Public Forum paradigm

I now coach speech, but I have also coached Congress and have judged PF and LD for the past 15 years in Ohio, Louisiana, and the national circuit. I never competed, but you know what they say about those who can’t (or don't).

I like to hear a well organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation. Be sure that evidence actually supports or refutes and is not just thrown in to provide a source. I tend to vote on the arguments that involve impact and scope.

Clash is essential—nothing more deadly than listening to dueling evidence with no actual interaction. Do as much damage as you can to your opponent’s case and defend you own—sounds really basic, but that’s what I like to hear.

Crossfire is a time to ask questions—please do not use it to advance or restate your case (unless, of course, it pertains to a question you’ve been asked). I like to see teamwork in grand cross—please do not monopolize and let your partner get a word in edgewise.

I enjoy a nice extemporaneous delivery that demonstrates some real (or feigned) enthusiasm for your argument. Please do not spread—it is not impressive, and if I can’t follow you, the quality of your argument suffers.

And finally I value civility, courtesy, and respect—please don’t disappoint.

Lincoln Douglas paradigm

Similar to my PF standards, I am pretty traditional. I like a case that is well organized, clear, and consistent. Supporting evidence and depth of analysis are important, but logical arguments are essential. I really enjoy a good framework debate, and I appreciate hearing voting issues--tell me why I should vote for you. Why are your impacts more important?

I like an extemporaneous and conversational delivery. I am okay with some speed, but no spreading, please--if I can't follow you, I can't vote for you.

Civility, courtesy, and respect--always important.

Congress paradigm

Congress rankings are based on content (structure, evidence, clarity, analysis, clash) and delivery (articulation, fluency, vocal and physical expression, confidence/poise). Most importantly who advanced the debate and contributed the most through the quality (not necessarily the quantity) of his/her/their speeches and questions?

Civility, courtesy, and respect apply here as well.

A bit of my background:

I competed at Seven Lakes High School in Katy TX (2008-2012) in LD for 1 year, and Congress and Extemp for 3 years. I dabbled a bit in PF here and there. I'm chill, but also hugely respect what debate brings and thus respect the events and hope those competing do to!

In General:

- Being respectful, confident, and poised gets you everywhere, aggression only gets you so far. Attacking your opponent's logic and attacking your opponent are two very different things.

- Have fun and bring your personality!!

For PF:

- If you spread, make sure you are clear. I will be flowing but it's been a couple years and frankly, its on you to convince me, not my notetaking skills. There is still a speech aspect to PF and I can't judge your arguments if I can't understand them. Word vomiting arguments hoping one goes unnoticed helps no one, but especially doesn't help you.

- Signposting is always a plus for me. Don't make me guess where your trying to make a point on the flow. Less you bounce around the flow, the better. Voters and good summation is a plus for me! Don't just repeat everything!

- Cut cards. Do not paraphrase without reading evidence verbatim. The only time I would be okay with paraphase is in rebuttals, but I prefer you just read the card again. Debate is nothing without evidence, so make sure your evidence is clearly linked to your overall argument and not just tangentially linked.

- On the topic of evidence, please be able to quickly exchange evidence and make sure that card is cited and is full text.

- Please time yourselves.

- I'm not as familiar with the progressive stuff being run in PF (think Kritics, Theory, etc), so take that as you will. You can run it but it has to match the logic of the round. If you logically use something "progressive" and argue it clearly, go for it! If you run it just to confuse your opponents and not match the logic in the round, you may also confuse me.

For Congress:

- Congress is a great combination of argumentation and persausive speech skills. That means, please speak well! Be articulate! Be clear! And most importantly, speak to persuade the room!

- Congress is still a debate event (as much as other events may disagree ;)). If you are not a first aff or first neg, I will deduct points for not acknowleding that there have been other speeches and argumens made. I will double especially deduct points for repeated arguments.

- Participation is important. I'm weighing your activity during other CX as much as your speeches.

- If you are PO, please make sure to define how you run the room i.e how timing is down, selection for speeches, etc. You aren't giving speeches so your score is from how well you run a room and efficiency in running it.

Experience in CX, LD and PF with preference for LD.  Regarding LD, prefer a more traditional style of debate focusing on value and philosophy.  Policy arguments are usually a nonstarter and unlikely to sway.

hi, its Shannon Ehrmann's debater writing this paradigm to make it easier for people to pref

Quick prefs:

1 - Larp

Strike/Pref Low - Everything else

understands larp, probably best if you go slow i.e. lay

can definitely understand if you go quicker i.e. spread, just slow down on the taglines, when switching flows, and pls pls add analytics on the email chain if you can

but overall just go slow - thats your best bet to get the ballot

make logical arguments, extend warrants clearly, truth ov tech,

email chain: shannon.ehrmann@apsb.org

Good luck!

