present rather than the technicalities and jargon. Convince me your world is better.

Background Info

I have judged for high school debate tournaments for 10 years, and genuinely enjoy doing so. LD is by far my favorite event, because it is so beautifully structured, and requires significant thought and preparation and analysis.

In my day job, I'm a lawyer, but not a courtroom litigator. I'm not impressed by snarky CX strategies or ad hominem attacks during rebuttals. Your goal during CX & rebuttals is either to clarify information provided or to poke holes in your opponent's arguments, not to show off how clever you think you are. If you are in fact very clever, it will be evident to me based on your questions and arguments during the round.

Approach

I am a traditional flow judge. This should be a value debate. I want there to be a good clash, and I want each debater to have sufficient contentions to support his or her chosen VP/VC (so a kritik will probably turn me off). The evidence should be legitimate, and it should link to the contentions and then up to the VP/VC/resolution without me having to twist my brain sideways to figure out the links. Don't spoon feed me, but DO make sure it's addressed in your framework, because I won't assume a link exists if you don't mention it during the round.

The number of contentions is less important to me than the strength and validity of each one. It's possible to argue a winning case with only two contentions instead of nine, as long as they're well-researched and well-presented with great links to your value structure.

Also - even though I'm flowing your arguments, it's not an all-or-nothing round based on the flow. I'm definitely NOT persuaded by a debater who says "well, my opponent dropped my 4th contention so that argument carries through the debate and therefore I win the entire round" - because maybe your 4th contention was so worthless your opponent didn't see any need to waste time refuting it (for example). My point is, you won't lose just because you fail to rebut every single point your opponent makes; and you won't win just because your opponent fails to rebut every single point you raise. I'm flowing your cases, but my decision for each round is not limited ONLY to the specifics of the flow.

You will impress me much more with quick-thinking analysis of and response to your opponent's arguments than with a well-written constructive case (although the latter should be a given at this level of competition). I am not, on the other hand, going to be at all impressed by esoteric theoretic non-topical pollutificationism (although it can be entertaining, it won't win you the round).

I am able to understand extremely fast speech as long as you articulate your words clearly and remember to breathe. That said, IF YOU SPREAD - I WILL PROBABLY DROP YOU.

I am generally a flow judge and can follow fast paced debate.

Framework should be established and followed throughout the round. Tell me why your framework is superior and back up your claim with evidence in contentions. If there is no framework debate, the round will rely on weighing evidence in contentions.

Contentions should be clearly stated with supporting evidence and analysis. Your evidence should be fully explained and analyzed as to its impact on the debate. I prefer evidence be referred to by subject/topic throughout the round rather than simply the author's name. Know your evidence well enough defend it in cross-examination.

Your case should be organized, focused and come to a reasonable conclusion that convinces me to vote in your favor. Failure to communicate the importance of evidence, weighing values and impacts, or extending key arguments may result in a loss.

I am a practicing attorney in NC. I am not a fan of spreading so please speak slower and clearly. I will give you a cue if I believe you are going too fast.

Hello all! As the standards of debate change to reflect an increasingly technologically-dependent world, please remember as future leaders and philanthropists that the students who may benefit from scholastic debate the most may not have access to these now-standardized platforms and tools. Be kind to one another, and make sure that you remember that scholastic debate is, first and foremost, meant to foster greater mindfulness, critical thinking, and the skills one needs to lead and participate in productive and compassionate discourse. Never sacrifice your empathy for a trophy!

Now that that's out of the way, you should know that I am a NC LD Debate veteran, having qualified for nats and all that jazz. In college, I've participated in a much more soft and nice form of debate via the NCICU Ethics Bowl (which I encourage you all to participate in if available to you). I have a BA in Philosophy/Theology and an MA in Religious Studies from Gardner-Webb University. I am also currently employed at Gardner-Webb University as an adjunct professor of introductory biblical studies and inquiry specialist in Digital Learning Admissions.

