Ex-PF debater (out rounds at Nats 2017), now work at a think tank in DC.

For prelim rounds: Please get to the virtual room as soon as possible. Pre-flowing and prepping are understandable but please don't intentionally wait until the last minute possible to join.

1. I would really prefer you not to spread. Especially in Public Forum. Getting four contentions into your speech that I have half-written on my flow is a lot worse than one very clear, well-explained contention.

2. That being said, I am a flow judge. So I will vote on how well you weigh, collapse, defend, etc. which also means that both teams need to be doing these things in rebuttal, summary, and FF

3. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.

4. SIGNPOST. Please do. It really makes my life so much easier, and it also makes your speeches A LOT clearer. If an opponent drops an argument, signpost for me and then just say to extend it on the flow. You don't need to re-explain the whole argument for me if your opponent did nothing to contend it.

5. Be ready BEFORE THE ROUND to share evidence with your opponents. That means the full article, PDF, in addition to the cut card is what you should be ready to share as well as where in there you found it. Read evidence at your own risk. If something your opponent reads sounds questionable, CALL FOR IT! I'm probably not going to call for evidence unless I literally can't believe someone wrote whatever they said. If you are going to call out your opponents' evidence for their source or because they misquoted, do so in an educated manner (i.e. not just because you think it's "bad"). At that point, I will probably look at the evidence at the end of the round.

6. Do NOT flow through ink, drop opponents' arguments in rebuttal (unless that's an intentional, strategic move), try and provide offense in the first rebuttal, bring up a new argument in FF/bring up new evidence in FF. It's not that I'm going to automatically drop you if this stuff happens, but none of these things help move the debate forward for you or for me. With younger debaters, I understand it a lot more if this stuff happens during the round.

7. I do not flow CX. CX is a time for each person/team to set up defense or offense in future speeches. So, if something important comes up, I would assume it would be mentioned in later speeches (i.e. it should be mentioned in later speeches). More for you than for me, I would stay away from using CX time for your opponent just to explain an argument from their case.

8. I abide by the whole "if it's in FF, it needs to be in summary" broadly. So, don't bring up a contention in FF that your opponent didn't bring up in summary. But, the speeches shouldn't be identical, you should provide some sort of new analysis or weighing within the contentions that your opponent brought up in summary as long as it's not new evidence.

9. In LD, if you run theory or Ks, I am not familiar with these arguments from my time debating or the years I have judged so far. So, you will need to really EXPLAIN these for me and break down why they are essential to the round we are in. Based on that then, run them at your own risk. In PF, don't run theory or Ks.

10. Will always disclose at the end of rounds unless I am specifically instructed not to. Feel free to ask any questions for clarity or for advice.

11. Be respectful, please. I understand the nature of competition pits one side against the other. Respectful doesn't mean you should let your opponents walk all over you, but it does mean there needs to be thoughtfulness in what you do. This typically becomes most important during CX. A general example is, it's okay to cut someone off if they've answered your question and are just explaining their case to me (unless that was the question you asked) because there's strategy to making sure CX doesn't become a soap box for your opponent just to have a second case reading. BUT do not cut your opponent off if you asked them a question, and they are providing analysis to their answer. YOU asked the question, and for the most part YOU need to be okay with them giving a complete answer.

Coach for 20 years- judged all events. Important- link of claims back to value structure, moderate speaking pace is very much appreciated. I flow rounds and use the flow to guide my decision but do not drop debaters just for not extending all arguments cleanly. I like to hear logical fallacies called out as much as I like to hear logic employed in a round.

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.

Given that fascists are now doxing judges for their paradigms, I have removed mine from tabroom. My paradigm will not be publicly accessible until cybersecurity and digital access changes are made to protect judges and other members of the debate community. If you want to read my paradigm, feel free to email me at boalsj@gmail.com

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 the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

I look for a solid flow of argument in a debate round. Is the moral value clear? Is there a clear Contention? Are the contentions backed by facts that come from credible sources and do they circle back to the value? I like to flow when I judge so I also watch to make sure no new contentions are brought into the argument during the final rebbuttles. I also look for good facts to back up contentions to make their argument strong.

I look to see if the students are professional and respectful to each other during Cross X and allow each other to speak.

No spreading.

