Policy- I'm tab. I like people to go slower, I feel like as a community speaking quickly and reading more cards have come at the cost of analysis and comparison. To earn my ballot with ease do more of that comparison. I'm fine with Ks, CPs, theory and T. I even like T when done well. I did high school and college policy and look forward to judging the round! 

"Get off my lawn" old person gripes- 

-Don't prep when a timer isn't running. 

-Please don't ask if people read everything in a document, or asking if they could tell you what all they read. Unless circumstances show they've obscured what they did, you just look like you weren't listening or flowing. This makes CX like a episode recap when you've been binging a show. 

-Please don't just say "then the case flow." Still not helpful. Tell me which pages and in which order.

-Be kind. You can give hard hitting questions and answers while still being polite. 

-You may want to look at your judge during CX. It will give you an impression of what they think is a good or bad idea for a line of argumentation you may pursue. Remember- you're trying to convince the one with the ballot you're right, not your opponent. 

-Open CX- I'm totally fine with CX being open. If you are the main person in that CX from  your side, you should still be doing a majority of the questioning/answering and your partner should only chime in when needed. You need your time to shine too! I will lower speaker points for the partner that is more of a back pack. By which I mean just standing up there because it is their cross examination, but doesn't really speak or add to the CX. 

-Finally- be respectful of all of our time. Try to be quick to start prep, move to the next speech, flash/email with speed. If you mosey, you'll irk me. 

Note- I will say clear once and then just let you roll. I don't write down things I can't understand, but most speed is fine. I may also not be up on the topic lingo as I have judge 15 or less policy debates on this year's topic.

Primarily, I consider "clash," or direct engagement with the opposing argument and defense of one's own.

Equally though, I value coherence, or the logical consistency and organization of an argument, as well as the support of objective facts from credible sources.

Of secondary importance I look for civil, respectful demeanor, and delivery that is accurate, grammatical, confident, and expressive. Please don't speak so quickly that I can't take notes.

I prefer an argument built on solid evidence and reasoning, rather than one hung on formalities or technicalities. Whoever presents the most convincing case wins the round.

I'm a traditional LD coach/judge. I coach CX, as well, but don't care to see CX-style argumentation (CPs, Ks, etc.) in LD (or PF) rounds. That includes CX-style speed. I look for who resolves clash by winning the substantive issues, preferably with a coherent story or clear voters in the rebuttals. I think your values framework is central to warranting how I should interpret the resolution, and any corresponding arguments you make about obligations of how to act should be internally linked to this framework.

In CX, I'm a real world policy maker judge. I see CX as a training ground for future policy makers and voting citizens, so I want to know if plan makes the world a better place or not. When it comes to weighing the round, I'm not swayed by the magnitude of impacts if they are logically absurd, and I'll accept analyticals that tell me why they are so. I'll vote on T but not if the plan is clearly topical. I'll listen to critical positions, but I am unlikely to vote for them unless they are impacted back to a real world impact. If I can't hear the warrant in a card because of your speed, I'm unlikely to find it persuasive.

Speech Events

You will see my paradigm on the RFD.

General Debate

You can time yourself, but I am the official timekeeper. If your alarm goes off on your opponent, I find that unethical. If you argue with me, you are begging for the loss.

Speed - I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive speech and debate. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Off time roadmaps - Please make them on time roadmaps.  You speak, my timer starts.

Voters - If you don't provide them, I have to choose.  Don't roll the dice.

Evidence - You get two free card requests, for the rest must be on your prep time.

Cross - Is non binding. if you uncover something, bring it up in your next speech.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Kritiks and counter plans - Don’t - wrong event to run those.

Judging style - If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be the thesis 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.

Ethics violations - Do not propose these lightly. If you assert an ethical violation, you have the burden of proof. If you don’t meet it, you lose the debate.

Public Forum

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.

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.

Plans/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, clash, and persuasion.

Rebuttals in Crossfire - Don’t. I reserve the right to stop a crossfire that ceases to be in a question-answer format or one that becomes abusive.

Congressional Debate

This is one of my favorite events. I want to see you address the chamber and persuade me (and them) with ethos, pathos, and logos. I am a sucker for mythos-driven analogies on the topic or why the other side falls. I give bonus points for good constructive speeches (authorship/sponsorship and 1st neg), especially if you address the chamber. I dislike it when arguments are rehashed/repeated and later speeches do not address the congressional record to date (or worse misrepresent it). In later speeches, I want to see crystallization, impact analysis, and weighing. I break ties in ranking on questions and procedural motions that benefit the flow of debate and the chamber.

Big Questions

Please be sure to address and answer the question.  The event is asking that you take a comprehensive and broad perspective to the question or the inverse of the question.

