Clash is king. I am a parent judge, but open to whatever style of debate you choose to run, traditional or progressive, just communicate it clearly and connect it to your opponent's case. I can connect dots, but I might not connect them the way you think they connect, so do your best to draw the lines. Signposts and structure are helpful. Spreading is fine, but I prefer quality over quantity. may request to see your evidence, especially if you and your opponent disagree on its interpretation and implications

For LD, framework is important. If morality is on your side, use morality. If logic is on your side, use logic. If evidence is on your side, use evidence. If feasibility is on your side, use feasibility. If you have nothing else, make me laugh or tell me a story.

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

I am an experienced debate judge, an engineer by training, a teacher by occupation and a proponent of clear communication. I value speech that is clear and understandable at a pace that a normal human can follow and using words that any layman could understand. If you see my put my pen down, that means that you are speaking too fast and I am no longer flowing your arguments.

I am a parent judge, and this is my 3rd year judging debate.

When I judge a round, I look for the following:

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

2. Do not spread--I value quality and connectivity over quantity.

3. 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.

4. Be confident but courteous in the round.

Update for Harvard 2024

If you are going fast enough that I need case docs - add me to the chain - Josh.Herring@thalescollege.org

Updated for Princeton Invitation 2022

I am a traditional debate coach who likes to see debaters exercise their creativityINSIDE the conventions of the style. For Congressional Debate, that means strong clash and adherence to the conceit of being a congressional representation. For LD, that means traditional>progressive, and if a traditional debater calls topicality on a progressive debater for not upholding "ought" on Aff, I will look favorably on such an approach. That being said, if someone runs a K coherently, and the a priori claim of the K is not refuted, I will vote for the prior claim. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, and I like to think I'm tech>truth, but don't ruin the the game with progressive garbage. If you love progressive argumentation, please strike me. I hate tricks, don't like K's, think performative debate is dumb, and really don't like want to see the resolution replaced by this month's social concern. For PF, I want to see strong evidence, good extension, crystallization, and framing. In essence, I want good debate with clear burdens. Write my ballot for me - give your opponent burdens to meet, meet your own, and explain why you win. I think debate is a beautiful game, and I want to see it played well.

Couple of last minute DON'Ts - I don't buy disclosure theory; I think it has harmed smaller schools by pretending to legitimize approaches big teams can deploy, and it has made spreading much more common. I cannot spread, and I cannot hear a case at speed. If your opponent spreads, and you call them out on it in the sense that their speed disadvantages you in the round, I will look very favorably on that as a prior condition of sportsmanship in the game. Don't spread, and don't fuss at your opponent for not putting a case on the Wiki. It's a voluntary system, and does not constitute systemic harm if you actually have to refute in round rather than prep on arguments read 30 minutes before the round.

Original paradigm from several years ago:

I learned debate at Hillsdale College from Jeremy Christensen and Matthew Doggett and James Brandon; I competed in IPDA and NPDA. I've been a coach since 2014. I have coached PF, Coolidge, LD, and Congressional. I judge on the flow. I'm looking for sound argumentation tied to the resolution; if you go off topic (K, etc) or want to run a theory argument, be prepared to explain why your strategy is justified. I am not a fan of speed in debate - convey your arguments, evidence, and impacts without spreading.

Debate is a wonderful game, and I enjoy judging rounds where both teams play it well. Accept your burdens, and fight for your position. Evidence goes a long way with me, so long as you explain the validity of your evidence and the impact that it links to. In LD, Im a big fan of traditional values-driven argumentation. In PF, I want to see the purposes of public forum respected - no plan, no spreading, and publicly accessible debate on a policy-esque resolution.

I am parent judge who judged 3-4 debates in the last couple of years.

Hi! I’m Gautam.

Carroll Sr. HS, TX ’19

Duke University ’23

Email - gautamiyer28@gmail.com (add me to the email chain please)

Background - debated 3 years for Carroll Senior High in Southlake, TX, qualified to TFA state, NSDA nats, and TOC my senior year. Debated on both local and national circuits so familiar with traditional debate too.

General - I’m fine with whatever you want to run as long as it isn’t blatantly offensive. I mostly read LARP/policy style arguments and some theory, so I'll probably be best at evaluating those things. I'll probably be worst at evaluating tricks (ie burden affs with 4-minute underviews) so if you're reading tricky stuff take a second to explain the tricks and their implications. I'll vote for those arguments, but I'll have a lower threshold for what counts as a response. Additionally, I'm not that familiar with some critical literature (ie Bataille or Heidegger), so if you're reading stuff like that it would be helpful to spend more time explaining your position.

Defaults - I default to comparative worlds, reasonability, drop the arg, no RVIs, presuming aff, permissibility flows aff. I doubt I’ll ever have to use most of these.

Miscellaneous stuff -

• As a debater I was atrocious at permissibility, skep, truth testing in general, burdens, etc so if you want to read those args please explain them thoroughly
• I will vote on frivolous theory but will be more easily convinced by weaker answers or reasonability to things like formal clothes theory
• I won’t drop speaks regardless of what arg you read unless it’s offensive
• Good case debate is fun and will probably get you good speaks
• Disclosure is important and I will gladly vote on a disclosure shell
• Please send screenshots at the end of the round if you go for disclosure
• Compiling the doc is prep but emailing it, etc. is not
• I won’t flow CX unless asked

I have judged a couple dozen PF rounds and a handful of LD and speech rounds too. I am not a flow judge. I take good notes and enjoy a respectful and passionate round. I do not favor speed in speaking and if you lose me you will not likely win the round.

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.

I have a fairly straightforward perspective on my judging preferences. I am very much a traditional flow judge. I do not prefer progressive styles. I don't prefer spreading, and if a debater speaks so quickly that I have trouble understanding them, I will not be able to prefer their arguments.

