I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card.

Timing

You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if not argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts. Performance is important here.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true. I have a fairly low threshold to vote on "psychoanalysis is unscientific nonsense" arguments because....well, they're kinda true.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

Anthony Berryhill (MBA, M.Phil., M.A., CSM, CSPO) | Judge Paradigm- updated 9/2/2023
email (for speech docs): anthony@elitecollegehacker.com

Experience:

• Professional background: Former Vice President of Learning (executive) at PIMCO, a leading fixed income firm. Stanford (BA) and Yale (PhD Candidate) alumnus--both in political science with a focus on contemporary political theory
• Current job: Running college admissions company (MBA/MD/PhD/undergrad) at www.elitecollegehacker.com.
• Recent Debate Career Highlights: Coach of 3 national champions (College PF, HS LD @ 2019 NCFL, HS PF - International TOC) | 6x LD Wording Committee member | NSDA Final Round Judge (Policy 2022, LD 2019-2022) | Former Managing Director at VBI | LD (TOC-NSDA-NCFL)/Extemp (NCFL)/Congress (NSDA Senate+NCFL) Qualified student @ Isidore Newman (1996-2000)

How I vote (in brief): I vote for the debater who -- through the appropriate decision rule (values, burdens, argument layer) -- convinces me that I should vote for their side of the resolution (and/or performance) above the other debater.

Style info:

Good debate is good debate - I have judged late TOC and NSDA elims of all styles and historically have very successfully coached traditional, policy, performance (at the LD TOC), and K debaters.

I strongly prefer debates about the topic, but can be convinced otherwise if you pull it off well.

Speed is ok if you are clear, avoid monotone, and if you include me on the speech docs.

How to win my ballot and get high points (preferences):

1. I strongly prefer debaters who do the work to cross apply, connect arguments together, extend evidence, signpost, and keep the flow clean. These students get wins and 29.5s+ with shocking consistency.
2. I look for the easiest, most clear way to vote, so I can minimize/avoid intervention (within reason). I am not a judge who will reconstruct a round and read cards for 30 min after a debate. That's the debaters' job. The more work you do to write the ballot, the more weight I will give to your interpretations and positions.
3. In-round analysis and smart strategy counts: Weighing, closing doors (telling me where you can lose and doing the hard work in detail to stop me from doing so), crystallization, and extensions will help you sway the ballot to your side.
4. Clarity matters: I am biased toward debaters who do the work to explain very complicated ideas in a simple, clear, and accessible way. As a former PhD in critical theory @ Yale, I appreciate good argumentation, depth, and skill at explanation.

What I strongly dislike/what you will want to avoid:

1. High Mental/Cognitive load/confusion -> judge intervention: It is in your interest to collapse arguments down in order to reduce how much I have to evaluate or consider. Otherwise, I get to be dangerously creative and decide how I want to vote, which I'd rather not do.

2. Misbehavior in rounds and debate politics. I judge by the "any given sunday" principle. I do not hack--and have never--hacked for anyone, any position, or at any time. Therefore any debater can win in front of me if they adapt. Make sure to avoid behavior that is out of bounds (swearing, use of inappropriate words, and other actions that parents/principals would disapprove).

3. A note about theory and identity arguments. If you need theory or identity based arguments, go for it. HOWEVER, frivolous theory or blippy arguments are not strategic in front of me.

Also, as one of the first students in circuit LD to run heavily race/gender based arguments (in the late 90s) I'm especially sensitive to students treating these arguments with the seriousness they demand.

Therefore, if you run identity arguments, please do not treat these as strategic pawns to be deployed without regard to ethics (i.e., I've seen some folks use racially insensitive language as a strategy, lie about misgendering/pronouns to trap opponents, claim that only people of a certain race can make certain positions, etc.) As an intersectionalist by training, I'm opposed to essentialism, stereotyping, and authenticity policing. Let's do none of that please.

Good luck!

TL;DR: Flow judge. Speed is fine but please do a lot of weighing in summary and final focus regardless of how quickly you speak. Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm (or otherwise) before the round starts.

Long Version:

In high school, I did Public Forum at Cary Academy on the local, state, and national circuits. Now, I am a Junior at the University of Pennsylvania and I am currently studying Philosophy, Politics, and Economics & Criminology. I currently debate for Penn's premier competitive debate team on the APDA circuit (parliamentary) and I compete regularly.

If you want to win, show me the comparative. Try your best to explain why exactly your arguments clash with your opponents' arguments, and why you win on a warrant and weighing level. Teams who clearly explain their frameworks and their weighing mechanisms are more persuasive than teams who assert that their arguments are "winning".

I am a pretty flow judge, and I like to see coverage of all points in rebuttal. However, I'm not going to drop you because you don't address one blippy card in constructive. I'm ok with speed so go as fast as you think is appropriate for Public Forum.

Also, please don't be a dick.

I'm serious. I will hand out really low speaker points if you are condescending or dismissive of any debaters, especially in cross. Don't be afraid to be aggressive or passionate, but please refrain from communicating in a manner that would make others feel unwelcome, as debate is, at its core, a learning experiance that should be available to everyone. I want to discourage bad debate norms, so I will reduce speaks if I feel the need to. Feel free to reach out to me after rounds for feedback or with any other questions.

I debated at Ardrey Kell in NC for 4 years. I was aight.

-Anything you want me to evaluate as offense has to be in summary and ff (including warrant and impact)

-First speaking team has to extend defense

-Please weigh

-Racist, homophobic, sexist etc speech will result in an auto L and speaks you wont like

Background

I debated Lincoln Douglas for four years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, where I placed 9th at NSDAs and attended TOC.

Paradigm (LD)

The most important thing to winning my ballot is weighing. I try to evaluate the round as objectively as possible, so in your 2AR/NR you need to explain the layers of the debate and why I should prefer your arguments. If you don't adequately extend or impact an argument, I will have a tough time voting for it. Besides that, I evaluate all arguments on the flow. Below are some considerations:

Substance
I read all types of arguments in high school (philosophy, plans, disads, meta standards, etc), so feel free to read what you feel most comfortable with. That said, I especially enjoy nuanced and non-traditional positions (post-modernism, obscure-yet-topical authors, etc) , and will reward them with higher speaks. I award speaker points primarily based on organization and strategy. Please don't ask me to disclose speaks.

Speed
I am more than comfortable with speed, so long as you are clear (and I will shout "clear" or "slow" if you aren't). Please slow down for tags, plan texts, interps, etc.

Theory / Topicality
I see theory as a response to legitimate abuse, and have a very low tolerance for abusive arguments (multiple a prioris, PICs, abusive definitions, etc). I default to reasonability on clear-cut abuse, but can be persuaded to evaluate competing interpretations, assuming the abuse is not clear. That said, I do not enjoy watching theory debates, and would much prefer you point out the abuse to me as the judge, and get back to substance.

Kritiks
Kritiks, like theory or topicality, are a way of questioning the pre-fiat implications of your opponents' position. As a result, Kritiks must link to a practice your opponent performed, and there must exist a relatively predictable/reasonable way your opponent could have anticipated or predicted that this practice was bad. For example, I will not vote on an argument saying "the aff doesn't address black feminism", because it is unreasonable to expect the aff to read black feminism every round. For that reason, I am most willing to vote on stock, topical kritiks (like neoliberalism, colonialism, biopower, etc).

TL;DR

Talk Fast. Weigh. Don't be Abusive.

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.***

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

debate success does not matter! be a good person! have fun!

hi! my name is sara catherine and i debated for altamont in pf for 3 years. i now coach privately and at debate camps over the summer. i also founded beyond resolved, which is an organization that seeks to combat inequalities in the activity. with that, i care a lot about making this round fun and accessible to you - please let me know what i need to do to make that happen.

things you should know about how i evaluate rounds:

1. the easiest way to lose my ballot is to say something racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. i think it is my job as a judge to make the round a valuable educational environment and a safe environment for both teams - that cannot happen when you make generalizations about groups of people or speak for others. i will do my best to intervene when necessary.

2. the second easiest way to lose my ballot is by not doing proper extensions. i am the judge that will not vote for you if whatever argument you are going for (link and impact) is not fully extended in summary. frontlining is not extending. if neither team does proper extensions i usually have to intervene - don't make me do that!

3. here is a breakdown of how i vote: i evaluate the weighing debate first. whoever wins the weighing debate tends to win the round. if there is no weighing or the weighing is awash, i vote for the cleanest piece of offense. if there is no offense, i presume first speaking team. if you want me to presume differently, tell me why.

other things:

1. first half of the round

second rebuttal needs to answer any offense argument (turns, disads, etc) or i consider it conceded. if you are going to concede a delink to get out of a turn, that also has to happen in second rebuttal.

first summary does not have to extend unanswered defense. i evaluate new frontlines from the second speaking team in rebuttal and second summary but have a higher threshold for frontlines in second summary (i.e. your frontline to the argument needs to be better if it comes up later in the round).

2. second half of the round

any offense must be extended in summary and final focus for me to evaluate it.

i will not vote on turns that are not impacted and weighed.

i don't evaluate new weighing in second final focus.

3. argumentation

i am fine with progressive argumentation if it is presented in a way that is accessible to your opponents. i don't like theory that is not specific to the round or punishes teams for following debate norms, i.e. disclosure theory, paraphrasing theory. i will still evaluate it if it's clean - i just won't like it.

please give proper content warnings for anything that could either a. trigger someone or b. would force a team to debate against their own identity - please ask me how to give a PROPER content warning that allows people in the room to remain anonymous when objecting to a case.

i will only call for cards if you tell me to. i will call for every card you tell me to call for.

i'm pretty okay with speed (i can handle probably max 275ish wpm if it's clear).

other things that don't always affect the way i vote but are my opinions about debate:

preference for narrative debate - this doesn't mean i'm not "tech", it means i like arguments laid out in a way that makes sense and i like arguments to be WARRANTED in every speech.

preference for frontlining in second rebuttal - i don't think it is strategic to frontline everything. imo you only need to frontline offense and responses that apply to the argument you are going for and any weighing that applies to that argument.

implications are key - tell me what your argument means for the round and how it functions. most of the time when i have to intervene it is because teams did not implicate their arguments fully.

probability weighing is not weighing. it is analytical defense. you can still do ""probability weighing"" but it's not actually a weighing argument!

ask me any questions in round, or email me at sara.c.cook.23@dartmouth.edu

feel free to shoot me an email after round - i am happy to answer any questions.

About me: I debated at Ardrey Kell for 4 years for at the high school level (1 year of PF, 3 years of LD). I focused more on traditional LD due to the nature of the LD circuit in NC, but went a more progressive route my senior year when travel was more an option for our team. I'm currently a senior econ and public health double major at Chapel Hill going into consulting post-grad.