I will vote on summary and final focus.

If you want me to vote on dropped argument by your opponent, you have to tell me why I should vote on the dropped argument

Impact/calculus - weigh, weigh, weigh. tell me why I should vote for your arguments over your opponent

Don't want to see theory and K in pf

No plans or counter plans

Don't manufacture evidence

no rudeness or I will drop you

I am novice at Judging. I have judged a few PF tournaments but my technical knowledge of debate is limited.

I initially look for good communication, professional appearance and body language that shows confidence and conviction.

I look for how each debater responds to questions and answers. I prefer respectful debate, rather than someone rolling the other person by aggressive interruptions. I believe debate should be vigorous but debaters should show decorum and respect when countering.

Since the rounds have limited time, if the debaters get hung up on 1 point going back and forth for too long, that distracts from the overall debate. I look favorably on the debater that can make their point, and at the appropriate time move on to another strong point of their argument.

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.

I am a parent judge and have judged for the past 4 years at traditional tournaments in North and South Carolina in LD and PF. Do not spread – I cannot flow speed. Avoid excessively dense philosophy. Counterplans, disads, plans etc. are fine. Err against kritiks unless you think you can explain it very well. Do not read non-topical affs, I have essentially no experience with these and likely won’t vote on them. Good evidence and clear explanation are key.

email: zip.edwards@offitkurman.com

weigh

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

-rupi kaur

If you do not have an off case position, I will forget your off-time roadmap. Please tell me in your speech what argument you are addressing.

Read whatever (non-offensive/egregiously untrue) argument you want; I try to be flexible.

I will not evaluate theory arguments presented in the ABCD interp violation blah blah format. If you want to explain your theory argument in the (relatively) conversational language that you present all your other arguments in, then I will listen. https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

I reserve the right to be more persuaded by a team.

I am a former high school PF debater and a former college parliamentary debater (APDA). I am a typical "flow" judge who will vote off what is extended in summary and weighed in final focus. A few notes on where I may differ from other similarly experienced judges:

1. Evidence

Feel free to call for your opponents evidence as much as you would like, I will not dock speaker points. If your opponent brings up a "suspect" piece of evidence, I encourage you to give me a logical response to why that study/evidence doesn't make any sense and call it out as "suspect", and I will review that evidence after the round. The team presenting the evidence should explain why it is true instead of just providing a bunch of stats. I will drop you if you blatantly misrepresent evidence throughout a round.

2. Speed

My flowing skills are quite rusty, so please speak at a reasonable pace.

3. Crossfire

If you make a new response or weighing analysis during crossfire, I will flow it. But as with everything else, you need to extend it through summary/final focus for it to matter in the round.

4. Speaker Points

I will give you speaker points based on the clarity and quality of your argumentation, not for speaking style. The only thing I will dock points for is disrespectful behavior.

Feel free to enter the room, do the coin toss, and get settled if I'm not there yet. Also feel free to ask me if you have any questions before the round. Good luck!

UNC '20

Former 4-year congressional debater (11th in the senate at NSDA Nationals in 2016), also extensively coached PF at my school for the past two years. Coaching congressional debate privately now. For PF, I can handle any speed you throw at me within the realms of general acceptability in PF (don't spread like a college policy debater), and I'm good on the flow. If for some reason I can't keep up, I'll let you know. I like funny debates, but there's a fine line between being funny and being a jerk – be nice, especially if you're destroying a team, or your speaker points will suffer as a result.
School strikes
Charlotte Catholic High School

Public Forum
Sparknotes Version (borrowed and edited from my former coach Akash Gogate):

• I'm normally able to tell myself I know what's going on - I understand most of the positions people read
• Good debating trumps good evidence any day - I rarely call for cards unless I don't think I'll be able to make a decision without them
• Cross-x is binding - I love debaters who use it well
• I reward debaters who can explain complex positions without relying on buzzwords/jargon
• My favorite debates are case debates (defense, impact turns, whatever)
• I'm tab minus blatant bigotry in round. I reserve the right to drop you if I find your argument too offensive to belong within the realm of academic debate (you're doing something seriously wrong if this happens)
• If you're going to read arguments about violence, particuarly sexual violence, please have a trigger warning in your case and be ready to read a different argument if your opponents request it.
• Off-time roadmaps are a vestige from policy, unless you're doing something really weird in your speech save us all five seconds and just start

Specifics:

Prep time starts when the other team begins reading the evidence they requested.