I have no definite preferences in terms of form of argumentation. My one request is that you take my hand and gently lead me to flowing your side. The point of LD is to provide a concise, thorough, and convincing argument for whatever side you are obligated to defend. All the counterplan advocacy theory blah blah blah hoopla matters far less to me than your ability to convince me that you have one. With that said, the value debate is, in my opinion, a vital part of LD debate. You are far more likely to win if you pay close attention to the value debate. Without it, LD would not exist.

In terms of things that will definitely get you on my bad side, I cannot stand when debaters are rude to one another. Be nice, be polite, stand up during your speeches, don't hold your laptop in front of your face, and for the love of all that is holy please do not stare at your opponent during CX or make faces at them. It is not convincing. It is not funny. It will get you low speaker points and a stern lashing on your ballot.

Know that when you receive your ballot from me, 99% of the critique on that ballot will have nothing to do with my decision. Rather, I will attempt to impart my wisdom to you to the best of my ability. My comment regarding your misuse of Immanual Kant has nothing to do with your win or loss. I will tell you explicitly why you won/lost.

Finally, ask me if I'm ready before speeches, especially CX, and know that my time is the final time. I will time you and you will not trick me into believing that you had 30 seconds left. Let me know if you need time signals.

Also don't spread. If I can't understand what you say, I can't flow you. That doesn't work on me.

If I judge you in PF, I'll try my best.(New addition as of Fall 2023 > If I judge you in PF, please know that you are receiving the blessing of me wanting to be there and have fun. If I have to listen to the same argument in LD as PF, I'd at least like to witness crossfire. I will at least consider the most ridiculous argument you have to offer.)

New addition as of Spring 2022 > Please do not send me your case. I will look at it and judge you for how it is cut and formatted. Thank you.

I am just a parent judge, but I have judged LD & PFD for 5 years now and this year (2020) would be my third time judging for the National Tournaments.

For the 2020 National Tournament conducted virtually, the first and foremost thing you should know is about the speed of your delivery. While I don't use speed of delivery as a factor in judging and really have no problem with spreading in face-to-face judging, please keep in mind that neither your $0.5 built-in laptop microphone nor typical network latency favors a fast delivery. If your words get distorted or lost during the transmission, I simply cannot understand you or follow the flow of your argument. Slower, but clear and precise, delivery works much better in this virtual format. If possible, you should test your video and audio setup when you are scrimmaging with your peers before the tournament.

As far as judging paradigm, I am pretty traditional and general audience type. For LD, I know the different philosophies, but I still expect a short and clear description when you say utilitarianism like any general audience adult would like. I am looking for a complete and comprehensive rationale, so please clearly tell me why your value weighs more, when measured/evaluated based on your criterion, demonstrated by your contentions and evidence, than your opponent's.

If you are a PFD competitor reading this because I end up in PFD judge pool, my PFD judging methodology is basically the same. Since most teams are basically using the same framework, if you want to invoke slightly different criterion, you are expected to explain and help your judge orient to your way of weighing things, even though for me I can probably guess pretty easily what you are trying to say since I have judged both LD and PFD.

Other than that, I don't really have any specific requirement or expectation. Maybe keep in mind to not just try to discredit/throw your opponent's evidence and forget to actually attack the argument. LD is typically better than PFD on this because there's a frame work debate element, but sometimes when you have the same framework as your opponent's this still happens.

I am an LD coach in the CFL, but I have experience judging all debate events.

Value & Criterion - remember this is LD, not PF. Ultimately I am looking for you to tie all points in your case back to your value structure. Your value structure sets a standard for me to weigh the round. Be sure that your case upholds the standard established in your value structure.

Clarity, Logic, & IMPACT - Keep your arguments concise and to the point. Snowball effects and illogical conclusions will cause me to discount your arguments. I want to see impact!! Why is what you are arguing important? Why should I care? Evidence should be clear and concise, cited and applied correctly to your case.

Structure & Narrative: I like to see a clear narrative throughout your case. Why and how does your offense outweigh your opponents? I like you to give me clear voters that link back into the narrative of your offense.

QUALITY > Quantity - Speed does not win a round with me. Logical, original, well-thought out arguments will win your round. I will flow as you debate, and if I cannot understand you I can not flow your arguments. I can handle some speed, but if you spew out as many arguments as you can or barrel through reading your case, I will likely just drop my pen. A good debater can give clear, logical arguments in the time frame allotted without needing to speed read. Again, QUALITY is better than quantity.