General: IM HELLA RUSTY but still believe in my capabilities to judge well. I very much think debate should be a space where everyone is free to express ideas in any manner they please, and am open to basically any type of advocacy. Case positions that are out of the norm on your particular circuit, deviant styles of argumentation, interpretive dance cases- you do it well and I'll judge it. I really admire people who debate the way they feel they can do the best despite backlash from their circuit/other debaters. That being said, being outwardly racist, sexist or homophobic does not constitute self expression and I have no tolerance for any sort of rudeness that I think would make someone uncomfortable within the debate space. You do you, but know the line.
*DISCLAIMER: Parts of my paradigm are shameless stolen from Joe Bruner, we agree on a lot of things*

Email for email chain: gd09cms@gmail.com

Specifics-

Gestures- So nobody freaks out, here's what these things usually mean.
Nodding vigorously- This usually means I'm a) following the argument well or b) Recognize/like the card or evidence you're using. It does not mean I think you're right or you're automatically about to win.
Smiling- I smile at almost everything, it's nothing special, I'm just a fairly happy person. Please keep making your argument.
Straight Face/Unreadable expression- I understand this point and speaking about it more is probably a waste of your time, please move along with your refutation/arguments. Only exception to this is probably during final speeches when you're reiterating args for crystallization.

Speed- Slow down for tags/author names. Please don't start off full speed, you can work your way up to whatever speed works for you. I am not averse to yelling clear if you are being unclear, but after 2/3 times I will probably stop flowing. If you are going fast, I expect you to case flash your opponent if they ask though the trend of emailing cases is pretty prevalent so I'd rather you do that for them if you're emailing it to me too.

V/VC- I hate the Value/Value Criterion so much. I have yet to meet a single individual on earth who weighs arguments under a single standard, and personally I feel like this adherence to a single standard takes away from the debate more often than not. If you take it out of your case and just weigh impacts or argue that you analytically prove the resolution true, you'll probably do better in front of me. If you want me to explain this more, ask me, but this is what it is. I'm going to explain it more here since I get asked so much: I do not think it is either philosophical or realistic to appeal to only one criterion to the exclusion of all others when making decisions, and I don't think most authors think so either. So I have a strong preference against hearing you claim stuff like "only explicit violations of categorical imperative matter" or "any miniscule risk of extinction causes you to vote aff if I solve at all.

At the same time, I'm not trying to be prejudiced against traditional LDers who are used to relying on this heavily, so if you DO decide to use it, please be extremely clear on what the link between the Value and Value Criterion is, and especially what the link between your contentions and your value criterion is. Even better would be if you actually supplied a good reason the truth of the resolution hinges on your value above all else. If this isn't clear and you're using a V/VC and spending tons of time talking about your framework, I'll have a really hard time voting for you, even if you appear to be winning.

Theory- I CAN understand theory arguments, I know the parts of a shell and have engaged in theory debate once/twice but since I debated in North Carolina I'm not a "theory hack". If your strat involves multiple shells for time suck OR for avoiding engaging with more foreign substance level args, you will not have a fun time in front of me. THAT BEING SAID- in cases of actual abuse I don't mind evaluating theory. ALSO NO THEORY THAT IS NOT IN A SHELL FORMAT (other than in case spikes)- I don't care to figure out where your magical blip theory argument applies towards your opponents case in a high power round.

Topicality- I don't have as much of an issue with this, and actually don't mind it as much as theory. But I also find it fairly tedious- run it if you need to.

Substance:Coming from NC, I really felt pigeonholed a lot of the times in terms of argumentation, purely because of the clash between what I wanted to run/ what worked in front of the judging pool. As a result of having to write more traditional cases, I ended up really enjoying philosophy that isn't just PoMo, so any case that utilizes philosophical elements well will do well in front of me. Util is cool, I have grown to become a larger fan of Kant, and any spins on traditional Deon are appreciated. I'm also a big fan on ancient greeks (Aristotle, Plato, etc).

~Moral Skep: No thank you~ *This is mostly because I got sick of hearing people butcher, misinterpret/shit on Nietzsche*

I don't like it when people say they don't have to prove solvency- If you don't understand what this means/think it's unfair PLEASE ask me to explain, this is something I feel fairly passionate about.

K's/CPs/Disads/Performance/K affs- I ADORE Kritiks and Kritik literature. I spent a good amount of time reading K lit my junior/senior year and really found myself expanding my horizons of thought. I think they help improve critical thinking, are valid forms of argumentation and I used them more my senior year as I traveled. I do expect the K to have all the parts of a K, but those parts do not have to be explicitly stated, I can follow the structure well. A strong yes to K affs as well- I've had some of my most enjoyable debates using K affs. If the K is something more obscure (Lacan, DnG, whatever), more explanation is good.

I would like debaters to better explain what the real-world impacts and solvency of voting for the K are. My ballot is probably not actually preventing extinction or ending neoliberalism. I would like debaters to better articulate what REALLY HAPPENS when I vote for either side in K rounds as opposed to reading "cap causes extinction" or "structural oppression first duty to oppose" cards. Neoliberalism and Capitalism are probably bad and Racism and Sexism certainly are, but I the trend of debaters not clearly articulating what the PRE-FIAT impact is on an argument that is supposedly PRE-FIAT is alive and well so please don't contribute to it.

CPs and Disads are great tools in the proverbial toolbox if they are relevant- except politics Disads. I have never seen a good politics disad, if you really think you can change my mind, I won't stop you from running it but no promises.

I have literally only ever debated against one performance/narrative debater, but if that's your style go for it, I think the perspectives that these types of advocacies bring are really nice and make for interesting debates.

Evidence: I am generally very trusting of the evidence that people bring into round, in the sense that I believe anyone who is serious about competing and not an utter douchebag would not falsify evidence. If you are accused of messing with evidence, reading a card the way a way it's not supposed to be read, etc. AND I call for the card and see your opponent is right about that accusation, expect that to be reflected in your speaker points. I will call for cards that are very important to your advocacy if they are heavily contested, otherwise I trust that your stats are true.

Voting Issues: These are critical in how I make a decision, and I prefer them to be a more or less line by line. Tell me what arguments you think you are winning/are extending, why they matter more than your opponent's and the impacts coming off of them.

Speaker points- Expect fairly high speaker points unless you're insufferable in round.
That being said, surefire ways to get 30's include
- Using Eastern philosophy in case (except Mozi, I hate Mozi- someone I had beef with on the circuit used to run him a lot)
- Using Nietzsche/ Paulo Freire in case
- Quoting Childish Gambino at any point during the round, including CX

I'm a huge YuGiOh buff- if you take out your opponents case in 5 points (can be turns, blocks, whatever) and then say 'I HAVE SUMMONED EXODIA THE FORIBIDDEN ONE" that's basically an automatic win with a 30 unless your 5 arguments are not good. Take the gamble if you're a real one.

Other judges seem to dock excessive points from aggressive women and minority debaters, so if you are a woman or a minority and debate especially aggressively, I will give you additional speaker points as long as you still remain polite and don't engage in personal attacks. I appreciate sass :)

Surefire ways to get me to hate you
- Look down on an opponent for the style of debate they do in round
- Completely destroy someone past the point that is necessary for victory simply for the LOLz

That's about it. I look forward to judging rounds, if you have any other q's feel free to ask me in round, happy debating!

I debate for Dartmouth in Policy. I have been both 2A and 2N in college.

I debated 4 years in LD and 3 years in Parli for Brentwood. In LD, I was the runner up at the 2018 NSDA National Championship and had 4 TOC bids my senior year. I also coach LD and Policy at Durham.

Conflicts: Brentwood School and Durham Academy.

Please add cavsdebate@gmail.com to chains.

*2021-2022 Update* I have come to the conclusion that speaker points are arbitrary and probably negatively influenced by individual judge's implicit biases. To mitigate this, I have decided that in Policy I will give the winning team a 30 and 29.9 and the losing team a 29.8 and a 29.7 (higher points to the last rebuttal). In LD, the winner will get a 30 and the loser a 29.9. If you think this model will skew seeding, you are probably right. A quick fix would be tournaments using opponent wins to decide seeding instead.

For online tournaments, please record your speeches. I will ask you to send recordings if there is an issue that leads to my missing parts of speeches.

I will say clear if I cannot understand you. I do not flow docs and I will not flow what I cannot hear so it is in your best interest to be clear.

It is your burden to explain arguments. I will not vote for positions if I do not understand your explanation of them.

You should extend your arguments, specifically their warrants. I will not evaluate arguments that are not in your team's final speech.

Do not cheat. If the opposing team or I catch you, I will vote for the opposing team. If you accuse the opposing team of cheating and I determine that they did not cheat, I will vote for the opposing team.

My judging vision is very similar to that of my Dartmouth coaches and teammates. Specifically, you may want to look at the paradigms of John Turner or Raam Tambe.

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 the sponsor of the Speech and Debate Team at Apex Friendship High School for the last eight years. This is my eighth year judging. I have taught English for 20 years and Speech for five.

1. Framework is critical. If you don't connect your evidence to your framework, you haven't succeeded.

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

3. I value strong CX skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case is key to winning the round.

4. Civil discourse is expected.

I am a senior at Yale University studying Statistics and I did LD for 4 years at Cary Academy. I was primarily a traditional debater and prefer traditional debates, although I can accept most things if they are explained clearly and thoroughly. Debate is a communicative event, don't try to impress me with how many words you can force out in one minute. If you do choose to spread, then you should make sure that you are clear and slow down for card names/tags. However, I would highly prefer if you speak at a reasonable pace. Always be respectful of your opponent, I have no tolerance for rudeness. Make sure you understand what you're running, explain your arguments fully and speak clearly!

TLDR: clarity is important and do not be rude :)

email chain: chelsea.fang@yale.edu

Lay parent judge with some basic experience judging traditional LD. Prefer traditional arguments. Sign post and be clear about your argumentation. Do not spread.

PF:

I'm like a 7-8/10 for speed in terms of what I can flow. My preference, however, is a 4-5 during the case and a 7-8/10 in rebuttal where necessary.

If you are the second speaking team and you don't come back to your case in rebuttal, there are going to be some pretty easy extensions in summary (probably) that are going to mean game over for you.

I will vote on a warranted argument regardless of whether it is a "traditional" argument. That said, I am hesitant to vote on theory for the sake of running theory. Ex: Running theory without a clear in round abuse story is probably not going to fly with me.

In general, I would say that I am just going to vote on whatever is the path of least resistance on the flow. Make it easy. Write my ballot.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

LD - Based on what LD generally looks like now, you probably don't want to pref me. I strongly prefer a more traditional style of debate. Will I listen to anything? Yes. Will I be annoyed? Yes.

Congress - Analysis ✔ Sources ✔ A conversational style ✔ Good clash ✔. A good PO will probably make my ballot, but I strongly prefer the good speakers. I just read Neal White's Congress paradigm, and I agree with everything he said.