Start with framework at the top of all rebuttals, give me a way to evaluate the round. I prefer crisp, clear framework debates – give me an intuitive way to prefer your framework. I am more than willing to listen to "we win under both frameworks, here's why" – but make that clear to me.

I'd prefer summary to be (selective) line-by-line and final focus to be voters, but whatever floats your boat. I'm here to judge, not tell you what to do, but a really well-executed line-by-line in summary may earn you bonus points from me. I don't need to hear every argument in summary, but I think that you need to give me two or three portions of the debate narrowed down. Again, not gonna take speaks away if you don't, just my preference and makes my flow pretty clean. Kicking out of arguments is more than fine in summary.

Final focus should extend straight from summary – I will not buy any offense dropped in summary but brought up again in final focus. You don't get to basically make new responses/arguments in FF, especially if you're second speaker. FF should be weighing/voters. Don't be abusive, this activity is supposed to be fun.

Extensions: Make extensions clear – don't make me go back to my flow to try to figure out what on earth you're trying to talk about. Give me a point of reference for the evidence/warrant so I know where to go back to.

Theory: I am very reluctant to accept theory in PF. Make of that what you will. If you feel the need to, go for it, but know that I will be somewhat perturbed. I default to rejecting the argument, not the team, unless you can give me a compelling reason why. Just debate the topic instead, and you won't have to worry about this entire little mini-paragraph.

Evidence: For the love of god, don't make up evidence. This mean either a) fabricating evidence completely, b) misconstruing evidence to reach a different conclusion than the authors intended, or c) clipping cards. If there's an evidence challenge, be damn sure you want to go through with the challenge. If you call a challenge and I decide your challenge was unfounded, there's a very very very high likelihood you get dropped on the spot. In the same stead, if I decide that you have fabricated evidence, I will not vote for you. End of story. Integrity is important, don't throw it away for a win that won't mean anything in four years (or less, sorry but it's true). 

On the Sept-Oct PF Topic (school searches), the Tiller evidence is crap and you know it. Probable cause does not always require a warrant. Stop using it.

Congress: Coming soon

If you have any questions, just ask.

Carmen Kohn’s Paradigm

I have been judging speech and debate events since 2016. I am also currently the Director and Head Coach for Charlotte Catholic HS in NC.

Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum:

I enjoy both the ethical component of the discussions in LD and the current topicality of most PF topics. I appreciate the informative nature of these debates, especially in the current political climate.

I am a classic flow judge for both events and am looking for good clash between opponents. In LD, I place more emphasis on contentions rather than value, however, that evidence must clearly link back to the VC. I am also more interested in the impacts. A dropped contention is not automatic grounds for a win. It depends on the relevance of the argument. When rebutting, don't just extend the author's card. I am not writing down all of the authors. Please remind me of the evidence that was presented. I prefer the well-thought out, well-paced arguments. While debates are won based on evidence presented, I do find a direct correlation between technical speaking abilities and evidence offered. I also make a note of how professionally debaters present themselves and behave towards myself and each other.

I would classify myself as a advanced traditional lay judge. I am not a progressive judge. Do not run theory shells or any other "progressive" argument with me. While I do appreciate the occasional non-traditional argument, especially towards the end of the topic time frame, all cases should be realistic and applicable in the current environment in which we find ourselves. Please debate the current resolution.

Absolutely No Spreading!!! I cannot follow it, especially with online tournaments. You will lose the round. This is probably my biggest pet peeve. I feel there is no educational value to that in a competitive environment. You run the risk that I will not have caught all of your arguments and may miss a main point in my flow. Please keep technical jargon to a minimum also. Throwing around debate jargon and just cards identified by author gets too confusing to follow. And if you ask a question during cross-ex, please let your opponent answer and finish their sentences. It’s unprofessional to cut someone off. Signposts and taglines are always appreciated. I generally do not disclose or give oral RFD. I want time to review my notes. Debates where opponents respect each other and are having fun, arguing solid contentions, are the best ones to watch.