I graduated from Lafayette (Louisiana) High School in 1972. I was on the high school forensic team for three years and participated in debate for the most part, but also extemp and impromptu speaking. “Back in the day” it was only two-person teams, regular debate or CX. I am a clinical social worker and the administrator of a psychiatric hospital. I thought my judging “career” ended in the early 1980s. However, I came out of “retirement” in 2017 when my daughter joined her school’s speech/debate team as a freshman. She is currently a senior and her events are mostly extemp, debate and Congress. I have judged everything but my preference is forensic events.

The best way to get your argument through would be to approach me as what I would term an advanced lay judge. I am “old school”. I flow and pay close attention to CX. Spreading/speed … I don’t really like it, but can handle speed up to a certain point. If your words fuse together and become incomprehensible, you will lose me. By extension, if I am not able to get it down on the flow, it didn’t happen. I cannot judge what I cannot understand.J I pay attention to cards, especially the source. Dropped contentions/arguments are noted and graded accordingly. I appreciate clear logic and well explained analysis, smooth and organized speaking, and courteous behavior and respect for your opponent. Extend your arguments across the flow. My preference in LD is traditional style. I am OK with CPs, not so much with Ks. Unless required, I don’t disclose. You will have difficulty picking up body/facial language from me during a debate. I am pretty much expression-less and will have only intermittent eye contact. Please don’t mistake this as me not listening. My focus is on the words and the flow.

Update on virtual competition: Please be advised that LIVE online competition has its quirks. Before virtual debate, both competitors would often talk at the same time in CX. This was not a problem as both speaker's voices could be heard at the same time. This may NOT be the case in live online debate. Sometimes both speakers can be heard, but often the software allows only one speaker's voice to come through. In addition, with spreading or very fast speech, the software may not be as clear as in traditional live and in-your-face debate. In many instances judging virtual debates, spreading becomes garbled with static and skips ... as difficult as it is for a human in real-life debating to comprehend 500 words per minute, it seems that the software is even more confused. Just something to keep in mind and I'll try and remember to remind debaters of this before the round begins.

Debated for Caddo Magnet 2014-2018

Assistant Coach @ Caddo Magnet

Law Student at LSU Paul M. Hebert Law Center

General

Email chain: nathan.jagot@gmail.com

Prep ends when the speech doc is saved/flashed.

Don't take too long while you're "sending the doc over" and still typing.

Don't clip.

Evidence quality > evidence quantity.

Tech v. Truth is very much over-debated and over-theorized and I'm not sure why it is. If your evidence is correct/accurate about how things operate and your internal links are logical, then you're in the clear. Truth claims warrant a certain amount of technical skills to be won, just as technical arguments need a good deal of truth in reality to be won.

Debate's stressful. Be kind.

Play smart. Be scrappy.

A few of my debate coaches and people who helped shape how I approach everything: Neill Normand, Kasi & Jonathan McCartney, Sam Gustavson, Ian Dill, Darius White, Calen Martin, Cole Allen, Ethan Courtman, and Jake Crusan.

Frame your arguments:

If you can tell me what the central points of the debate are in the final rebuttals, make effective arguments and prove why you're winning, you will most likely win the debate. I think line by line is good, but that you also need to keep in mind the big picture/nexus question for the debate. Being wax poetic is especially good (but not necessary), but tell me what's most important and why, and explain it. "Even if" statements are also really useful in this situation, and be sure to use competing claims and why making the decision for you should be easy even if you're not winning the other/most important parts of the debate.

Be strategic:

Embedded clash is important. For argument extensions, make sure you have a claim, warrant, and an impact. Make sure you use this to your advantage and point out interactions between different arguments, be smart in pointing out double turns, etc.

Clarity > speed:

I'd rather hear a very engaging 4-5 off debate that has a variety of winning 2NRs against a certain aff, rather than a team who reads 8-10 off just to scare the other team. I'm not as inclined to the "throw 9 off at the wall to see what sticks" strategies. Not to be frank, but if you know you can beat an aff without going all out, do just that and make each component of the debate that much more convincing.

Slow down on blocks and analytics, because they're going to be the point in the debate where I really start paying attention to the arguments at hand and seeing how they function (also the point in the debate where you should explain them as such). Being efficient and prepared rather than fast and blippy until the 2NR is better than not.

Line by line is important:

This is very important and I think some debaters sadly forget about. Answer arguments in the order in which they appear - if "they say (x), but (x)" statements are helpful in this instance. Clean flows = good flows = organized debates = good debates.