Congressional Debate:

I have judged and/or been parliamentarian at local, regional and national tournaments, including Isidore Newman, Durham Academy, the Barkley Forum and and Harvard. My students have found success at both the national and state levels.

POs- I default to you. Remember, your tone as PO has a big influence on tone of the chamber. Be efficient, clear and consistent and have fun.

As far as the round and debate within the round, consistency is important to me. The way you speak and vote on one piece of legislation should most indeed influence your position on similar limitation unless you tell me otherwise. Debate and discourse does not exist in a vacuum.

Acting/characterization is fine as long as there is a reason and has a positive impact.

Finding a balance of logos, ethos and pathos is important. Difficult to accomplish in three minutes? Absolutely. The balance is what gets my attention.

I'll be honest. I don't like when debate jargon leaks into the chamber. SQUO, affirmative/negative, counterplan, link/turn, etc. This event is it's own unique event with norms.

Additionally, Student Congress is not Extemp-lite. If you are trying for three points in a speech, how do I know what to focus on? If everything is equally important then nothing is important. Take a stance, go for the impact and make the balance between logic and emotional to persuade. Include previous debate points, elucidate your point of view and have fun.

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

Hi! I'm a senior at Yale and a former four year LD-er from North Carolina. I have familiarity judging LD, PF, Congress, and some speech and am rather familiar with most event formats.

In debate, I value clash and clarity-- I prefer if you stay resolutional and really cross-apply your arguments against one another (this includes Congress). In speech, just do you, I value content and presentation pretty equally.

As a former female debater, I know judges often mark down women for sounding 'shrill' or 'aggressive'. While abuse will never be tolerated, neither will sexism against powerful/confident women and speaker points will reflect that :)

For circuit VLD: Spikes/tricks are not appreciated, nor are PICs and RVIs. T and narratives ought to be topical and will be evaluated under strict scrutiny. Remember that with online rounds connections can be poor so articulate taglines and impact slower/clearly. Speed is fine but can be inherently ableist so do not be egregious nor abuse your opponent with it.

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!!

Congressional Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe.

I will score speeches according to their responsiveness to the debate happening in the round. Introducing new arguments in the back half of the debate can be productive but only if it is contextualized within the debate that has come before it. Every speech after the sponsorship should be responsive.

When referring to previous speakers, please do so specifically and respectfully. Vaguely misrepresented claims aren't productive. Show me that you are flowing the round and understand what's happening in the debate.

Demonstrating knowledge of, and participation in, parliamentary procedure is a necessity to get on my ballot. Presiding officers will not receive a default rank if their leadership of the round is subpar but I will evaluate their contributions to the debate with equal weight to those who introduce keystone arguments or central rebuttals. I will assign a score per hour and consider accordingly.

In a presiding officer, I value proficiency and collegiality. Full disclosure, I have not judged an online congress tournament before and I'm not entirely certain of the best practices and standards with setting initial precedence. I will seek guidance on this.

Public Forum Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe. Ultimately, I'm going to sign my ballot for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I’m fairly tab, so feel free to read anything but be prepared to justify why you’re winning that argument and ultimately why that argument matters in the greater context of the round.

Defense sticks for the first speaking team until it's frontlined; it needs to be extended in FF, though. I don't care what 2nd rebuttal does, only that defense is extended the speech after it's frontlined.

Offense needs to appear in both the summary and the FF for me to evaluate it. Offense is more than just a card tag or author name - warranting is very important.

I don’t want to read evidence and more importantly you don’t want me to read evidence. My interpretation may not match yours and that preempts any muddiness in the round.

Please. Please don’t lie to me in your FF - “unresponded to” is almost never the case and is generally synonymous with “unextended.” Do the work. I won’t do it for you.

Elise Matton, Director of Speech & Debate at Albuquerque Academy (2022–present)
EMAIL CHAIN: enmatton@gmail.com

· B.A. History, Tulane University (Ancient & Early Modern Europe)
· M.A. History, University of New Mexico (U.S. & Latin America)

Competitive Experience:
· CX debate in NM local circuit, 2010 State Champion (2005-2010)
· IPDA/NPDA debate in college, 2012 LSU Mardi Gras Classic Champion (2011-2014)

Coaching Experience:
· Team Assistant, Isidore Newman (primarily judging/trip chaperoning — 2012-2016)
· Assistant Coach, Albuquerque Academy (LD & CX emphasis — 2017–2022)

Judging Experience:
· I judge a mix of local circuit and national circuit tournaments (traditional & progressive) primarily in CX and LD, but occasionally PF or other Speech events.

Note Pre-Jack Howe:

· Jack Howe is my 1st national circuit tournament in policy this season — I haven't seen or judged many rounds at all yet this year and definitely not too many fast/technical/progressive rounds on the topic. Do not assume I know Aff topic areas, core neg ground, abstract topic-specific acronyms, etc. Adjust accordingly!

General Notes (this is catered for policy and national circuit LD. PF notes are at the bottom).

· Speed is fine generally so long as it's not used to excessively prohibit interaction with your arguments. I do think there is a way to spread and still demonstrate strong speaking ability (varying volume, pacing, tone etc) and will probably reward you for it if you're doing both well. Go slower/clearer/or otherwise give vocal emphasis on taglines and key issues such as plan text or aff advocacy, CP texts, alts, ROB/ROJ, counter-interps, etc. Don't start at your max speed but build up to it instead. If you are one of the particularly fast teams in the circuit, I recommend you slow down SLIGHTLY in front of me. I haven't been judging many fast rounds lately, so I'm slightly rusty. I'm happy to call out "clear" and/or "slow" to help you find that my upper brightline so you can adjust accordingly as needed.

· Put me on the email chain (enmatton@gmail.com) but know I don't like rounds that REQUIRE me to read the doc while you're speaking (or ideally at all). I tend to have the speech doc up, but I am annoyed by rounds where debaters ASSUME that everyone is reading along with them. I flow off what I hear, not what I read, and I believe that your delivery and performance are important aspects of this activity and you have the burden of clearly articulating your points well enough that I theoretically shouldn't need to look at the docs at all for anything other than ev checking when it's requested. If someone who wasn't looking at your speech doc would not be able to tell the difference between the end of one card/warrant and the beginning of a new tagline, you need better vocal variety and clarity (louder, intonation change, inserting "and" or "next" between cards etc, etc.

· The most impressive debaters to me are ones who can handle intense high-level technical debates, but who can make it accessible to a wide variety of audiences. This means that I look for good use of tech and strategy, but ALSO for the ability to "boil it down" in clearly worded extensions, underviews, overviews, and explanations of your paths to the ballot. I strongly value debaters who can summarize the main thesis of each piece of offense in their own words. It shows you have a strong command of the material and that you are highly involved in your own debate prep.

· I believe that Tech>truth GENERALLY, BUT- Just because an argument is dropped doesn't necessarily mean I'll give you 100% weight on it if the warrants aren't there or it is absurdly blippy. I also have and will vote for teams that may be less technically proficient but still make valid warranted claims even if they aren't done formatted in a "Technical" manner. Ex: if you run some a theory argument against a less technical team who doesn't know how to line-by-line respond to it, but they make general arguments about why this strategy is harmful to debaters and the debate community and argue that you should lose for it, I would treat that like an RVI even if they don't call it an RVI. Etc.

· Use my occasional facial expression as cues. You’ll probably notice me either nodding occasionally or looking quizzically from time to time- if something sounds confusing or I’m not following you’ll be able to tell and can and should probably spend a few more seconds re-explaining that argument in another way (don't dwell on this if it happens — if it's an important enough point that you think you need to win, use the cue to help you and try explaining it again!) Note the nodding doesn't mean I necessarily agree with a point, just following it and think you're explaining it well. If you find this distracting please say so pre-round and I’ll make an effort not to do so.

· Use Content warnings if discussing anything that could make the space less safe for anyone within it and be willing to adapt for opponents or judges in the room.

Role as a Judge

Debate is incredible because it is student-driven, but I don't think that means I abandon my role as an educator or an adult in the space when I am in the back of the room making my decision. I believe that good debaters should be able to adapt to multiple audiences. Does this mean completely altering EVERYTHING you do to adapt to a certain judge (traditional judge, K judge, anti-spreading judge, lay judge, etc etc)? No, but it does mean thinking concretely about how you can filter your strategy/argument/approach through a specific lens for that person.

HOW I MAKE MY RFD: At the end of the last negative speech I usually mark the key areas I could see myself voting and then weigh that against what happens in the 2AR to make my decision. My favorite 2NR/2AR’s are ones that directly lay out and tell me the possible places in the round I could vote for them and how/why. 2NR/2AR’s that are essentially a list of possible RFDs/paths to the ballot for me are my favorite because not only do they make my work easier, but it clearly shows me how well you understood and interpreted the round.

Topicality/Theory

Part of me really loves the meta aspect of T and theory, and part of me loathes the semantics and lack of substance it can produce. I see T and Theory as a needing to exist to help set some limits and boundaries, but I also have a fairly high threshold. Teams can and do continue to convince me of appropriate broadenings of those boundaries. Reasonability tends to ring true to me for the Aff on T, but don’t be afraid to force them to prove or meet that interpretation, especially if it is a stretch, and I can be easily persuaded into competing interps. For theory, I don’t have a problem with conditional arguments but do when a neg strat is almost entirely dependent on running an absurd amount of offcase arguments as a time skew that prevents any substantive discussion of arguments. This kind of strat also assumes I’ll vote on something simply because it was “flowed through”, when really I still have to examine the weight of that argument, which in many cases is insubstantial. At the end of the day, don’t be afraid to use theory- it’s there as a strategy if you think it makes sense for the round context, but if you’re going to run it, please spend time in the standards and voters debate so I can weigh it effectively.

Disadvantages

I love a really good disad, especially with extensive impact comparisons. Specific disads with contextualized links to the aff are some of my all-time favorite arguments, simple as they may seem in construct. The cost/benefit aspect of the case/DA debate is particularly appealing to me. I don’t think generic disads are necessarily bad but good links and/or analytics are key. Be sure your impact scenario is fully developed with terminal impacts. Multiple impact scenarios are good when you can. I'm not anti nuke war scenarios (especially when there is a really specific and good internal link chain and it is contextually related to the topic) but there are tons more systemic level impacts too many debaters neglect.

Counterplans

I used to hate PICs but have seen a few really smart ones in the past few years that are making me challenge that notion. That being said I am not a fan of process CPs, but go for it if it’s key to your strat.