I have quite a bit of graduate work in philosophy, especially ethical theory. While scientific fact is absolutely important in considering an issue, I will likely side with sound philosophical arguments over scientific ones. LD is value debate, NOT policy - if you run policy arguments you will not enjoy my ballot.

I have judged several debates over the last two years. I don't have a background in debate, but I always enjoy the intelligence and energy I see in our teams.

Background: Debated LD in Colorado during high school; coach since graduation also in Colorado, MA in International Studies (Governance, Human Rights, and Civil Society). 2023 - 2024 season: I've watched mostly LD > PF > only a few CX rounds.

I have judged at Stanford and Berkeley tournaments for several years, plus numerous out rounds in LD and CX at NSDA Nationals.

Apparently I haven't updated this in a while...since that last update I've come to believe that paradigms are even more useless. I write it. You read it. We probably both ignore it.

General:

• Please impact your extensions. I won't simply flow through a card author.
• Give me voters! Probably with some weighing and clash...
• I dislike it when individuals run arguments that they don't understand: 1) quality over quantity; 2) don't waste my time. (I am seeing SO much power tagging. I can pull up your evidence very quickly and do a keyword search.)
• I think the best debate rounds are those in which the debaters agree what is being debated and don't try to play games--don't try to confuse your opponent, don't try to tell me you addressed something when you didn't, etc. Just be clear and engage with the issues of the round.
• If you want to ask me additional questions before a round, please be specific. Otherwise you prepped for a round and my paradigm is just some words on a screen.

PF Paradigm

I've never really thought about having a PF specific paradigm... My overall thought is that PF is meant to focus on the topic. I want substantive debate and not theory. I'm normally pretty tab at debate, but I find it so uninspiring to hear a whole round on theory.

LD Paradigm

Nothing special for LD. Be smart on time use.

CX Paradigm

My debaters have called me out and said I seem anti-CX here. Truth is, I think really good CX debate is better than anything else, and I've come to really appreciate CX. The problem is that it is rare to see a good round of CX. There's never clash. People read arguments they don't understand. People ignore evidence at a whim. There's a tension between just reading a bunch of cards and wanting the judge to do the work of analysis and then complaining about judges not understanding arguments. And more. And it's not unique to CX.

So, long-story short: I try to be pretty tab in CX -- because I wasn't a competitor I have very few preconceived ideas of what I want to see in a round. Take some extra time and explain any CX theory to me. I'm not going to love a lot of "education is better" or "truthiness is better" either. Do some work if it comes down to theory.

Speed: I have no preference and a pretty high threshold for an LD judge from backwards Colorado. I try to keep a rigorous flow so if you get too fast I will clearly stop typing or writing. If you also don't slow down a bit on taglines, arguments and cards probably won't get flowed where you want them.

Arguments: I tend to be more interested in philosophical debates and "traditional" LD (for CX this means I probably enjoy a good K debate, but I also appreciate a clear policy framework), but I will listen to, and flow anything. Start with a clear framework, provide clash, and make it clear for me where I vote. I have a pretty solid background in political theory and an interest in German philosophy broadly (Kant to Habermas).

I competed in Trad LD for 4 years and currently coach Trad LD in Colorado. I am a flow/experienced judge. I love clash and I love a good debate. I vote based on the flow and coverage first. I vote second based on the quality of the arguments and rebuttal efficacy.

Speed/Spreading: I do not want you to read your fastest. Save that for practice and your friends. I can handle moderate speed. If you choose to spread, I will give you the benefit of saying CLEAR once in the round if you are incomprehensible/going too quickly for me. After this point, if I do not understand you, I will not flow your arguments.

Kritiks, Counterplans, etc: if you choose to run these arguments, the burden is on you to make sure I comprehend them. Impact the importance of your K, counterplan, etc. Why should I care about this argument?

Rebuttals: You do not need to repeat what your opponent has said in previous speeches - signpost and then make your arguments.

Timekeeping: I ask that you keep your own time. However, I am the official timekeeper of the round and will be keeping time as well. I do this for one main purpose - to keep all debaters honest about speech and prep times.

Professionalism: I expect a moderate amount of professionalism in the round. I will not fault you for any technical issues, nor for your background/surrounding noise. I will also not fault you for dress. However, I expect professional behavior in the round. I will lower speaker points for rude behavior, and if I believe it was too aggressive or abusive, I will vote you down. It's okay to be confident, it's not okay to be cocky.

Signpost, signpost, signpost. I won't guess where you want me to flow an argument. You don't want me to guess anyway. Lay it out for me clean and upfront.

Additionally, give me some voters in your final speech. Tell me all the ways you won (while keeping attitude in check).

And finally, I do not disclose and I do not give oral critiques. I'll leave RFD and comments on the ballot. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask before the round starts. I'm not opposed to explaining more or answering other questions not addressed here.

