How to win with me:

Debate is best done when all parties are focused on the heart of the debate topic. The debate loses meaning when non-essential elements distract from the crux of the debate; thus, the best debates come from people who are unwavering from the essential elements of their position at the foundation of the resolution. From there a good debater will reveal inconsistencies of their opponent's contentions and weigh their position against the opposition.

Another essential element of a proper debate is clarity. If clarity is lost so is the debate. Both parties must have clear understandable and coherent arguments for the debate to grow and develop. I value students who are able to break down complicated elements into digestible pieces, point out argument fallacies, and weigh points that stand with integrity.

How to lose me:

I can not flow points I can't understand. Do not spread with the speed of an auctioneer with me and hope to win. I will not vote for abusive arguments that narrow the focus of the debate so far you can't lose and your opponents can't win. I will not vote for theory-based briefs that assume the world exists in a vacuum or promote the victim based assertion that there is something inherently wrong with the resolution. I will not read your brief as you speak it. It is your responsibility to verbally communicate to the judge and your opponents. The debate is not an essay contest. If your main points boil down to ad hominine arguments I will flow to your opponents.

Ultimately debate is dialogue between people - judge included - Facilitate dialogue and win. Breach that dialogue and lose.

I am a parent judge. I have been judging Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for about four years, as well as a few speech events here and there.

Please do not spread or run Kritiks. I generally take a traditional approach to the round. Policy debate strategies do not belong in LD and PF. I do not want to see stock issues, counterplans, or any other unwarranted strategy that does not belong in the style that it is assigned to.

I look for good clash, solid evidence, and a persuasive delivery respectively. Dropped arguments will hurt you. In LD I look for a strong relation between arguments and the value. The value criterion should adequately measure the value. Make sure to talk about why your value, criterion, and arguments are better than your opponent’s.

What will hurt you:

- disrespect (you will lose speaker points)

- yielding too much time

- Snarky attitudes

- continuing to talk even after I've let you complete your last sentence

Good luck and I can’t wait to watch some rounds!

I am a parent judge, and am so impressed by the work and effort that all of you have gone to in order to debate today -- so please know that first of all. Having said that, I expect clear, concise and coherent speaking of a reasonable pace; please no spreading. I want to be able to understand all of the arguments you have prepared, but if you speak too quickly or spread, I cannot evaluate you properly. I am looking for organized, structured arguments, and will be a big fan of clearly articulated contentions, evidence/sources, and quick thinking cross-examinations. Please give me full-circle argumentation from contentions to voting issues, and please note I would value quality over quantity all day long. Come prepared to time yourselves, but I will also be timing to hold accountable. Be courteous, respectful and professional during the debate which will only enhance your performance from my perspective.

I have been judging debate tournaments for three years mostly in PF format and a few times in LD and Congress. I look for well researched and logical presentations and preferably not speed reading. Being able to offer good strong counter arguments to your opponents' contentions will score points in your favor.

Past Experience

Debated at Hamilton High School (AZ) in Policy for 4 years.

Philosophy

I am fine with any arguments, but just make sure to articulate the warrants and engage in the debate on an at least somewhat resolutional level. That being said, I am a fan of Ks, but not so much theory/topicality. I will still buy all arguments, though, so run what you are comfortable with. I am not as concerned with the performance of the debate as opposed to the quality of the argumentation (unless of course the performance is a key part of the case)

General

Not gonna count random stuff as prep, but don’t take advantage of that and still make sure you’re not doing work if you’re not taking prep.

Roadmaps/signposting is a MUST, it will be very difficult to flow every argument otherwise, which may come back to hurt you in the end.

I will say clear and/or slow if you are incoherent - speaks get docked after the second time.

Speaker Point Distributions (I am more influenced by quality of argumentation than speaking performance):

30 — Nearly perfect, everything that needed to be covered was covered and articulated well

29.5 — Extremely well-articulated and thorough debate

29-29.5 — Strong, skilled arguments

28.5-29 — Solid

27.5-28.5 — Average, argumentation could have been better

Below 27.5 — Lots of work needs to be done, key arguments were not addressed or argued properly

Extra 0.5 speaker points for making me laugh or any UNC bashing

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

I'm flow oriented and prefer that debaters explicitly state and weigh impacts. I like to include authors' names when I flow; please read them clearly.