Kritiks

Love them, with some caveats. Overviews/underviews, or really clearly worded taglines are key here. I want to see *your* engagement with the literature. HIGH theory K's with absurdly complicated taglines that use methods of obfuscation are not really my jam. The literature might be complex, and that's fine, but your explanations and taglines to USE those arguments should be vastly more clear and communicable if you want to run it in round! I have a high threshold for teams being able to explain their positions well rather than just card-dump. I ran some kritiks in high school (mostly very traditional cap/biopower) but had a pretty low understanding of the best way to use them and how they engaged with other layers of offense in the round. They weren’t as common in my circuit so I didn’t have a ton of exposure to them. However, they’ve really grown on me and I’ve learned a lot while judging them- they’re probably some of my favorite kind of debate to watch these days. (hint: I truly believe in education as a voter, in part because of my own biases of how much this activity has taught me both in and out of round, but this can work in aff’s favor when terrible K debates happen that take away from topic education as well). Being willing to adapt your K to those unfamiliar with it, whether opponents or judge, not only helps you in terms of potential to win the ballot, but, depending on the kind of kritik you're running or pre-fiat claims, also vastly increases likelihood for real world solvency (that is if your K is one that posits real world solvency- I'm down for more discussion-based rounds as theoretical educational exercises as well). I say this because the direction in which I decided to take my graduate school coursework was directly because of good K debaters who have been willing to go the extra step in truly explaining these positions, regardless of the fact I wasn’t perceived as a “K judge”. I think that concept is bogus and demonstrates some of the elitism still sadly present in our activity. If you love the K, run it- however you will need to remember that I myself wasn’t a K debater and am probably not as well versed in the topic/background/author. As neg you will need to spend specific time really explaining to me the alt/role of the ballot/answers to any commodification type arguments. Despite my openness to critical argumentation, I’m also open to lots of general aff answers here as well including framework arguments focused on policymaking good, state inevitable, perms, etc. Like all arguments, it ultimately boils down to how you warrant and substantiate your claims.

MISCELLANEOUS
Flash time/emailing the doc out isn’t prep time (don’t take advantage of this though). Debaters should keep track of their own time, but I also tend to time as well in case of the rare timer failure. If we are evidence sharing, know that I still think you have the burden as debaters to clearly explain your arguments, (aka don’t assume that I'll constantly use the doc or default to it- what counts is still ultimately what comes out of you mouth).

I will yell “clear” if the spread is too incoherent for me to flow, or if I need you to slow down slightly but not if otherwise. If I have to say it more than twice you should probably slow down significantly. My preference while spreading is to go significantly slower/louder/clearer on the tagline and author. Don’t spread out teams that are clearly much slower than you- you don’t have to feel like you have to completely alter your presentation and style, but you should adapt somewhat to make the round educational for everyone. I think spreading is a debate skill you should employ at your discretion, bearing in mind what that means for your opponents and the judge in that round. Be smart about it, but also be inclusive for whoever else is in that round with you.

**PUBLIC FORUM**

I don't judge PF nearly as frequently as I do CX/LD, so I'm not as up to date on norms and trends.

Mostly when judging PF I default to util/cost-benefit analysis framing and then I evaluate clash and impacts, though the burden is on you to effectively weigh that clash and the impacts.

Final Focus should really focus on the ballot story and impact calc. Explain all the possible paths to the ballot and how you access them.

Compared to LD and CX, I find that clash gets developed much later in the round because the 2nd constructive doesn't (typically?) involve any refutations (which I find bizarre from a speech structure standpoint). For this reason, I appreciate utilizing frontlining as much as possible and extending defense into summary.

Impressive speaking style = extra brownie points for PFers given the nature of the event. Ultimately I'm still going to make a decision based on the flow, but this matters more to me when evaluating PF debaters. Utilize vocal intonation, eye contact, gestures, and variance in vocal pacing.

Grand Crossfire can be fun when done right but horribly chaotic when done wrong. Make an effort to not have both partners trying to answer/ask questions simultaneously or I'll have a really hard time making out what's going on. Tag-team it. If Grand Crossfire ends early, I will not convert the time remaining into additional prep. It simply moves us into Final Focus early.

I have a much lower threshold for spreading in PF than I do for CX/LD. I can certainly follow it given my focus on LD and CX, but my philosophy is that PF is stylistically meant to be more accessible and open. I don't mind a rapid delivery, but I will be much less tolerant of teams that spread out opponents, especially given email chains/evidence sharing before the round is not as much of a norm (as far as I've seen).

I am often confused by progressive PF as the structure of the event seems to limit certain things that are otherwise facilitated by CX/LD. Trying to make some of the same nuanced Theory and K debates are incredibly difficult in a debate event structured by 2-3 mins speeches. Please don't ask me to weigh in on or use my ballot to help set a precedent about things like theory, disclosure, or other CX/LD arguments that seem to be spilling into PF. I am not an involved enough member of the PF community to feel comfortable using my ballot to such ends. If any of these things appear in round, I'm happy to evaluate them, but I guess be cautious in this area.

Please feel free to ask any further questions or clarifications before/after the round!- my email is enmatton@gmail.com if you have any specific questions or need to run something by me. Competitors: if communicating with me by email, please CC your coach or adult chaperone. Thank you!

I am an ex-traditional policy debate coach (Stock issues judge) who has been coaching LD since 1990. I usually administrate tournaments rather than judge except when I have been at Catholic Nat's and NSDA Nat's.

Speed: Adapt to the judge who prefers a few well-developed arguments to spreading. I will flow as fast as I can, but it is up to you to communicate to me the compelling/persuasive reasons why you should earn the ballot. Speak clearly and articulate your words and you'll do fine.

Flex Prep. No. Speak within the time constraints and use prep time to see Evidence.

Evidence Challenge: If you doubt the veracity of evidence, then challenge it at the next available opportunity. Remember evidence challenges are all or none. If the evidence has been proven to be altered or conjured, then your opponent loses. If the evidence is verifiable and has NOT been materially altered, then you lose for the specious challenge.

Arguments: A few well-reasoned claims, warrants, and impacts are very persuasive as opposed to a laundry list of underdeveloped assertions/arguments.

Theory Arguments: Not a big fan of sitting in judgment of the topic and/or its framers with critiques. But I do weigh the issue of topicality as germane if made during the constructives.

Philosophy: It's been labeled Value debate for a reason. I encourage the discussion of scholarly philosophies.

Framework: There is a Value that each side is pursuing as their goal. There is a value criterion that is used to measure the accrual of the VP. The last steps include why the Value is superior and why the VC is the best way to measure that value.

Decision-Rule. While repetition often aids learning, I prefer that you tell me what the established standard for judging the round has been and why your arguments have met/exceeded the threshold. Write the ballot for me.

PFD: I have coached and judged PFD since the event started.

I prefer a framework and a few well-developed arguments to the spread. Point keywords as you read your case. Be polite in C-X and ask closed-ended questions. Tell me why your arguments are better by weighing impacts.

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.

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!

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.

WORK IN PROGRESS

If you have any specific questions, please ask me before the round, I am happy to answer any and all questions.

Public Forum

I competed in PF for 3 years on the local NC Circuit and the National circuit, so I am most familiar with PF. I will at least be familiar with the topic, but I have not done extensive research. However, I do read the news daily, so I will have an extensive understanding of current events and even some not-so-current-anymore events.

Style:

I don't have a whole lot of stylistic preferences and am not strict (basically as long as you make sense I'm fine with it), but I'll highlight a couple here:

- In 2nd rebuttal, you should address defense brought up in 1st rebuttal.

- 1st summary does not need to reiterate un-contested defense from 1st rebuttal if 2nd rebuttal/cross does not engage it. Feel free to bring up that defense again in final focus.

- Speak as fast as you want, but if you're not understandable I can't flow and probs won't vote on those arguments unless they're brought up again later.

- I'd prefer if you didn't run CPs or Ks or wild Theory, they're not really the point of PF imo and will probably just annoy me more than change my vote. On the flip side, if you run incredibly outrageous, blatantly unfair or offensive arguments, I will drop them (and maybe you) without the other team needing to develop some complicated theoretical response. That won't apply to 99% of you. Don't be the 1%.

Lincoln Douglas

Only one tournament of competitive experience in LD, but I have judging experience with progressive and traditional LD. Set up an email chain please if you intend to spread, I can type fast but not that fast. I tend to be less accepting of CPs, but if you can effectively respond to Aff theory they can work.

Style:

I'm not strict, if something works for you it will probably work for me. But, to dodge a few of the inevitable questions before round:

- Speed is fine. Let's set up an email chain/ flash if you plan to spread.

- I don't inherently value some arguments over others, weigh the important ones in the round against each other under the V/C and I'll work with you.

Policy

I have no competitive Policy experience, but I have judged Texas policy rounds. I do know things about the topic, and I stay up to date on current events and will expect you to be equally as up to date. I look for clear logic chains and practical solutions.

- Speed is fine. If you spread, let's set up an email chain/ flash me your case and cards so I can keep up.

Background

I'm a 3 time NSDA/NCFL qualifier and now coach LD. I like this stuff - fun, isn't it?

General Preferences

If you won this round, you probably 1. gave me a coherent lens through which I can gauge what is important and 2. weaved a story of the round using that lens. LD is about creative weighing, much like how we interact with complicated ideas in the real world - we don't just do an in-depth cost-benefit analysis each time we make a decision, we apply multiple standards and evaluative measures to reach a conclusion (often totally subconsciously).

Basically - I should be doing as little work as possible. I don't want to intervene or even really think when judging an LD round. If you make the story clear to me, I'll vote for you.

Speed

I can handle any speed, but nobody can handle you being incoherent - I'll give you a good ol' fashioned "clear" if you're attempting to go faster than you're capable of going. Good rule of thumb: if you feel like it's necessary that I read along to understand you, it's probably because you're unintelligible, not because I'm too old and slow.

Rounds being competitive really matters to me. This means that stylistic alignment between the two debaters is necessary to create good LD. Seeing as traditional LD is by far the more common and accessible style, if your opponent is only capable of traditional LD, that is the style I expect to see in the round. I will never punish a locally active debater for not being competitive against the increasingly inaccessible and abstract style found at national circuit tournaments.

Theory

Point out the abuse (assuming it's real) and move on. Do not make it the crux of the round. Win on substance.

I will never vote for time skew theory or anything that accuses your opponent of some form of prejudice (unless they've openly and intentionally said something prejudiced).

Kritiks

I'm actually stealing this directly from one of my all-time favorite NC LDer's paradigms because it was so perfectly written - thanks to Derek Brown of Durham Academy.

"Kritiks, like theory or topicality, are a way of questioning the pre-fiat implications of your opponents' position. As a result, Kritiks must link to a practice your opponent performed, and there must exist a relatively predictable/reasonable way your opponent could have anticipated or predicted that this practice was bad. For example, I will not vote on an argument saying "the aff doesn't address black feminism", because it is unreasonable to expect the aff to read black feminism every round."