Backing up your arguments with convincing evidence and telling me specifically why I should prefer your evidence over your opponent's will help you win the round. Extending your arguments throughout the flow and pointing out to me any concessions your opponent made in cross-ex or any arguments dropped by your opponent will greatly strengthen your case. Voter issues are helpful. Explain to me the reasons for why you believe you won the round. Clarity of thought and logic for me will trump fast speech every time.

I have judged debate since 2001. From 2014-2021 I coached Public Forum and Speech events. I retired after 8 years as the Co-Director of Speech and Debate at Cary Academy in North Carolina in 2021.

DEBATE: In debate (LD/PF) I look for clear claims, evidence and links to logical, clear impacts showing contextual analysis. I flow each round and look for you to bring your arguments through the round, tell me the clash and how I should weigh.

I judge as if this activity is preparing you for the real world. I won't flow what I have to work too hard to follow or translate (read speed). Asking for evidence for common sense issues won't count either. You can use flow jargon, but tell me why. You want me to flow across the round? cross apply? for instance, tell me why. Don't exaggerate your evidence. Finally - I'm not here to show you how smart or clever I am by pretending to understand some sesquipedalian or sophomoric arguments (see what I did there?)- that means. 1.) do a kritik and you are going to lose because you failed to acknowledge that ideas can conflict and are worthy of discussion; 2.) "the tech over truthers" and other silly judging paradigms don't make you a more articulate conveyor of ideas once you have to "adult". I will know the topic, but judge like a lay judge. Convince me. Have fun and enjoy the activity!

CONGRESS: Well researched unique takes on a resolution are important. Simple stock arguments and analysis is easy. I look for you to look deeper into the consequences/outcome of passage. Don't rehash, not only is it boring but it suggests you needed to listen more closely. Refutation of previous speeches shows careful analysis in the moment and it shows you have more than the case you wrote the night before (even if you did :)). Presentation is also important. I don't like BS for the sake of being a good presenter but a balance of solid research, thoughtful analysis, ambitious and relevant refutation from a persuasive speaker will get high marks!

I like a well structured argument as well as anyone. I will be judging from the perspective of (former) college debater (APDA), a two-term state representative, a two-term state senator and a pretty decent parliamentarian in both the Reed's and Robert's rules traditions. I am the coolest private investigator you will ever meet, if not the most recent, and believe that there is great value in actually listening to the words that people utter. Spreading, or other theatrics, are not a substitute for substance, especially in a forum where time is of the essence.

This is my third year judging - I judge Congressional Debate and Lincoln-Douglas, and occasionally have the pleasure of being entertained with speech performances. I have been a practicing attorney for 26 years, both in the trial, transactional, and appellate worlds. While in public practice I spent significant time drafting model legislation for use by the multiple states and testifying on its behalf in the Maine Legislature. I love policy. I love the art of persuasion. I value the ability to argue both sides of any issue. I enjoy pointed and concise argument. Be professional, be kind, and, most importantly, have fun.

I am a parent judge who has been judging LD in eastern North Carolina for the past two years. I appreciate the challenges and pressure that competitive debating brings, and as such insist that a cordial and respectful environment be maintained at all times. This will ensure space for the highest level of thought and expression.

The most important points that I respond to in a successful debate are:

1) Clear logic and articulated support. Preferably argued under an overarching structure where evidence can be understood through tangential relationships, and not a series of unrelated statements.

2) Composed and effective communication, including body language as well as verbal skills.

3) Intellectual agility- the ability to quickly craft and articulate thoughtful positions in a short time frame.

If these points are present I am confident that you will be a very strong debater, and gain as much as possible from these exceptional educational opportunities.

There are however a few things that hinder my ability to evaluate information and arguments as fairly as possible. Primarily speed is a detriment to my ability to synthesize the arguments being offered. Please no spreading. Also, as a lay judge I prefer traditional debate styles. Stay on topic and debate the merits of the given topic. It will allow for my fullest engagement and fairest evaluation.

anita.DukeDiv at gmail

My name is Anita Salazar. I competed in and have judged just about every speech and debate event. For Debate, although I only competed in PF and Congress, I have been judging LD and CX since 2009. I have seen an array of traditional and progressive arguments and I value validity and logic. I tend to be critical of dropped arguments, but I don't believe more substantiative points should be shadowed by a delineation. Regarding speed: I am fine with any speed if there are signposts and good taglines, but being virtual makes this a bit trickier. Being included in the chain helps this exponentially; but because of internet stability issues, I think it is wise to always confer with your opponent and judge(s) in the round first before spreading.

I come to a debate with an engineering/numbers mindset. They make sense to me and I appreciate finding patterns in data and figuring out how to use them to reach logical conclusions. 2020 is the start of my judging experience and I look forward to being impressed.

I've judged a few times over the past 4 years and did LD debate all 4 years of high school. I can keep up with pretty much any style, so I don't have preferences on what kind of debate you have. Just try to have a good time.

I am a traditional judge who has been part of the debate community for over a decade now. I look towards both the contention level arguments as well as the value framework. I am willing to consider progressive styles but I don't prefer it. As long as the speaker is clear I can handle speed, but I believe it is a test of skill to communicate more content with fewer words.

I am new to LD, but look forward to judging. I am a parent of four, and an avid reader with an interest in a variety of perspectives. I am also a fan of politics, (old school) and have experience in the journalism profession, (also old school). As an LD judge, I will value strength and consistency of a well researched argument. I’m sure I will be impressed by those who best demonstrate clarity of position, and perception in discerning and refuting opponents’ assertions.

Heather Weisz