Maturity & Civility - I will take points for arrogance, rudeness, or immaturity. There is never cause to be nasty or unkind to your opponent. If you cannot argue your side diplomatically and respectfully, your lack of professionalism will be reflected in speaker points.

A few notes on flowing....

If you call for a card in round, and then fail to bring it back up, I assume you conceded the point to your opponent. Depending on the specifics of the round I may dock points for this.

I do not flow the author's name of a card. If you continue to reference arguments by using the author's name as a tag, I won't know to which argument you are referring, and I won't be flowing it.

I do not flow CX but I am listening closely and I appreciate when you extend arguments or points from CX into rebuttal

I will use my flow in my decision making, but it will not be the only point of reference for my decision. There is something to be said for your style of communication and delivery as well as the arguments you make.

Experience

Current Director for DFW S&D. I did LD/Policy/PF for HS (primarily Policy and LD) and so have experience with either format. I also competed for 4 years on the NPTE/NPDA circuit with some policy here and there as well in college. Short of it is that I have experience with most argument styles and formats so you should be fine with whatever you want to run. I generally judge LD if I judge at all, so I've written this paradigm for that format. If there are any questions due to me not judging you in LD, feel free to email/ask about those prior to the round.

In addition, prior to anything about debate argument preferences, if at any time a competitor feels uncomfortable/unsafe, you are free to contact me via email or other means if you would prefer it to not be voiced in round.

My email for chains is ianmmikkelsen@gmail.com , please include me.

Important Notes

I'm using this section to note a few things that are probably important in terms of general style, more than specifics of arguments.

Speed - I'm generally fine with speed so long as it works for everyone in the round. I should note that between debate for however long and my time in various graduate programs, I now suffer from fairly consistent hand and wrist pain that sometimes flares up to the point that I can't type all of the arguments given at a top speed. To accommodate this, I will generally listen along while reading the speech document, and copy it over to my flow as it happens. If you are adding analysis or giving the rebuttal, I would recommend slowing down to a quick, but not spread, speed if you would like me to make sure to get all of the analysis you give. I have yet to be in a round where analytics are both understandable and not capable of being typed, but if for some reason that occurs, I will say clear/slow.

This all being said, as a personal preference, I do enjoy a single comprehensive strategy that is carried throughout the round more than a spread of options that then get whittled down through conditionality/kicking theory. Not to say that I'll be knocking speaks or actually upset/annoyed by the latter, just a personal preference.

Speech documents - Related to speed, but somewhat different, I have noticed that there are times where individuals will send a speech document that contains most of their analytics, but fails to include a few independent voters. If you maintain a top spreading pace, and simply blaze through a sudden independent voter analytic that was not included in record time, I'm unlikely to grant it to you. If you slow down for its delivery and note that it is not in the document, I will flow it and include it at that time. I generally dislike being forced into these types of judgement calls, but the convergence of tech issues, difficult in having consistent audio quality, as well as just accessibility concerns, means I'm not sure how to adjudicate a round where by the time a concession of these arguments happens it's too late to identify whether it was just missed or something else impacting the round.

Theory/T

I'm generally fine with whatever theory position so long as it is relatively well developed. I generally view it as whether it is a theoretically good as a precedent and not as an instance of this specific round (i.e., you can win potential abuse arguments), but only if the argument is developed to claim that there is a fundamental shift in strategy due to just the presence of arguments (didn't run x really good argument because y theoretically objectionable choice removes it as a viable option). That being said, that is typically only on more stock theory. The more specific the theory is to a condition that only happens under either the specific resolution or within a specific round the more I need the theory to focus on in-round issues.

Kritiks

I'm good with most critical arguments and theorists. I ran too much of Agamben, Cap, Lacan, and other language k's. Identity based frameworks are more what I've gotten into with my actual studies and research post-undergraduate, so I'm familiar with the authors (as well as having had researched them for debate), but generally only ran that literature when the topic for the round made it more related to the political as opposed to the ontological claims of the literature. I will listen to the ontological criticisms that come from it, but generally found that my attempts to contribute to that aspect was less helpful than preferred due to a lack of experience and understanding personally.