Congress:

I've just started judging Congress. My "comments" are usually summaries of your speeches. Occasional commentary on the delivery and/or content. Please interact with previously given speeches (by Rep name also) and don't just rehash a "first speech". If you can bring a new point to the discussion 6 speeches in, that is awesome.

I will give points to POs. I appreciate what is involved in POing. During nomination speeches, it can be assumed that a PO will run a "fast and efficient" chamber. No need to state the obvious. However, if that actually doesn't take place, a lower rank will result.

Good luck to all!!

I am a parent judge, but am experienced in judging LD and PF. I’ve also judged speech events. I have a few criteria to highlight which are focused on debate vs. speech events.

· Speak at a pace where you can be understood. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow the debate whether it is LD or PF. I don’t understand the logic behind Spreading as a reasonable approach to a debate, unless your life goal is to be an auctioneer, but they can generally be understood. If you are going to fast I will drop my pen and stopping taking notes. This will impact speaker points and may impact the outcome of the debate because if I can’t flow one side of the debate my only option is to award the win to the person or team that can be understood.

· Spirited argumentation is a fundamental part of a debate and I’m comfortable with passionate clashes, as long as they are executed in a civil manner. Please do not personally attack your competitor(s) as that will result in loosing points for that round. I’m ok with some interruptions during Cross but will stop either or both teams if excessive.

· Please don’t play the “my card is better than your card and thus judge you must vote Aff or Neg”. I understand using counter evidence to weaken your opponent’s case and strengthen yours, but simply saying Card X trumps Card Y with no further explanation as to why that is the case will not enhance your argument’s credibility.

· Try to research your sources and find ones with counter ideology that also support your arguments. For instance, if you use the Cato Institute as a reference understand that is a Libertarian focused organization and you should look to something like the Brookings Institute, a more Democratic leaning organization, as a source to see if you can find something that would agree with the position of the Cato Institute.

· Have a framework for your arguments regardless if you debate LD or PF. You need the structure to be able to position your arguments in a way that can allow me as a judge to fairly flow the debate and determine if your opponents did or did not address your criterion and contentions. Cards should be carefully selected to support your positions and be readily available for your competitors to review when called.

· If you ask for a card, I will not count the time taken to find the card and present as prep time but will start prep time once the card has been given to you to review.

· If you are using an electronic device for opening speeches or to hold your evidence, please make sure you have properly charged it between rounds so you can provide evidence if asked by your competitors.

I appreciate that you are taking your time on weekend to compete and will do my absolute best to fairly judge the debates (or speech events if necessary), provide Reasons for Decisions that are concise but helpful in understanding why you won or lost, and will provide feedback to each person/team as well. I take my role as a judge seriously, but also recognize that these events are also supposed to be fun. So please come into the rounds with a positive attitude about the debate, treat your opponents as you would want them to treat you, and be respectful of me as a judge. I too am investing my Saturdays in you and your “sport”.

I am an assistant coach of PF Debate at Charlotte Latin, and a junior at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. I did PF debate for 4 years at Pinecrest High school in North Carolina. I am an Aries

My preferences are straightforward, although I would like to emphasize two points:

First, summary and final focus should be linked. More specifically, voting issues in final focus must be in summary as well.

Second, key-points of crossfire should be brought up again later in a speech. I will only write down CX concessions if they are in a speech.

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.

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

General overview:

I was a high school and college debater and have been an active high school coach ever since. I am chair of my state league as well as an NSDA District Chair. Dating back to high school, I have over 35 years of experience in the activity. However, please don't consider me as "old school" or a strict traditionalist. Like any activity, speech and debate is constantly evolving and I am open to and embrace most changes. You'll clearly understand all of the rare exceptions to that as you read my paradigm.

It is very important to remember that debate is a communication activity. As such, I expect clear communication. Well articulated, supported and defended arguments, regardless of quantity, are far more important to me than who has the most cards that they can spout out in a speech. While I'm okay with a limited amount of speed, excessive speed beyond what you would use in the "real world" is not effective communication in my mind. Communicate to me effectively with well reasoned and fully supported arguments at a reasonable pace and you will win my ballot. I don't accept the "they dropped the argument so I automatically win the argument" claim. You must tell me why the dropped argument was critical in the first place and convince me that it mattered. I look at who had the most compelling arguments on balance and successfully defended them throughout the round while refuting the opponent's arguments on balance in making my decision.