CX:

CX should be treated as another speech. Write down your questions beforehand and have a strategy. Some judges flow CX, I tend to stray away of that, but I may star an argument a team mentions something multiple times or if an argument seemed to be critical for any particular side during CX. If an important argument is an effective turning point for the debate in CX, point it out in later speeches. Use your time wisely.

Critical Affirmatives:

I'm finding myself frustrated with a lot of these types of affirmatives. The 1AC should ground itself with a foundational disagreement with resolutional action (depending on the way the topic is worded) - meaning a solid, specific topic link - and go from there about debating it. Not doing so will likely result to me just voting negative on T. Debates where the affirmative identifies a problem with resolutional action and uses that as offense against framework/T-USfg are much more interesting than stale debates that recycle old K-affs that change 1-2 cards to fit the topic.

***I think for topics where the resolution mandates the USfg reduces something negative it does (like restrict immigration or reduce arms sales), reading an aff with a plan is much more legitimate than not reading a plan.

***Please ask questions about this. But, if I were debating and reading this paradigm, I'd stick with a plan.

T-USfg:

I think this is the most legitimate strategy against planless affs. Though it's a legitimate claim that the aff not using the USfg as an agent is unfair, you need to explain why in terms of why it's bad for normative debate practices and why it's bad that you can't engage with the aff as well as you could with one that had a specific policy proposal.

Fairness is an impact in itself, but that should be explained in terms of what unfairness is, how the affirmative makes it worse, and then funnel into discussion of other "greatest hits" impacts on the flow.

Make sure your TVA is logical and at accesses the affirmative's offense, and the aff answers need to be logical and established in order for me to not vote on it.

Well-thought out aff impact turns to T/Framework are convincing to me if executed effectively.

Framework should also be debated in the context of every aff - don't just read the same overview you do for every K aff. Specific overviews + reasons to reject the aff = higher speaks and more of a chance I'll vote for you.

Case:

You NEED to engage case. Smart analytics on case are just as good as impact turns/no solvency arguments. Make sure to utilize it, it's there for a reason. Interact with it, don't forget it. Scrap the 2-3 card DA that you won't extend past the 1NC and put some of that time and effort on case.

Good case debates about the warrants of the aff, internal link strength, sensibility, etc. are good. Debating case makes you better.

I like impact turns. I like it when teams read impact turns specific to the aff.

Spark = silly. I won't even bother telling you how silly it is---I'll give you my professors' emails and let you take it up with them.

Topicality:

Caselists = good.

Don't get bogged down in the non-essential details.

Competing interps when actually competitive = good.

Reasonability against arbitrary/asinine interps that are semi-ridiculous = 100% will vote on it.

Counterplans:

Long text = slow down.

Specific PICs are good, I like them. Debate them well.

Consult and conditions counterplans are fine as long as you defend them as you're supposed to practically and theoretically. Don't get too carried away.

Make sure it's actually competitive---this means it needs to access not only the impacts of the advantage, but the rest of the advantage itself.

Disadvantages:

The DA should have specific links to what the aff is talking about, or at least a claim that what the aff is fiating will cause what you say it will because it's that large of a policy.

Your block work on the DA should be thorough explanation, as well as lots of cards that prove your argument(s). Specific links/analysis to the aff are highly appreciated.

Lots of cards + lots of analysis = extra good.

Kritiks:

Being from a relatively small school, I understand their strategic value. If you think there may be a risk that I don't know what you mean, don't use buzz-words and be sure to explain your args well.

Couple of K things I value:

Link Contextualization---You absolutely need to win a link to the affirmative. Generic links rarely grab my attention, unless the aff just mishandles it completely. A K 1NC that has mechanism and content links to the aff (links to the aff's process, either K-based or state-based, depending on the type of aff) is better than a K 1NC that has the link arguments "state + scenario analysis bad," without mentioning the aff's advantages. A smart 2NR will go all-in on 1 or 2 solid links with clear impacts. Links should be able to turn case without winning the alternative (even though you should still win your alt), and should each have an impact-level claim that are distinct from the other links and that can independently win you the debate. But, you need to win the alternative to win the debate, tell my why it resolves your links specific to the aff and any other link you may read - this is where the links that fit the aff best come in. I'd rather hear the 2NR go for 2 solid links rather than 3-4 not-so-good links.

Framework---a decisive win on framework will make me much more likely to vote for you, regardless if you're aff or neg.