Tricks

I'll be honest, I'm not exactly sure what a "trick" is in debate. From what I can tell, it is either a fairly specific and complex bit of theory/logic that is predicated entirely in the game of debate (willing to listen to that) or the term that individuals use for one liners that come without the explanation of what precisely they mean or how to evaluate it. Due to the time differentials of speeches, spikes in the AC which are meant for expansion in the 1AR make sense to me, but if the argument is underdeveloped upfront my general reaction is to either 1) disregard expansion if it isn't explained until the final speeches and doesn't seem immediately obvious from what was said or 2) to give the expansion but also allow an expansion of arguments against it. I've voted based on not understanding or following arguments before and am generally willing to do so, but would vastly prefer being able to have the full argument as that generally makes everyone happier.

Philosophy

I've read most of the "stock" philosophers from traditional LD, gotten deep into Foucault, Hegel, Marx, and other European authors, and have used my time after debate to get into identity frameworks that I didn't focus on as much as I should've. I've noticed that some philosophy aff/neg will sometimes run entire cases that take works from well before the concepts of the resolution were even discussed and attempt to apply them to the recent developments. My general sentiment on this is that it can be done, but that it is probably preferable to spend the time of research on finding what philosophical arguments are based in the literature, and then find the foundational texts afterwards. It is difficult for me to accept an application of books written in the early 20th century (and sometimes prior) to the development of recent technologies, especially when the literature applying those theories to these developments is generally fairly rich itself, over someone who has more topic specific discussions of the literature. But, I can be persuaded otherwise on this.

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

Been judging debate (PF and LD only) for almost 20 years. Coached PF at Cary Academy last year. While I try to stay up on the "technical stuff," to me, this misses the point of debate as an educational or, for that matter, a persuasive activity. So, while I can probably follow whatever case you want to run, put me in the truth (vs tech) camp. Running a well executed rhetorically sound argument will be the best way to win my ballot.

As for style, clear communications will win the day. Can probably flow at whatever speed you choose to run, but I don't value quantity over quality, whereas I do value clarity over vagary.

In addition to advancing rhetorically sound arguments, I expect debaters to find the clash in the round and give me a standard with which to weigh it. Don't expect me to do that work for you. You don't want me imposing my sensibilities by picking some arbitrary standard for the round. Moreover, between two sound cases, I will prefer any reasonable standard to no standard at all (even for an otherwise compelling/sound cases). Word of caution, though, don't let the round devolve into a pure weighing debate. At the end of the day, I will vote for the side that presents the most compelling case for affirming or negating the resolution.

KAVITA PERSAUD
Judge Paradigm TRADITIONAL JUDGE

Background:
Current Debate Coach at Cape Fear Academy
Coaching High School Debate 2008-2013, 2015- current
Former High School Debater, Parliamentary Debate
Physician.

Philosophy:
Debate is an educational activity.
Debate is about communication.

Likes:
1. Debating the resolution
2. Advocacy of a position
3. Framework
4. Structure & Organization with clear sign-posting
5. Clash
6. Strategic Cross-Ex
7. Engaging Speaking Style
8. Courtesy
9. Crystallization and Weighing
10. Voting Issues

Dislikes:
1. Spreading
2. Non-topical Debates
3. Generic Kritiks
4. Theory unless clear abuse
5. Tricks
6. Rudeness
7. Extinction Impacts when not truly topical
8. Poorly selected evidence or improperly cited evidence
9. Jargon
10.

Please ask additional questions before the round.

Hey everyone! I did Arizona PF for four years, Congress for two, and sprinkles of other events (so yes, I know what a kritik is). I've also judged "full-time" in North Carolina for four years now, mostly PF and LD. I expect a respectful debate from both sides.

For PF, I'm pretty standard. Make sure to spend as much time as possible in your rebuttal speech attacking the opponent's case with specific attacks relating to points they brought up in constructive.