I will add that I generally do not enjoy Kritiks that you read every single tournament (and yes, I'll know if you do) - think Cap Ks, Colonialism, etc. - they aren't competitive and generally rely on tenuous links back to the topic. If you didn't have to write it specifically for the current resolution, don't run it. I have to listen to like...6 LD rounds every weekend. I don't want to hear the same stuff every Saturday.

Bonus

Make this fun for me. Be entertaining. Be funny.I get so excited when I see good LD - if you've got a distinct style, good coverage, and I leave the round feeling like I did very little work...I'm a happy camper.

Jay Rye - Head Coach - Montgomery Academy

Experience- I have been involved with L/D debate since 1985 as a former L/D debater, judge, and coach. I have been involved with Policy debate since 1998. I have coached Public Forum debate since it began in 2002. While at many tournaments I serve in the role as tournament administrator running tournaments from coast to coast, every year I intentionally put myself into the judge pool to remain up to date on the topics as well as with the direction and evolving styles of debate. I have worked at summer camps since 2003 - I understand debate.

Philosophy

I would identify myself as what is commonly called a traditional L/D judge. Both sides have the burden to present and weigh the values and/or the central arguments as they emerge during the course of the round. I try to never allow my personal views on the topic to enter into my decision, and, because I won't intervene, the arguments that I evaluate are the ones brought into the round - I won't make assumptions as to what I "think" you mean. I am actually open to a lot of arguments - traditional and progressive - a good debater is a good debater and an average debater is just that - average.

While for the most part I am a "tabula rasa" judge, I do have a few things that I dislike and will bias me against you during the course of the round either as it relates to speaker points or an actual decision. Here they are:

1) I believe that proper decorum during the round is a must. Do not be rude or insulting to your opponent or to me and the other judges in the room. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with that approach to debate.

2) Both sides must tell me why to vote "for" them as opposed to simply why I should vote "against" their opponent. In your final speech, tell me why I should vote for you - some call this "crystallization" while others call it "voting issues" and still others just say, "here is why I win" - whatever you call it, I call it letting your judge know why you did the better job in the round.

3) I am not a big fan of speed. You are more than welcome to go as fast as you want, but if it is not on my flow, then it was not stated, so speed at your own risk. Let me say that to the back of the room - SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! If you have a need for speed, at the very least slow down on the tag lines as well as when you first begin your speech so that my ears can adjust to your vocal quality and tone.

4) I am not a big fan of "debate speak: Don't just say, cross-apply, drop, non-unique, or other phrases without telling me why it is important. This activity is supposed to teach you how to make convincing arguments in the real world and the phrase "cross-apply my card to my opponents dropped argument which is non-unique" - this means nothing. In other words, avoid being busy saying nothing.

5) Realizing that many debaters have decided to rely on the Wiki, an email chain, and other platforms to exchange the written word, in a debate round you use your verbal and non-verbal skills to convince me as your judge why you win the round. I rarely call for evidence and I do not ask to be on any email chain.

Always include me in the email chain'

Email: israel.debate.email@gmail.com

Affiliations: LAMDL - CSUN

Speaker Points:

I do not disclose speaker points. Overall your speaks will be determined on the quality of speech.

Spreading:

I am okay with spreading, clarity/speed.

Basics rundown for Policy

Every argument/off case will be flowed the same way. What I mean by that the way that you will win a flow is the consistency of your argument and the persuasion of your speech. I have no "bias" or preference of arguments or type of Affs. For the record CP's and Theory arguments are going to be evaluated the same way. I separated them for the sake of alphabetization.

Case: Traditional Affs; I am very familiar with many kinds of Affs (i.e. Hard right and soft left Affs.) You should know the content of your Aff. I have no preference on the type of Aff or content itself. If you persuade me enough to vote for you through out the round then the ballot will ultimately go to the Aff. I run "traditional affs" in LD and have been a USFG centered in high school - still need why youre net better.

CP- Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Its more credible with Net-benefits and show me solvency deficit.

DA- Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. Best way and easier for me to flow as a judge. If you don't use the DA as a net-benefit for the CP then I will always think the sqou. is being advocated as well besides the CP.

Kritiks: In this flow I really need to see how your alt and how the Aff links. I'm fine with performance, narrative, etc. If the K is ultimately not ran properly as in the explanation of Links, Impacts, Alt, Alt solves, etc. I will not vote for the K.

Topicality For Traditional Affs: On this flow there should be the most clash on. I need to know why and how the aff is not topical and why it matters to me as a judge.

You decide your fate of the ballot. Tell me why I should vote your way and I feel that you did a good job on executing that then I'll sign the ballot to you.

Strake Jesuit '19 | Duke University '23

Email: RainDropDropTopSpeechDoc@gmail.com

Background: I did PF for four years in the Texas and National Circuits. Qualified for TFA State three times and Gold TOC three times, clearing at both. I formerly coached for Strake Jesuit in Houston and served as the tournament director for the Strake Jesuit PFRR from 2018-2022. I was heavily influenced by policy debate, so I generally agree with their debate norms.

Debate Philosophy: Debate is a game. I evaluate tech>truth only. I am tabula rasa, meaning you can read any argument as wild as you want and I will vote on it as long as it is warranted and not offensive. I mainly did LARP/traditional debate but also have experience debating theory and Ks, so you can run whatever you want. However, I only vote on arguments I understand, so I am more impressed by PF and policy-esque arguments more so than LD. Content wise, I strongly prefer in-depth substance over random off-case debate. I believe that my role as a judge is to be an educator and a norm-setter. In a nutshell, I take from Andy Stubbs in that I vote for the team with the strongest link into the highest layer of offense in the round.

Disclosure/Chains: Disclosing to the NDCA PF wiki is the only way to get above 29 speaks. Tell me if you disclose. If you are sharing docs or spreading, use Speechdrop, flash drive, or email chain.

Evidence: Cut cards > paraphrased. I will call for cards if you tell me to or if it is contested. For citations, I just need author name and year. Misconstruction of evidence will result in lower speaks, based on how flagrant it is.

Speed: Clarity>Speed. If you are clear, go as fast as you want. Slow down on author names, tags, and analytical arguments in case/rebuttal. Then, since I would be familiarized with your evidence, you can speed up summary/FF. Not the biggest fan of spreading; if you do, send docs. If you do spread, it must be cut card and not paraphrased evidence.

Style: Line by line debate only. Extend by author name and sign-post. Implicate all offense in terms of how it affects the ballot. Sign-post.

Speaker Points: Speaks are based off of in-round strategy only. Everyone starts with a 28 and I'll go from there. 29.0+ for disclosing only.

Misc: Speech times are set. One team is aff and one team is neg. I only vote for one team. I only down one team. No double wins or double losses unless instructed by tab. Speeches are set i.e. first speaker gives case and summary. Fundamental rules are set.

[Part 1: Speeches]

Cases: Run whatever you want.

CX: I'm okay with open CX meaning your partner can join in to clarify answers. You can also both agree to use the rest of cross as prep time.

Rebuttal: Second rebuttal just has to answer turns on case, not defense. Don't read a blipstorm of paraphrased responses or card dump; I either won't be able to flow it or won't feel comfortable voting on it. Not impressed by irrelevant DAs that don't actually engage the aff. Depth>Breadth. I like analytics especially when they implicate cards. You can read overviews, new advantages, add-ons, uniqueness updates, link boosters etc., but they must be based off of case or directly answer your opponent.

Summary: First summary doesn't have to extend defense, but must extend turns. Second summary has to extend defense and answer turns. Turns conceded out of second rebuttal are considered dropped for the round. Most (preferably all) new implications must be made in summary. I am fine with advantage add-ons and link boosters in summary, but I would like it more if these are read in rebuttal if possible.

Final Focus: This is the speech you call out drops and implicate the stuff extended in summary. Second FF should not have too many new weighing/implications. Anything outrageously new in 2FF will not be evaluated. It's subjective, but you'll know if something is too new in 2FF. Just weigh and implicate here.

[Part 2: Off-Case Debate]

General:

On a scale of 1-5 (1 very comfortable and 5 unfamiliar) of how I feel about judging these arguments:

Framework: 1; I like it. Introduce in case.

Kritiks: 3; No high theory. I like topical Ks. K affs and Reps Ks are fine too. I care most about the strength of the alt when it comes to Ks.

Theory: 2; My defaults are CI>Reasonability and no RVIs. Still tell me what I should prefer. I don't like friv theory. I default T>K.

T: 3; I default drop the argument. I default T>K.

DAs: 1; Yes. My favorite type of argument

Plans/CPs: 1; Tell me why the CP is competitive. Solvency advocates help. I don't like multi-planked CPs.

PICs: 3; Same as CPs but you must also provide a net benefit.

PIKs: 5; Not a fan. No experience with this.

Tricks: 5; Not a fan.

Non-T: 5; No experience with this.

Misc: I'm not too familiar with arguments like permissibility, skep, presumption etc. so I will try my best to evaluate them, but my understanding and threshold for response are fairly low.

Feel free to ask any questions if you have any!

Have Fun!

Background

I competed in Public Forum on the national circuit from 2013-2017. This is my fourth year coaching for Durham Academy in Durham, North Carolina. I currently am a senior attending the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill majoring in Peace, War, and Defense with a concentration in international security and intelligence.

Please have pre-flows ready when you get in the round so we can start immediately.

I will disclose unless the tournament tells me otherwise.

General

I will buy any argument and vote off of it. This includes kritiks and theory... Just warrant such arguments well.

I don't care if you paraphrase. Just don't misconstrue what your evidence actually says.

Split rebuttals are impressive/strategic but they are not necessary. Just make sure your first speaker frontlines effectively in summary. However, feel free to make their job easier and frontline for them in rebuttal.

My threshold for warranting arguments is very very high. If you are winning an argument in case or in rebuttal, clearly articulate the link chain of the argument when you are extending it. This does not mean shout random card names at me. Just walk me through the logical link chain of what you are extending.

Speed/Signposting

I can flow at just about any speed

However.....

If you are going to speak quickly, PLEASE SIGNPOST. ie: "We are winning our 2nd response on their first contention, which is *insert well explained warrant* *insert well explained impact*." I also do not know all the names of authors in your case so tell me what authors say!! Do not just extend specific authors!!

I flow fairly quickly but if I do not know where you are you will likely see me scrambling to figure out what to do with my flow. You should pay attention if I do this because that means slow down or signpost better.

Also....

If you have an issue with your opponents evidence make it very clear to me in the round. You can do this in many ways. Examples include reading your opponents evidence out-loud during a speech, explaining how the evidence is misread, and/or telling me to call for the evidence post round.

I will not call for your evidence unless asked to call for something. In my opinion, calling for evidence without a reason is a form of judge intervention.

How to get 30 speaks:

Make the round entertaining/make me laugh.

I personally hate rounds that are way too serious and debaters are not questioning the analytical logic of each others arguments in an entertaining way. This does not mean turn the round into a joke but rather pretend like there is an audience on the zoom call/in the back of the room. This is generally a good strategy to seem perceptually dominate too.