Theory:

I'll consider theory only if it is severely mishandled/conceded by the other team. I think having it as your A-game strategy isn't as strategic, but don't be discouraged and think you can't go for it in front of me, just remember there are certain times and places for those debates.

Conditionality is bad if an absurd number of advocacies are in the 1NC (more than 4 is questionable, but I'm open to a debate on whether or not that is true), but make sure to contextualize your theory blocks to the debate at hand and tell me why what they did in round is bad and incentivizes worse debates for everyone else. Tell me more of a story about what they did, why they should lose, and what your model of debate looks like under a certain interpretation (that isn't just repeating your interpretation you read in the 2AC/2NC).

Final rebuttals:

These should be used to write my ballot. Easy ways to do this are to do the "final review of the debate" at the top of the 2NR/2AR and then get into the substance/nuance of individual arguments you're winning on the flow.

If Debating In Louisiana:

You're on the clock. You can thank me after the round, don't use your speech time for it.

Explain your arguments well. Answer your opponents' arguments well. I judge LD sometimes in-state because of tab-based restraints and something I've noticed is a severe lack of clash in these debates, and I think forcing yourself to interact with the other team's arguments is generally a good thing in debate.

Good luck and have fun!

I am a traditional judge. I place a high value on the framework debate, specifically on values and value criterion. All contentions should link back to the framework, and voters should as well. Weigh your arguments as well. At the end of your final speeches, I expect to hear clear voters. If possible, do not spread. If you are, send me the doc. I do not judge many circuit rounds.

I am a former policy debate from Parkway High School in Bossier City, Louisiana. I am currently a coach for Parkway High School in Bossier City, Louisiana.

I am more likely to vote for a policy option than a Kritik or Kritikal Affirmative.

I have always liked a good Topicality debate as well as traditional disad/counterplan combos.

Ok with open cx, I want to be in on the e-mail chain because I cannot flow spreading as I once could. I will ask you to slow down or be clearer if I cannot hear/understand what you are saying.

I also do not tolerate post-rounding. If you would like feedback, you should listen respectfully and ask appropriate questions. Otherwise, your speaker points and ranks will be consequently impacted.

Louisiana State University '22, Isidore Newman School '18

Yes Email Chain: roydenlynch18@gmail.com

Update for Samford Tournament:

I have very little immigration topic knowledge, so you should at least introduce me to your acronyms of terms of art before you depend on them.

-----

General Thoughts:

Debate is a game, it is a good game and should be a good game.

It is policy debate for a reason.

The ballot just decides who wins and loses.

Tech over truth.

Theory/T:

Topicality debates are difficult, so when handled correctly, they are very rewarding and enjoyable, however, when handled incorrectly are messy and problematic to resolve. Since I'm new to this topic, don't assume I know what the core generics are, or what the heart of the topic is, you must tell me those things.

I think conditionality is great. I think the distinction between 3 or 4 conditional positions doesn't make intuitive sense, so the aff would probably have a better time going for 0 or 1, unless they can make good and specific brightlines.

DAs/CPs:

Good DA/CP strategies are my favorite. Both sides should be making or answering arguments about how the disadvantage turns or accesses portions of the case, when this analysis is more contextual, it is typically much better. I'm generally lenient on more 'cheaty' counter-plans, but a good theory debate can convince me otherwise.

Ks:

The affirmative gets to weigh the plan's implementation, you'll have a difficult time convincing me otherwise.

K-Affirmatives:

Read a plan.

So, I accidentally deleted my account recently. Tabroom helpdesk was more than helpful and recovered my account (thank you tabroom). However, the damage was done, and my old paradigm is floating somewhere in the digital aether. I really do not feel like re-writing my paradigm, as it was easily the most exceptional paradigm ever written -- largely due to the fact I am the greatest at judging and no one can convince me otherwise. Therefore, what follows is an abridged version of my impeccable judging style; if this does not satisfy your questions, feel free to ask me before the round or via email.

Debated policy for Caddo Magnet 2015-2019

Louisiana Tech - Class of '22

Assistant coach for Caddo Magnet

Currently teaching Theology and Physical Science at Providence Classical Academy, Bossier City, LA

Email: palmer0110@gmail.com

General:

Don't be rude or mean, please.

Don't take too long flashing.

Be honest. Don't misrepresent your evidence, don't clip, and don't steal prep time.

Quality over Quantity in both evidence (good evidence > more evidence, unless somehow the quality of the argument is contingent on the quantity, so something like demonstrating a scientific or expert consensus could maybe warrant this) and in arguments

I LOVE really good analytical argumentation. I'd prefer a logically sound analytic to a boat-load of cards you hardly utilize any day. On this note, if it is a debate wherein many cards are being read even into the rebuttals (like a Heg debate or something), my decision will be highly influenced by the evidence quality.