Things to keep in mind about the various events I judge:

Policy debate is about policy. It has a plan. Plans have advantages and disadvantages as well as solvency or the lack thereof. Some plans also might warrant a counterplan from the negative if it is good, nontopical, and can gain solvency better than the affirmative plan. I am not a fan of "circuit style" policy debate and greatly prefer good and clear communication.

Lincoln Douglas Debate is about values. I am interested much more in values in this type of debate than any sort of policy. However, I'm not a strict traditionalist in that I don't require both a value premise and a value criterion that is explicitly stated. But I do want to hear a value debate. That said, I also want to hear some pragmatic examples of how your value structure plays out within the context of the resolution. All in all, I balance my decision between the philosophical and the pragmatic. Persuade me of your position. However, please don't present a plan or counterplan. Switch to policy debate if you want to do that. Bottom line: debate the resolution and don't stray from it.

Public Forum Debate is about current events and was intended for the lay judge. Don't give me policy or LD arguments. Clear communication is important in all forms of debate, but is the most important in this one. I am not open to rapid fire spreading. That's not communication. Please don't give me a formal plan or counterplan. Again, reserve that for policy debate. Communicate and persuade with arguments backed up by solid research and your own analysis and do this better than your opponents and you will win my PF ballot. It's that simple. Debate the resolution without straying from it in a good communicative style where you defend your arguments and attack your opponent's and do this better than they do it. Then you win. Persuade me. I am also not a fan of "circuit style" Public Forum that seems to be increasingly popular. Communicate as if I am a layperson (even though I'm not), as that is what PF was intended to be.

Congress Paradigm: (I'll be honest. It's my favorite event.)
Congressional Debate is designed to be like the real Congress when it functions as it was intended. Decorum is absolutely critical. While humor may have its place in this event, you should not do or say anything that a United States congressperson of integrity would not do or say. You should also follow Congressional decorum rules and address fellow competitors with their proper titles. When judging congress, I want to see clash/refutation of previous speakers (unless, of course, you are giving the first speech of the topic). Try to avoid "canned" speeches that are largely prewritten. This is not dueling oratories. It is still debate. I look for a combination of new arguments and clash/refutation of arguments already made. I do not like rehash. If it's been said already, don't say it unless you have a uniquely fresh perspective. I am not impressed by those who jump up to make the first obvious motion for previous question or for recess. Obvious motions score no points with me, as they are obvious and can be made by anyone. It's not a race to see who can be seen the most. I am, however, impressed by those who make great speeches, regularly ask strong cross examination questions and show true leadership in the chamber. Simply making great speeches alone is not enough. If you give three perfect speeches but never really ask good cross examination questions or rarely participate proceduraly in the chamber, you might not get the ranking you were hoping for. Although speeches are very important and a major factor in my decision, they are not the complete package that I expect from a competitor. I'm looking at your total constructive participation in the chamber (in a productive sense, not a "just to be seen" sense). Finally, to reiterate what I said at the beginning, I take decorum very seriously. You should too.

Congress Presiding Officers: Keep your wording as brief and concise as possible. Avoid the obvious. Please don't use phrases like "Seeing as how that was a negative speech, we are now in line for an affirmative speech." Here is a MUCH better option: "Affirmative speakers please rise" or "We are now in line for an affirmative speech." There is no need to tell anyone that the previous speech was negative. We should know that already. Just immediately call on the next side. It is acceptable and advisable to also very quickly give the time of the previous speech for the reference of the judges, but we do not need to be reminded of what side the previous speech was on. The phrase I dislike the most in Congress is "seeing as how . . ." So how do I judge you as a P.O. in relation to the speakers in the chamber? Most (but not all) presiding officers will make my top eight ballot if they are good with no major flaws. But how do you move up the ballot to get in "break" range? I place a great deal of weight on fairness and decorum, knowledge of parliamentary procedure and the efficiency in which the chamber is conducted. I reward presiding officers who are precise and have minimal downtime. And, as mentioned earlier, it does not require a great deal of language (especially jargon and phraseology) to be an excellent presiding officer. I'm not judging you on how much I hear you speak. I'm judging you on how efficient the chamber ran under your leadership. An excellent P.O. can run a highly efficient chamber without having to say much. Keep order, know and enforce the rules, and be respected by your peers. That said, you should also be prepared to step in and be assertive anytime the chamber or decorum gets out of hand. In fact, you should step in assertively at the first minute sign of it. Finally, while it is often difficult for a P.O. to be first on the ballot, it is also not impossible if your excellence is evident. And as a side note, while this is not a voting issue for me, it is worth noting. When giving your nomination speech, you don't need to tell me (or the rest of the chamber) that you will be "fast and efficient." That phrase is overused and heard from almost every candidate I've ever seen nominated. Everyone makes that claim, but a surprising number don't actually follow through on it. Come up with original (but relevant) reasons that you should be elected.