I've judged LD for a long time. I want to make a moral decision, and I'm looking for the side that best walks me through why I should affirm or negate. I want to see both sides treat each other with respect, I don't wake up early and give up my weekends to hear snotty kids spew blippy arguments.

There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of a Lincoln Douglas resolution, and there will be evidence on both sides. I vote on the debate as a whole, rather than using the flow as a scorecard in terms of the number of arguments advanced. I enjoy cases that have clear values and criteria that provide substantive reasoning as to the most important issues in the round. I do not enjoy cases with messy, generic values or criteria that don't really tell me anything and leave me with 2 sets of contentions bouncing off each other.

I'm not a fan of extremely meta or theory laden cases, and if you have a case that is really off-the-wall and a case that is more straight down the middle, I'd prefer the straight down the middle one. I'm not going to vote against you simply because I don't like your approach, but in general I don't find those sort of arguments compelling. The more convoluted your case, the more receptive I am to simple arguments from your opponent. Word salad debate jargon isn't a substitute for a compelling argument.

If you feel that you've made a good point in cross-ex, mention it in your rebuttal and tell me why it is important. Please remember that this is not a TV courtroom drama where you are the prosecutor trying to get your opponent to confess on the witness stand. I've never seen a round decided on a trick question during cross ex. The best uses of cross ex that I've seen involve making clear how your opponents' case works and in setting up the core conflicts that will be in the round.

I don't shake hands, but I'll give you a fist bump. There are too many illnesses out there.

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.

I am a school coach, and I primarily work with competitors in speech events. This is my fifth year judging. When I judge a round, I look for the following:

1. I value signposting and explicitly stating the number of the contention that you are addressing throughout the debate.

2. If you don't clearly connect your evidence to your overall argument, I will not be convinced.

3. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity. I also need to be able to easily follow your logic, which is harder if a competitor spreads.

4. I value strong cross examination skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case will help you win the round.

5. Be confident but courteous in the round.

I have been judging all forms of Speech and Debate for 5 years. I competed in Congress during my time as a competitor

I prefer to have a structured debate that has a progressive flow on both sides of the argument. Aggressive debate is fine but competitors should remain cordial to each other throughout the debate. All debate is point structured, so the win or loss is allocated to the competitor who both makes the better point and defends best against their opponent.

Organization is key for me as a judge. Your debate needs to follow a logical order with cohesiveness, if I can't understand the argument than I will have a much harder time judging it.

The most important aspects of a debate in terms of wins and losses is an evidence based approach that addresses all arguments in a manner of completeness. Leaving an opening within the debate is a sign of lack of preparation and will be judged accordingly. I expect all competitors to be aware of NSDA rules and regulations within their debating structure.

I am a parent judge with 1 year of LD judging experience. Here are the things I consider and evaluate:

- Do not spread. State your position and arguments clearly.

- Support with good analysis, well sourced evidence, and well organized flow. Simply rejecting opponent without logical arguments does not win points.

- Highlighting roadmap helps direct judges or opponent to follow along the debater's thought process. It is a helpful organization tactic. I do give points to cohesiveness and organization.

- Ask good questions during cross exam. Let your opponent answer the question. Show respect and make eye contact.

- Quality over quantity. When speed becomes impediment to understanding, I will discount your argument.

I competed in LD all four years in high school on the NC circuit and traveled to national tournaments such as Harvard and Emory. I qualified and competed at the NCFL national tournament both my junior and senior year.

I am a recent graduate from Duke University and have remained active in the debate community by judging at local tournaments over the past 4 years.

I am not picky about what you run as long as it is clear and logical. Don't make assumptions that I know something because if I don't understand it, I won't vote for it. No theory unless there is a clear abuse in the round (someone ran theory against me for using paper so not a fan) and honestly you could probably just explain the abuse and save all of us some time. I also judge how you treat your opponents. It may not ultimately affect my decision, but it definitely will impact your speaker points.

Any specific questions feel free to ask me in round.

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.