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! :)

I competed in PF at Nova High School in South Florida from 2014 to 2019. I just graduated from Duke University and am finishing up my fourth year coaching PF at Durham Academy.

For Nats 2023, please put me on the email chain- smith.emmat@gmail.com.

How I make decisions-

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance. This is the place on my flow where I need to intervene the least as a judge in order to make a decision. Explicitly identifying your cleanest piece of offense in the round, winning that clean piece of offense, completely extending that clean piece of offense (uniqueness, links AND impacts in BOTH summary and final focus), and then telling me why your cleanest piece of offense is more important than your opponents' cleanest piece of offense is usually an easy way to win my ballot.

General Stuff-

- Do all the good debate things! Do comparative weighing, warrant your weighing, collapse, frontline, etc.

- Please preflow before the round. Holding up the tournament to take 15 min to preflow in the room is really annoying :(

- Warrants and full link chains are important! I can only vote on arguments I understand by the end of the round and won't do the work for you on warrants/links. Please do not assume I know everything just because I've probably judged some rounds on the topic.

- I won't read speech docs, so please don't sacrifice speed for clarity.

- I have a really low threshold and 0 tolerance for being rude, dismissive, condescending, etc. to your opponents. I'm not afraid to drop you for this reason. At the very least, I'll tank your speaks and write you a kindly worded educational ballot about making rounds unnecessarily hostile.

Evidence-

- I personally feel that calling for evidence as a judge is interventionist. I will only do it if 1- someone in the round explicitly tells me to in a speech or 2- reading evidence is literally the only way that I can make a decision (if this happens, it means both teams did a terrible job of clarifying the round and there is no clear offense for me to vote on. Please don't let this happen).

Progressive Stuff-

- I'll vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents. (I am admittedly not a fan of K's but will vote on them if I absolutely must.)

- I will also vote on theory that is clearly explained, fleshed out, and well warranted. I believe that theory should ONLY be used to check egregious instances of in-round abuse and reserve the right to drop you for frivolous theory. I won't buy paraphrase or disclosure theory.

- HUGE DISCLAIMER: My biggest pet peeve in PF right now is the use of progressive args to make rounds inaccessible to teams who don't know how to handle them. Reading progressive args against a clearly inexperienced team to get a cheap win is an easy way to auto lose my ballot. ALSO I am really not confident in my abilities to evaluate progressive arguments. If you choose to run them, you take on the risk of me making the wrong decision despite doing my best. Proceed with caution!

- If you plan on reading arguments about sensitive topics, please provide a content warning before the round.

Background Info: Former Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debater. I am a senior at Western Carolina University with a triple major in Marketing, Finance and Spanish.

Spreading isn’t an issue if you can make your points clear while doing it. If there is no way for me to write the points you are making then there is no way for me to use it as a way to judge the round. Make sure you know the arguments that you are making in the round and understand how they fit with the resolution. If you have any questions for me feel free to ask me in the room.

Director of Speech & Debate Isidore Newman School

Coach USA Debate

EMAIL: Add me to the chain:
newmanspeechdocs@gmail.com

Online Update:
Please slow down! It is much harder for me to hear online. Go at about 75% rather than 100% of your normal pace!!!

Relevant for Both Policy & LD:

This is my 20th year in debate. I debated in high school, and then went on to debate at the University of Louisville. In addition, I was the Director of Debate at both Fern Creek & Brown School in KY, a former graduate assistant for the University of Louisville, and the Director of Speech & Debate at LSU. I am also a doctoral candidate in Communication & Rhetorical studies.

I view my role as an educator and believe that it is my job to evaluate the debate in the best way I can and in the most educational way possible. Over the past several years have found myself moving more and more to the middle. So, my paradigm is pretty simple. I like smart arguments and believe that debates should tell a clear and succinct story of the ballot. Simply put: be concise, efficient, and intentional.

Here are a few things you should know coming into the round:

1. I will flow the debate. But PLEASE slow down on the tag lines and the authors. I don’t write as fast as I used to. I will yell clear ONE TIME. After that, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. So, don't be mad at the end of the debate if I missed some arguments because you were unclear. I make lots of facial expressions, so you can use that as a guide for if I understand you

2. I value effective storytelling. I want debates to tell me a clear story about how arguments interact with one another, and as such see debates holistically. Accordingly, dropped arguments are not enough for me to vote against a team. You should both impact your arguments out and tell me why it matters.

3. Do what you do best. While I do not believe that affirmatives have to be topical, I also find myself more invested in finding new and innovative ways to engage with the topic. Do with that what you will. I am both well versed and have coached students in a wide range of literature.

4. Know what you’re talking about. The quickest way to lose a debate in front of me is to read something because it sounds and looks “shiny.” I enjoy debates where students are well read/versed on the things they are reading, care about them, and can actually explain them. Jargon is not appealing to me. If it doesn’t make sense or if I don’t understand it at the end of the debate I will have a hard time evaluating it.

5. I will listen to Theory, FW, and T debates, but I do not believe that it is necessarily a substantive response to certain arguments. Prove actual in-round abuse, actual ground loss, actual education lost (that must necessarily trade off with other forms of education). Actual abuse is not because you don't understand the literature, know how to deal with the argument, or that you didn't have time to read it.

6. Be respectful of one another and to me. I am a teacher and educator first. I don’t particularly care for foul language, or behavior that would be inappropriate in the classroom.

7. Finally, make smart arguments and have fun. I promise I will do my best to evaluate the debate you give me.

If you have any other questions, just ask.

I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.

I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.

I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.

I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.

Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.

As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.

Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.

Debate Paradigm

Paul Wexler Coach since 1993, Judge since 1987 Debated CEDA,College Parli, HS LD and Policy, College and HS Speech Current Affiliation: Needham High School Coach (speech and debate) I coach a little with Arlington HS (Massachusetts)
Previous Affiliations: Manchester-Essex Regional, Boston Latin School, San Antonio-LEE, College of Wooster (Ohio) (competitor) , University of Wisconsin (Madison)(coach): Debate and Speech for Irvine-University HS (CA) (competitor)

Coach: All debate events (LD, PF, WSD, Congress) plus spectrum of speech events.

Novice Paradigm is here first, followed by PF, and then LD (though much of LD applies to PF and nowadays even policy where appropriate)- Congress and Worlds is at VERY end.

I put the novice version first, to make it easy on them. Varsity follows. LD if below PF (even though I judge a good deal more LD than PF).

PLEASE NOTE SECTION BELOW REGARDING DISCLOSURE BY NEEDHAM AND ARLINGTON HS (MA) TEAM MEBMERS!

Novice Version (all debate forms)

I am very much excited to be hearing you today! It takes bravery to put oneself out there, and I am very happy to see new members join our community.

1)The voting standard ( a way to compare the arguments made by both sides in debate) is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

2)I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals/final focus/, will receive 'one-sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

3) As noted above, be sure to weigh your arguments compared to the arguments made by the other side. That means " We are winning Argument A - It is more important than the other sides Argument B (even if they are winning argument B) for reason X"

4) Have fun! Learn! If you have questions, please ask. This is an amazing activity and to repeat what I said above, am 'glad and gladder and gladddest' you are part of our community.

To earn higher speaker points...(Novice Version)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

Exhibit the ability to use CX /crossfire effectively ( This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.)

To earn lower speaker points (novice version)

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making arguments which offend, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or classist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)Use cases obviously not your own or obviously written by a super-experienced teammate or coach. Debate is a place to share your ideas and improve your own skills. Channelling or being a 'ventriloquist's dummy' for someone else just cheats yourself. Plus, for speaker point purposes, you are not demonstrating you have mastered the skill of communicating your OWN ideas, so I can't evaluate them.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4) For outrounds and flip rounds, please especially note section marked 'outrounds' at end

PUBLIC FORUM

I've judged it and coached it since the creation.

I default to voting on the whole resolution. I vote for whichever side shows it is preponderantly more desirable That may include scope, impact, probability, timeframe etc.

Most of what I say under Lincoln-Douglas below applies here, regarding substance as well as theory/and Ks. The differences OR key points are as follows.

1) I judge PF as an educated layperson- i.e. one who reads the paper (credibile news sources) but doesn't know the technicalities of debate lingo.

As such your 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

1b) I shall ignore 'theory' arguments completely (in PF, I will also ignore 'education' theory arguments, as well as 'fairness'-- '. Frame those arguments in terms of substance if you opt to make them, if there is a connection you will be fine). Theory arguments as such shall be treated as radio silence on my flow. I will also default to thinking you are uninterested in doing the work necessary to understand the topic, and that you are publicly announcing you are proud of being ignorant.

If someone's opponent is prima facie unfair or uneducational, say so without running a 'shell'.

1c) I WILL evaluate K's when based on the topic literature. Many resolutions DO have a reasonable link when one does the research

Your rate of delivery should be appropriate to the types of arguments you are making.

2)Stand during the cross-fire times. This adds to your perceptual dominance.

3) Offer and justify some sort of voting standard I can use to weigh competing arguments.

4) On Evidence...

--a)Evidence should be fully explained with analysis. Evidence without analysis isn't persuasive to me. (the best evidence will have analysis as well, which is the gold standard- but you should add your own linking to the round itself and the resolution proper).

4b) In order to earn higher speaker points, I expect evidence use to adhere to the full context being used and accessible. This doesn't mean you can't paraphrase when appropriate, it does mean reciting a single sentence or two and/or taking excessive time when asked to produce the source means you are still developing your evidence usage ability. Of course, using evidence in context (be it a full card or proper paraphrasing-) is expected Note #6 below.

You will also want to make note of the 'earn higher speaker points' in the novice ection above, it also applies to varsity.

--Quantitative claims always require evidence, the more recent the better.

--Qualitative claims DO NOT always require evidence, that depends on the specific claim.

-5)-Be comparative when addressing competing claims. The best analytical evidence compares claims directly within itself.

-6)Produce requested evidence in an expeditious fashion- Failure to do so comes of YOUR prep time, and eventually next speech time. Since such failure demonstrates that organizational skills are still being developed. Being in the 'developing skills' range is, like with any other debate skill, reflected in speaker points earned.

'Expeditious' means within ten seconds or so, unless the tournament invitation mandates a different period of time

-7)-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in summary or final focus are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

8)No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

9) I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during a speech.

10) What I have to say elsewhere in this document about how to access higher speaker points, technical mattters, and how to earn super low points by being offensiv/rude also applies to PF.

Most Importantly- as with any event " Have fun! "If you are learning and having fun, the winning shall take care of itself."

LD Debate -Varsity division

Note on January February 2023 topic. Making arguments grounded in racist appeals (such as claims group X is more prone to criminality) will result in a loss and low speaker points.