Things to avoid in any event I judge:

"Spreading" or rapid fire delivery. Just don't.

Ad Hominem attacks of any kind. Stick to the issues, not the person. This is the first thing that will alienate me regardless of your position.

Kritiks - You must be extremely persuasive if you run them. I'll consider them and vote for them if they are excellent, but I'd rather hear other arguments. Very few kritiks are in that "excellent" category I just mentioned. These are mainly only appropriate for Policy debate. I'll reluctantly consider them in LD, but never in PF.

Debate that strays outside the resolutional area. Stick to the topic.

Lack of respect for your opponent or anyone else in the room. Disagreement and debate over that disagreement is great. That's what this activity is about. But we must always do it respectfully.

Lack of respect for public figures. It's perfectly fine to disagree with the position of anyone you quote. However, negativity toward the person is not acceptable.

Condescending tone or delivery. Don't even try it with me. Trust me, I'll hear a condescending tone/delivery much louder than any argument you make, no matter how good the argument is. I'll make a condescending tone a voting issue that does not play in your favor. You don't want that.

I am a very traditional judge.

Want to win?

Convince me of your value and criterion. Then show me that your side better upholds that criterion. Impact back to the criterion. Signpost. No spreading please.

Poems amuse, but do not convince.

Interpretive dance does not convince either, but will result in an automatic +1 speaker point.

When possible, quote Nietzsche.

Parent judge of former and current PF debaters. Judged mostly PF and some LD debates over past 4.5 years. I have a financial background so emotional arguments backed up by facts are very convincing where as emotional arguments without support are not. I generally have a hard time following arguments based on what is or isn't covered by the semantics of the resolution wording. Keep pace as slow as you can (and conversational if you can) so it is easy to follow arguments...sometimes less is more. Be respectful to opponents during crossfires, acknowledge or rephrase their arguments then rebut. "I understand your point but if you consider X,Y,Z then it does not hold up, etc. Avoid saying "makes no sense" etc... if it really makes no sense say something like we are not following your logic. Leave enough time at the end each speech strong and not rushed for your last impression. I wouldnt say "must" vote... urging or should vote are ok.

Three things that are very important to me.

1. Try your best to get away from reading off your notes or speech

2.No spreading. Ever. This isn't policy, and even then chill out.

3. Clash like your life depended on it.

(this paradigm was written with the assistance of my son)

Hi! I am a parent judge who has been judging here and there for the last 1 year. I am a typical lay judge and thus, adjust your arguments and style as such.

Speed: Don't spread, don't talk fast. I know all you "flow" kids are groaning rn, but chill out fam.

Rhetoric: Rhetoric matters to some extent, but as long as you can get the arguments across to me, from your brain to my flow, you're fine.

Extending: Any arguments you want me to vote on must have cleanly been extended throughout the entire round. Don't tell me to vote off of any args that you didn't make/extend previously.

If both debaters are equal in my "lay" eyes, I will probably vote off of speaking style and persuasiveness.

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 (mostly LD) for 4 years. Please do not spread, as I will not be able to flow or catch everything you say (and your opponent may not be able to either, particularly if they have had less experience with it).

I would advise to competitors to define their cases clearly and present their contentions and rebuttals at a pace that is easy to keep up with. If you want to make a very important point, the slower you speak the better. Most of us can think much faster then we can flow. I’m sure over the years I’ve missed points that students would have wanted me to consider. I also value professionalism and courtesy.