*The aff should make a speechdrop or email chain every round even if debaters aren't spreading - it allows for everyone to see the evidence being cited and leads to better debates - your speaks will probably suffer if you refuse to disclose*

Hey I'm Ethan. I debated for four years, my freshmen year in policy and then three years in LD. My email is nicollethan03@gmail.com and would like to be added to the email chain/speechdrop. Also feel free to shoot me any questions after the round and I would love to help out. 

General Thoughts on Debate:

I am generally cool with basically anything you run because I've either probably run it or seen it before. I am obviously not cool with anything that is blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. I am also not cool with being a douchebag to novices. If your opponent is new or not as experienced do not use this as an opportunity to spread 7 conditional Kritiks with a million different tricks. Besides those caveats I try my best to be an impartial judge with as limited intervention as possible. Since complete lack of bias is impossible I will try my best to give my general thoughts about different styles and arguments below. 

Traditional:

I love a good traditional round. I don't think traditional debaters are lesser in any way since they don't go as fast or run complex arguments stripped from the inner sanctum of the ivory tower. They have a different skill set that emphasizes simplifying complex arguments for lay audiences and trying to be efficient while being understandable. When done well its pretty impressive. 

Policy:

My bread and butter as a debater. I love creative plans/counterplans and well written tight DAs. Good policy debate requires lots of good research and creative problem solving so watching it is a joy. 

Phil:

I ran a bit of phil my junior year so I have a solid understanding of Kant, Social Contract(Hobbes, Locke, etc), and Rawls. Just slow down and explain your framework, metaethic, etc and you should be good.

Tricks:

I'm going to be honest, I really hate tricks. I think they can drive people away from the activity and negates a lot of the wonderful educational benefits this activity provides. Despite that I will vote on them because they are an argument that can be made. Just be warned that the threshold for them to be responded will be really low. 

Theory:

I understand most standard theory arguments but I'm not a big fan of theory baiting. I will vote on it but theory baiting doesn't make me happy but go ahead and do it if its your threat. Just be warned that my threshold for responses will probably be lower. 

Topicality: 

Regarding non FW-T against non-T affs, I understand this and will be able to follow it and actually find a lot of these T debates interesting. 

Kritiks: 

I ran a lot of standard neg Ks like cap and Agamben alongside with some cap affs. Just explain your theory of power well and you should be fine. Also when it comes to Ks, I'm really not a fan of Ks that get up and say "they are a distraction from the real problem so you should vote neg". I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for a K that says that but it will be easier for your opponent to beat it. 

T-FW and Non-T affs:

In these debates I tend to lean towards T-FW but can be pretty easily convinced by Non-T Affs turns on the shells. These debates are probably the most interesting debates that happen because they argue over the power and harm that debate can have. 

I miss the old Cap K, straight from the Go Cap K

Chop up the soul Cap K, set on his goals Cap K

I hate the new Cap K, the bad mood Cap K

The always rude Cap K, spaz in the news Cap K

I miss the sweet Cap K, chop up the beats Cap K

I gotta say, at that time I'd like to meet Cap K

See, I invented Cap K, it wasn't any Cap Ks

And now I look and look around and there's so many Cap Ks

I used to love Cap K, I used to love Cap K

I even had the pink polo, I thought I was Cap K

What if Cap K made a song about Cap K

Called "I Miss The Old Cap K"? Man, that'd be so Cap K

That's all it was Cap K, we still love Cap K

And I love you like Cap K loves Cap K

Biography

I have a MA in literature from the University of Colorado, Boulder, and am familiar with many of the writers cited in K's. It excites me to see young people still utilize this philosophy; however, it does not excite me when people might run a K and then also run a counterplan that the K would also critique. I am all for theory, but be genuine about it. Fred Moten wrote in The University and the Undercommons, "The prophet is the one who tells the brutal truth, who has the capacity to see the absolute brutality of the already-existing and to point it out and to tell that truth, but also to see the other way, to see what it could be." A K is that willingness to speak the brutal truth and then invest in the alternative of what it could be. A K is not to speak the brutal truth and then turn around and propose a counterplan that only perpetuates the systemic violence inherent in a brutal truth

Lincoln-Douglas.

I value debate as a speaking and listening event and also as an education event. After all, the original Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debates were a platform for two senate candidates to meaningfully introduce themselves to voters during the 1858 senate election in Illinois. Also as a consolation to anyone who really tries their hardest in round but winds up losing: Lincoln also lost that senate election. Debate isn't just about winning and losing. Speech and debate is about growing your confidence to prepare you for an even bigger thing in your life.