Shorter Version (in progress) (if you want to run some of these, see the labeled sections for most of them, following)

-Defaults to voting criterion.

-Theory-will not vote on fairness or disclosure. It will be treated as radio silence. See below for note regarding both Needham HS and Arlington regarding disclosure of cases by team members.

-Education theory on the topic's substantial, topic-related issues OK but if frivolous RVIs are encouraged.(i.e., brackets theory, etc ) I will almost always vote on reasonability.

--Will not vote on generic skepticism. May vote on resolution-specific skepticism

-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in rebuttals are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

-It is highly unlikely I shall vote on tricks or award higher speaker points for tricks-oriented debaters

-No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

-Critical arguments are fine and held to the same analytical standard as normative arguments.

-Policy approaches (plans/CPs/DAs) are fine. They are held to same prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds- That also means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence better be recent. If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds' you should opt for a different strategy.

-Narratives are fine and should provide a rhetorical model for me to use to evaluate approach.

-If running something dense, it is the responsibility of the debater to explain it. I regard trying to comprehend it on my own to be judge intervention.

As I believe debate is an ORAL communication activity (albeit one often with highly specialized vocabulary and speed) I (with courtesy) do not wish to be added to any 'speech document ' for debates taking place in the flesh or virtually. I will be pleased to read speech documents for any written debate contests I may happen to judge.

Role of ballot - See labeled section below- Too nuanced to have a short version

To Access higher speaker points...

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

exhibit the ability to listen.(see below for how I evaluate this)

exhibit the ability to use CX effectively (CX during prep time does not do so) This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.

To Access lower speaker points

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)have your coach fight your battles for you- When your coach browbeats your opponents to disclose or flip- or keeps you from arriving to your round in a timely fashion, it subliminally promotes your role as one in which you let your coach do your advocacy and thinking for you.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest. Running theory as a default strategy is a most excellent and typical way of doing so, and in public at that.-- (But there are other ways).

Longer Version

1)The voting standard is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

I strongly prefer debaters to focus on the resolution proper, as defined by the topic literature. I tend to be really, REALLY bored by debaters who spend the bulk of their time on framework issues and/or theory as opposed to topical debating.

By contrast, I am very much interested in how philosophical and ethical arguments are applied to contemporary challenges, as framed by the resolution.

You can certainly be creative, which shall be rewarded when on-topic. Indeed, having a good command of the topic literature is a good way to be both.

My speaker points to an extent reflect my level of interest.

2) I evaluate a debater's ENTIRE skill set when assigning speaker points, including the ability to listen. See below for how I assess that ability.

3)One can use alternative approaches to traditional ones in LD in front of me. I am receptive to narratives, plans, kritiks, the role of the ballot to fight structural oppression, etc. But these should be grounded in the specific topic literature- This includes describing why the specific resolution being debated undermines the fight against oppressive norms.

4) I am NOT receptive to generic 'debate is bad' arguments. Wrong forum.

5) Specifics of my view of policy, critical, performance, etc. cases are at the bottom if you wish to skip to that.

ON THEORY-

I will not vote on...

a)Fairness arguments, period. They will be treated as radio silence. - See famed debate judge Marvin the Paranoid Android's (which I find optimistic) paradigm on this in 'The Debate Judges Guide to the Galaxy.' by Douglas Adams.

"The first ten million (fairness arguments) were the worst. And the second ten million: they were the worst, too. The third ten million I didn’t enjoy at all. After that, their quality went into a bit of a decline.”

Fairness debating sounds like this to me.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE)

And complaints about having to affirm makes the arguer look and sound like this from 'Puddles Pity Party'

Instead, tell me why the perceived violation is a poor way to evaluate the truth of the resolution, not that it puts you in a poor position to win.

b) I will not vote on disclosure theory, it shall be treated as radio silence. The following sentence applies to both Needham HIgh School and Arlington High School. I have assisted a little with Arlington High. Both Needham and Arlington High Schools, by team consensus, do not permit its' members to disclose except at tournaments where it is specified as required to participate by tournament invitation. I find the idea that disclosure is needed to avoid 'surprises' or have. a quality debate to be unlikely.

c) I will vote on education theory. In most cases it must be related to the topic literature. However, I am actively favorable to RVIs when run in response to 'cheap' , 'throw-away' , generic, or 'canned' education theory. Topic only focused, please.

d)Shells are not always necessary (or even usually). if an opponent's position is truly squirrelly ten seconds explaining why is a better approach in front of me than a two or three minute theory shell

e) I am highly unlikely to vote on arguments that center on an extreme or very narrow framing of the resolution no matter how much framework you do- and 100% unlikely based on a half or full sentence blurb.-

'Extreme' in this context means marginally related to the literature (or a really small subset of it)

ON BLIPS AND EXTENSIONS

I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals, will receive 'one sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

OLD SCHOOL IDIOSYNCRASY- THE IMPORTANCE OF LISTENING

1) On sharing cases and evidence,

Please note: The below does not apply to the reading of evidence cards, nor does it apply to people with applicable IEPs, 504s or are English language learners.

1) I believe that listening is an essential debate skill. In those cases where speed and jargon are used, they are still being used within a particular oral communication framework, even if it is one unique to debate. It makes no sense to me to speak our cases to one another (and the judge), while our opponent reads the text afterwards (even more so as the case is read) and then orally respond to what was written down (or for the judge to vote on what was written down). If that is the norm, we could just stay home and email each other our cases.

In the round, this functions as my awarding higher speaker points to good listeners. Asking for the text of entire cases demonstrates you are still developing the ability to listen and/or the ability to process what you heard. That's OK, this is an educational activity, but a still developing listener wouldn't earn higher speaker points for the same reason someone with developing refutation skills wouldn't earn higher speaking points. My advice is to work on the ability to process what you have heard rather than ask for cases or briefs.

As I believe that act of orally speaking should not be limited to being an anthropological vestige of some ancient debate ritual, I will courteously turn down offers to be added to any speech documents, except at contests designed for such a purpose.

Asking for individual cards by name to examine their rhetoric, context etc, is acceptable, as I don't expect most debaters to be able to write down cards verbatim. I expect those cards to be made available immediately. Any time spent 'jumping' the cards to an opponent beyond minimal is taken off the prep time of the debater that just read the case.

I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during the 1AC)-

On Non Debater authored Cases

I believe two of the most valuable skills in debate, along with the ability to listen, are the ability to write and research (and do both efficiently).

I further believe the tendency of some in the debate community to encourage students to become a ventriloquist's dummy, reading cases authored by individuals post-HS, is antithetical to developing these skills. Most likely it is also against most schools' academic code of conduct. I reject the idea that students are 'too busy to write their own cases and do their own research'

Therefore

I will drop debaters -with minimal speaker points- who run cases written by any individual not enrolled in high school.

In novice or JV rounds I will drop debaters who run cases written by a varsity teammate.

Further, if I suspect, given that debater's level of competence, that they are running a position they did not write ( I suspect they have little to no comprehension of what they are reading) I reserve the right to question them after the round about that position. If said person confirms my suspicion about their level of comprehension, they will be dropped by me with minimal speaker points.

THAT SAID my speaker points will reward debaters who are trying out new ideas which they don't completely understand yet- I think people should take risks, just don't let yourself be shortchanged of all that debate can be by letting some non-high school student - or more experienced teammate- write your ideas for you. Don't be Charlie McCarthy (or Mortimer Snerd for that matter)

Finally, I am not opposed to student-written team cases/briefs per sae. However, given the increasing number of cases written by non-students, and the difficulty I have in distinguishing those from student-written positions, I may eventually apply this stance to any case I hear for the second time (or more) at a tournament. That day has not yet arrived however.

ON POLICY ARGUMENTS (LARPING)

I am open to persons who wish to argue policy positions as opposed to voting standard If that framework is won.

Do keep in mind that I believe the time structure of LD makes running such strategies a challenge. I find many policy link stories in LD debate, even in late outrounds at TOC-qual tournaments, to be JVish at best. Opponents, don't be afraid to say so.

Disadvantages should have clear linkage to the terminal impact, the shorter the better. When responding, it is highly advantageous to respond to the links. I tend to find the "if there is a .01% chance of extinction happening you have to vote for me" to be silly at best if there is any sort of probability weighing placed against it.

Policy-style debaters assume all burdens that actual policy debaters have, That means if solvency -(or at least some sort of comparative advantage, inherency, etc. is not prima facie shown for the resolution proper, that debater loses even if the opponent does not actually give a response while drooling on their own cardigan. (or your own, for that matter).

That means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence should be super-recent. Otherwise, I may decide you don't meet your prima facie burdens, even for 'inherency' which virtually nobody votes on ever. Why? The same reason one shouldn't read a politics DA from October 2022

Side note: If your OPPONENT does so, please be sure to all call them out on it in order to demonstrate CX or refutation skills. (I once heard someone ignore the fact a politics DA was being run the Saturday AFTER the election, it having taken place the Tuesday prior.... I was sad.

I do have some sympathy for the hypothesis-testing paradigm where up-to-date evidence is not always as necessary- if you sell me on it. Running older evidence under such a framework may or may not be strategic, but it WOULD meet prima facie burdens.

If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens', or 'hypothesis-testing' you should opt for a different strategy. - Do learn what these terms mean if interested in LARPing, or answering LARPers.

I am also actively disinclined to allow the negative to 'kick out' out of counterplans, etc., in face of an Aff challenge, during the 1NR. Think 'Pottery Barn'- to paraphrase Colin Powell- "You broke the argument, you own it."

ON NARRATIVE ARGUMENTS

In addition to the 'story', be sure to include a rhetorical model I can use to evaluate the narrative in the course of the round. if you do so effectively, speaker points will be high. If not, low.

One can access the power of narrative arguments without being appropriative of other cultures. This is one such approach (granted from a documentary on Diane Nash)

ON CRITICAL ARGUMENTS

I hold them to the same analytical standard as more normative or traditional arguments. That means quoting some opaque piece of writing is unlikely to score much emphasis with me, absent a complete drop by the opponent. And even if there is a complete drop, during the weighing stage I could easily be persuaded that the critical argument is of little worth in adjudicating the round. When debating critical theory, Don't be afraid to point out that "the emperor has no clothes."

In the round, this functions as debaters coherently planning what both they and their sources are being critical of, and doing so throughout the round.

Identifying if the 'problem' is due to a deliberate attempt to oppress or ignorant/incompetent policies/structures resulting in oppression likely add nuance to your argument, both in terms of introducing and responding to critical arguments. This is especially true if making a generic critical argument rather than one that is resolution-specific.