For LD, I'm ok with progressive stuff, but since all my experience is with PF and traditional LD, know that you're taking a risk there. If you do end up going progressive, please be clear as to why I must vote for you! Spreading is fine, but if you're going to talk super fast, please flash drive over your speech so I can follow along.

I vote off the flow, but make sure to weigh impacts in your final speeches - a little bit of narrative (just a little bit!) can go a long way into helping me understanding your side/arguments and voting for you. By narrative, I mean high level analysis of the round, talking about the big picture and not getting too bogged down in the contention level debate (this especially applies to the last few speeches for each side).

My general rule is "quality over quantity." You've probably heard that a billion times, but I truly have trouble understanding quick, one sentence responses to arguments, especially in rebuttal. Take time to develop each response, giving me the context and all of the logic behind it, instead of saying a couple words and expecting me to do the analysis on my own. Also, the more counter-intuitive/non-obvious/unique the point you're trying to make is, the more you have to "gift-wrap" it - I'm willing to listen to almost everything but I need a little more help on arguments that aren't stock/easily understandable. Again, I want to hear the entire logical picture from the debaters, instead of having to fill in gaps on my own. I specifically like listening to how different responses and contentions interact with each other (i.e. grouping after rebuttal speeches). That being said, if an argument is mostly there and is missing just a frivolous part I tend to be pretty sympathetic, but you don't want to rely on this.

For PF - I don't require 2nd speaking rebuttal to defend against responses in 1st speaking rebuttal, but I highly encourage it. I don't require 1st speaking summary to repeat attacks on the opponents case, unless 2nd speaking rebuttal defended their own case against the attacks.

Hi! I debated LD for Ardrey Kell, graduating in 2018, both traditional and circuit debate. I'm a recent grad from UNC-Chapel Hill with a background in statistics & business, and I currently work in technology consulting. I (generally) know what I'm doing, but I haven't been involved in debate for a while now. Please keep this in mind when choosing your style and strategy! My email is juliannesinclair@gmail.com if you need it to send cases/evidence.

• I'm not opposed to spreading, but I don't feel confident in my ability to understand extremely high levels of speed being out of debate for such a long time. However, you can speak at a very quick conversational pace in front of me, especially if you are using speed for effective argument coverage.

• In a traditional round, read whatever you'd like! I'll use the V/VC debate in my decision, but I honestly care more about the topic-specific arguments you make. Please don't make me hear a debate on morality vs. justice as a value - it's not going to sway my decision! Consider how important the framework debate is in relation to both cases; winning FW isn't always necessary to win the debate.
• Please weigh arguments throughout the round, not just in the 2AR!
• I'm all good with topical Ks, policy arguments, and any traditional arguments.
• I'm probably not the judge to read theory in front of. Or tricks. I simply don't have the background to evaluate these debates.
• I also don't really have the background to be evaluating a very dense phil debate. I do enjoy unique frameworks, but I'm gonna need some extra background if it's not something that would be taught in Philosophy 101.
• Humor executed well will raise your speaks. Snarkiness can be great, but do not be mean to your opponent, especially if they are less experienced than you.
• On a similar note - do not read progressive arguments to confuse a less experienced / traditional opponent. I'm totally fine evaluating progressive debate arguments, but the round should be educational and fair for everyone involved.
• If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me before the round! :)

Debates should be about content knowledge and persuasion, however almost all competitors use a brief of some sort, have common or exact constructions, or are just using someone on their team’s research. Because of this, I feel that what separates one debater, or team, from another is how well they can rebut, explain, and persuade the main points of the round. Just because your opponent didn’t refute a subpoint, or even a contention, doesn’t mean you’ll win a round, unless you bring the point up yourself during cross and rebuttal. Because of this, I usually make my decision almost entirely based on rebuttals and cross, unless your constructive is a hot mess. Additionally, it’s hard to persuade any audience if you talk like an auctioneer, or don’t do a good job of tying your case to your values and cards.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for 2 years. I judge based on what I can understand, so I prefer a slower debate... a clear and understandable speech is essential to win. I like the structural debate with framework, and strong evidence to address arguments. I like strategic cross examination and voting issues. Your behavior and language have to be appropriate...being confident and courteous is important.