I hope you as debaters also value communication and thoughtfulness in your own presentation during round by doing your best to meet the following standards:

1. Talking clearly and deliberately. I understand urgency, but you can still be urgent and intelligible.
2. Being mindful of your language. I understand a lot of debate lingo has made our community increasingly esoteric. Words such as "cross apply," "inherency," "exploding grounds for debate," etc. don't mean much of anything to the outside community. They certainly wouldn't have won neither Douglas nor Lincoln any votes. Please do not throw your case or rebuttals full of a lot of jargon. Don't just say "cross apply my Jackson '24 card to their contention 1" when doing a rebuttal. I flow and take notes, but I am not making sure I copy down authors; instead, I'm doing my best to follow your argument.
3. Being mindful of your language (part 2). Please don't use a phrase like "my opponent is being abusive." Abuse is a very specific physical, emotional, and psychological horror. Just say your opponent is being unfair.
4. Doing the work for the audience. Give me clear voter issues that crystallize the round and properly weigh what has been said. I'm still flowing though, so be mindful that you don't strawman or misrepresent your fellow debater's positions! I really dislike it when a debater says another debater "dropped their whole contention 1" when in fact they probably did address it.
5. Respecting the audience and the conventions of the debate. For Colorado debaters, this means no grace period for speeches! Secondly, during cross if someone asks a question at 2:45 or so, that other person can respond, but please keep the response concise.
6. Respecting the audience and the conventions of the debate (part 2). I do not participate in email chains or case sharing. My role as a judge is to listen to each debater communicate their case verbally to an audience including myself. Speech and debate is a speaking event. It's not like the US Court of Appeals where over 90% of cases from the appellate are decided by just three judges reviewing written cases.
7. Respecting the audience and the conventions of the debate (part 3). If you suspect dishonest behavior like misrepresented or powertagged evidence, slow it down and make the case. Don't rely on debate jargon like "the internals of the card does not support their warrant." Break it down for me and spell it out. Also, tell me you want me to pull this card. I don't intervene as a judge unless I am explicitly asked to.

Public Forum Debate (formerly known as Ted Turner Debate)

The original category for PF debate suggests its interest in being arguably the most accessible form of debate. Named after media mogul Ted Turner, PF should give the audience an approachable view of the topic that is ultimately educational. Imagine you are on some distinguished network like PBS and you represent the very best of advocates for your position--like David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart for example (on PBS). All seven of my interests from LD apply to PF.

In all debates, I look for two things:

~ Effectiveness of Arguments: are your points supported effectively? I will do my best to take flow notes on all arguments, but I also can't catch everything. I will use my own flow to determine who won in each argument throughout the debate.

~ Delivery of Arguments: are your points and arguments delivered effectively? Can I as the judge actively see and follow your points throughout the debate?

Whichever team is best in both scenarios will win the debate.

I am so happy to be here and judge this round today!

A few paradigms I have for Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

1) I am looking for a traditional debate with lots of clash. CPs are not preferred. If you are wanting to run something more progressive just know that there is a HIGH burden of explanation. I would only run a K with me as a judge if you were REALLY confident and, even then, I would not recommend doing so.

2) Remember to focus on the arguments! Not the opponent, don't make it personal. Don't be rude, belittle, or unnecessarily cut somebody off. Respect and Humility are core principles of the NSDA's Code of Honor and I expect them to be upheld throughout the round.

3) I'm huge on impact calculus! Give me all the implications and weigh your impacts. I honestly like you to spell them out for me. Say, "judge, this is a _____ (high magnitude, probability, etc.) impact because..." and I would eat that up. Weigh those impacts against your opponents; why should I care more about yours?

4) Voters are a big must for me because it shows me that you can consolidate to at least three main reasons why you win the round and it easily crystallizes the round.

5) Housekeeping: remember to signpost. If you drop an argument and your opponent addresses that, you lose the argument (aka manage your time wisely so you don't drop arguments or, if you do, have reasoning to do so).

I don't believe LD is a place for spreading. If you talk too fast, I will stop flowing.

In Policy debate, I am a Stock Issues judge.

In LD debate, I am a traditional LD judge who values effective communication, philosophical analysis, and value clash. Very rapid speaking rates are antithetical to this.

Please generally slow down in online/virtual speech & debate events.

Experience: Most of my personal experience is in speech events, however I've coached and judged all events for several years.

For debate events, I am a flow judge. Online flow will be recorded in tabroom "everyone" ballot.

Things to keep in mind:

No off-time road maps. Everything you want to say to me, the judge, is on-time for speeches or crossfire / cross-examination.

I evaluate the rounds based on the framework provided by debaters.

When extending evidence to support a contention or claim within a contention, be sure to extend the warrant, not just the author or source (because sometimes I don't write down the author/tag and just record the warrant).

Don’t be rude. Don't speed-read.

It is your job to convince me why I should vote on flow or key argument clash.