Critical arguments all take place in a context, with the authors reacting to some structure- be it one created and run by 'dead white men' or whomever. The authors most certainly were familiar with whom or what they were attacking. To earn the highest speaker points, you should demonstrate some level of that knowledge too. HOW you do so may vary, your speaker points will reflect how well you perform under the strategy you choose and carry out in the round

In any case, be sure to SLOW DOWN when reading critical arguments.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT-

I believe that debate, and the type of people it attracts, provides uniquely superior opportunities to develop the skills required to fight oppression. I also believe that how I vote in some prelim at a tournament is unlikely to make much of a difference- or less so than if the debaters and judge spent their Saturday volunteering for a group fighting out-of-the-round oppression Or even singing, as they do in arguably the best scene from the best American movie ever.--

I tend to take the arguments more seriously when made in out rounds with audiences. The final round of PF in 2021 at TOC was important and remarkable. In fairness, people may see prelims as the place to learn how to make these arguments, which is to be commended. But it is not guaranteed that I take an experienced debater making such arguments in prelims as seriously, without a well-articulated reason to do so.

Also bear in mind that my perspective is that of a social studies teacher with a MA in Middle Eastern history and a liberal arts education who is at least tolerably familiar with the literature often referenced in these rounds. (If sometimes only in a 'book review' kind of way.) But I also default in my personal politics to feeling that a bird in hand is better than exposing the oppression of the bush.

if simply invited or encouraged to think about the implications of your position, or to take individual action to do so, that is a wild card that may lead to a vote in your favor- or may not. I feel obligated to use my personal knowledge in such rounds. YOU are encouraged to discuss the efficacy of rhetorical movements and strategies in such cases.

ONE LAST NOTE

Honestly, I am more than a little uncomfortable with debaters who present as being from privileged backgrounds running race-based nihilist or pessimist arguments of which they have no historical part as the oppressed. Granted, this is partly because I believe that it is in the economic self-interest of entrenched powers to propagate nihilist views. If you choose to do so, you can win my ballot, but you will have to prove it won't result in some tangible benefit to people of privilege.

ON MORALLY OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS

Offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I default to skepticism being in the same category when used as a response to 'X is morally bad' types of arguments.

By minimal speaker points, I mean 'one point' (.1 if the tournament allows tenths of a point) and my going to the physical (virtual) tabroom to insist they manually override any minimum in place in the settings.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or homophobic or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration policy is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally permissible to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.---

Outrounds/Flip Rounds Only

I believe debate offers a unique platform for debaters to work towards becoming self-sufficient learners, independent decision-makers, and autonomous advocates. I believe that side determination with a lead time for the purposes of receiving extensive side specific coaching particular to a given round is detrimental to debaters developing said skills. Further, it competitively disadvantages both debaters who do choose to emphasize such skills or do not have access to such coaching to start with.

Barring specific tournament rules/procedures to the contrary, in elimination rounds this functions as

a) flip upon arrival to the round.

b)avoid leaving the room after the coin flip (i.e., please go to the restroom, etc. before arriving at the room and before the flip)

c) arrive in sufficient time to the round to flip and do all desired preparation WITHOUT LEAVING THE ROOM so that the round can start on time.

d)All restrictions on electronic communication commence when the coin is in the air

Doing all of this establishes perceptual dominance in my mind. All judges, even those who claim to be blank slates, subliminally take perceptual dominance into account on some level. -Hence their 'preferences'. For me, all other matters being equal, I am more likely to 'believe' the round story given by a debater who exhibits these skills than the one I feel is channeling their coach's voice.

Most importantly

Have fun! Learn! "If you have fun and are learning, the winning will take care of itself"

POLICY Paradigm-

In absence of a reason not to do so, I default to policy-maker (though I do have some sympathy for hypothesis-testing).

The above largely holds for my policy judging, though I am not as draconically anti-theory in policy as I am in LD/PF because the time structure allows for bad theory to be exposed in a way not feasible in LD/PF.

Congress

To Access better ranks

1) Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, further develop ideas offered previously by speakers on the same side of legislation as yourself, demonstrate opposing ideas are actually reasons to vote for you, etc

2)Speech organization should reflect when during a topic debate said speech is delivered. Earlier pro speeches (especially authorships or sponsorships) should explain what problem exists and how the legislation solves for it. Later speeches should develop arguments for or against the legislation. The last speeches on legislation should summarize and recap, reflecting the ideas offered during the debate

3)Exhibit the ability to listen. This is evaluated through argument development and clash

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may be used be 'real' legislators is the gold standard. (government reports or scholarly think tanks or other policy works. Academic-ish sources (JSTOR, NYRbooks, etc) are next. Professional news sources are in the middle. News sources that rely on 'free' freelancers are below that. Ideological websites without scholarly fare are at the bottom. For example, Brookings or Manhattan Institute, yes! Outside the box can be fine. If a topic on the military is on the docket, 'warontherocks.com ', yes!. (though cite the author and credentials. in such cases)

4b) Souce usage corresponds to the type of argument being backed. 'Expert' evidence is more important with 'detailed' legislation than with more birds-eye changes to the law.

5)exhibit the ability to use CX effectively - This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you or a colleague to expand upon a speech later. Asking a question where the speaker's answer is irrelevant to you- - or your colleagues'- ability to do so later is the gold standard.

6)PO's should be transparent, expeditious, accurate and fair in their handling of the chamber.

6b)At local tournaments, 'new PO's will not be penalized (or rewarded) for still developing the ability to be expeditious. That skill shall be evaluated as radio silence (neither for, nor against you)- Give it a try!

To Access worse ranks

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic or transphobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means I'll look for a reason to rank you at the very bottom of the chamber, behind the person who spent the entire session practicing their origami while engaged in silent self-hypnosis.

2)If among any speaker other than the author and first opposition, rehashing arguments that have already been made with no further development (no matter how well internally argued or supported with evidence your speech happens to be backed with)

3)Avoiding engaging with the ideas of others in the chamber- either in terms of clashing with them directly or expanding upon ideas already made

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may NOT be used be 'real' legislators is the gilded standard. Examples include blatantly ideological sources, websites that don't pay their contributors, etc. This is especially true if a technical subject is the focus of the debate.

4b)In general, using out of date evidence. The more immediate a problem the more recent evidence should be. Quoting Millard Fillmore on immigration reform should not more be done than quoting evidence from the Bush or even the Obama Administration. (That said, if arguing on the level of ideas, by all means, synthesize important past thinkers into your arguments)

5) Avoiding activity such as cross-examination

5b)'Stalling' when being CXed by asking clarification for simple questions

6)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest

7)POs who show favoritism or repeatedly make errors.

What (may) make a rank or two of positive difference

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of others, etc. while avoiding being condescending. Be inclusive during rules, etc. of those from new congress schools or are lone wolves.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged, and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to ranking high without knowing it...)

If I think you have done the above, it will improve your rank in chamber.

World

First, Congrats on being here. Well earned. One piece of advice- Before starting your speaking in your rounds , take a moment to fix the memory in your mind. It is a memory well-worth keeping.

I have judged at the NSDA Worlds Invitational since 2015 with the exception of two years, though I have coached the New England teams each year. I judged WSD at a few invitationals and competed in Parli in college.

While I am well-experienced in other forms of debate (and I bloviate about that quite a bit here) for this tournament I shall reward teams that do the following...

-Center case around a core thesis with supporting substantial arguments and examples. (The thesis may- and often will- evolve during the course of the round)

-Refutation -(especially in later speeches) integrates all arguments make by one's own side and by the opposition into a said thesis

--Weighs key voters. Definitions and other methods should be explicit

Effectively shared rhetorical 'vehicles' between speakers adds to your ethos and ideally logos.

---Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in later speeches are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

--Even succinct POIs can advance argumentation

-Avoid using counterintuitive arguments.(often popular in LD/PF/CX) If you think an argument could be perceived as counterintuitive when it is not, just walk me through that argumentation.

Debate lingo such as 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

--Use breadth as well as depth when it comes to case construction (that usually means international examples as well as US-centric, and may also mean examples from throughout the liberal arts- science, literature, history, etc.- When appropriate and unforced.

If a model is offered, I believe 'fiat' of the legislative (or whatever) action is a given so time spent debating otherwise shall be treated as radio silence. However, mindsets or utopia cannot be 'fiat-ed'.

To earn higher speaker points and make me WANT to vote for you-

-Engage with your opponent's ideas for higher speaker points. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points. (This DOES NOT mean going deep into a line by line, it does mean engaging with the claim and the warrant)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

and needless to say, I'm sure, offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally acceptable (or even amoral) to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.

Again, congratulations on being here!! You have earned this, learn, have fun, make positive memories...

Background

Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Founder and Director of the Institute for Speech and Debate (ISD). Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Lake Highland Prep, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.

Updated for Online Debate

I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. Online tournaments are most often on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am.

williamsc@tas.tw is the best email for the evidence email chain.

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, transphobic, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate. Debate should be as safe of a space as possible. Competition inherently prevents debate from being a 100% safe space, but if you intentionally make debate unsafe for others, I will drop you. Period.

One suggestion I have for folks is to embrace the use of y'all. All too often, words like "guys" are used to refer to large groups of people that are quite diverse. Pay attention to pronouns (and enter yours on Tabroom!), and be mindful of the language you use, even in casual references.

I am very very very very unlikely to vote for theory. I don't think PF is the best place for it and unfortunately, I don't think it has been used in the best ways in PF so far. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, fantastic - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my preferences first - or striking me.

Hello! I'm fairly new to judging, this being my 3rd tournament. I appreciate when teams go "slow" and ensure that their arguments and points are clear.

I debated PF at Durham Academy 2010-2014, coached there 2014-2016, and debated British Parliamentary at Duke 2014-2018. I started medical school in 2019.

Since I'm a little out of the game at this point, I probably don't have much knowledge on the topic. While some questions are forever (nuclear deterrence, gun control, etc.), I probably didn't debate this topic, so please make sure that you explain any terms of art. But given my background, I can handle some speed and jargon, but go at your own risk. The faster you go and the more you use jargon, the more likely it is that I don’t understand the full impact of your argument.

I come from a more traditional high school and college debate tradition so I value good engagement, weighing and accessible language. Good engagement means addressing your opponents arguments head-on and grappling with all of their nuance. Weighing is important because if I have to determine which of your arguments matter more or how the various arguments interact, you might not like my interpretation. Accessible language means minimizing jargon - more often than not, using jargon is a lazy way of getting out of actually making an argument (I did plenty of this in my time). For example, explain why your opponent's argument is "non-unique" instead of just saying that it is. While quantifying impacts is almost always helpful and effective, the mechanisms of how an effect comes to be matters a lot too. I will always evaluate whether your logic makes sense and whether your links still stand before I give you credit for your impacts.

Finally, please be respectful to each other. Being rude, abrasive, or condescending will be reflected in your speaker points. I will drop you if you are blatantly and unapologetically homophobic, sexist, racist, classist or any other kind of -ist. Debate must be an inclusive activity for all.

I am happy to answer any other questions that you have before the round begins.