(To be Continued)

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

As someone who does research on ld/pf/policy topics before judging, I can tell you that I will be looking to make sure that:

1. arguments are effective

2. debators speak and argue in a formal manner (don't like screaming matches)

For speech:

connect with me :) i want to hear your story!! (or the story you are telling)

Please include me on the email chain at jstewartdebate@gmail.com. Feel free to ask questions always.

I competed for Barbe High School, McNeese State University and Western Kentucky University. I competed in IEs in both high school and college. I debated L-D and policy in high school on the local, Louisiana circuit. I also competed nationally in college in IE’s, Parli, NFA L-D policy and some CEDA/NDT. I have judged in Louisiana and around the region for the last 15 years.

TLDR: I was a policymaking type debater. Weighing net-benefits is what I am most familiar with. I try to be as “tab” as possible and will evaluate any argument. It needs to be well warranted, well impacted and well weighed against the rest of arguments in the round. You might need to do slightly more work fleshing out newer forms of argumentation with me, but I will vote on them if I feel like you are winning them.

I am self-professed “lazy” judge. I want to feel like I am doing the least intervening possible at the end of the round. I would love for you to tell me which arguments are important enough for me to vote on, what their comparative impacts are and why you are winning those arguments. I appreciate you telling me how I should sign my ballot.

I am still somewhat old school around paperless debating- it just wasn’t a thing yet when I was competing or judging the first go around. I use e-mailed/flashed evidence mostly for reading internal warrants. I will use this to follow along the speech, however I’m not a fan of reading speech docs/blocks in a vacuum. Signposting and clear organizational structure are important for me and I tend to award higher speaker points for them.

POLICY-

K/Kritikal Aff- I have a pretty good familiarity with critical theory/thought. I am probably less familiar with the intricacies of Kritik debate theory. You would probably be helping yourself out with me to spend a bit more time on setting up your framework and giving really clear impact stories. Explicit arguments about “how we win” or “the role of the ballot” would help me better understand how/why to vote for you on these types of positions. This is especially true if there are situations like perms put on the alternative. I want to know why the alternative alone solves best on its face, in addition to any theoretical objections to the perm. I also appreciate clear pre-fiat/post-fiat analysis. If the impact is post-fiat (“turns case”) and the alternative is pre-fiat (“discourse/radical space/etc”) I want you to tell me how to navigate the multiple levels of your advocacy.

T/Procedurals- I tend to have a slightly lower threshold on procedurals. I do not need an iron clad in-round abuse story necessarily. I will evaluate these more often than many.

LD-

I tend to vote on framework first. That is just how I was taught. But with more progressive styles I will evaluate framework in light of case advantages/disadvantages. As with the Kritik info above, you may need to do a little more hand holding with me around the alternative and/or role of the ballot. I tend to prefer crystallization at the end of the round with clear impact analysis and tend to give higher speaks to those that show good round vision and can ‘boil down’ the round effectively.

PF-

I’m comfortable with the newer trend of giving an explicit framework at the top of case. If you don’t give me one then I’ll default to something like policymaking/comparative advantages. I tend to appreciate probability over magnitude in PF because of the lack of depth of evidence. Things that are intuitive and make sense on their face seem like a more natural fit to this style of debate. I will evaluate anything that is argued in front of me, though. It needs to be well warranted, well extended (including extending the warrants), well impacted and well leveraged against the other argumentation in the round for it to be most persuasive. I like final focus speeches that crystallize the round for me and give me good impact analysis. Feel free to take the ballot out my hands by telling me what arguments are most important, how they function in the round and why you are winning on them.

IE’s-

I tend to think about most IEs in terms of argumentation. This is more obvious for events like Extemp, Impromptu and Original Oratory. But even interp events use a text to craft a narrative with a unique point of view for each competitor. I usually evaluate IE’s on the clarity of your thesis (argument) and then how well you do at expressing/supporting it (advocacy). The more you can distill down an idea into its clearest form and then use multiple rhetorical tools to express it, the better chance you will have of getting higher ranks and higher speaks from me. FYI I’m a big fan of variety as a rhetorical tool (fast and slow rate, loud and soft volume, high and low intonation, etc). These tend to keep me more engaged in the speech/performance and tend to make me trust you more as a speaker/performer.

UPDATED: 2/15/2024- California Round Robin

Quick Tips:

-Please be clear- No exaggeration my eardrums are nonexistent. I'm like half deaf.

-Over explanation> Blips- I understand your arguments, I just haven't judged them enough to make extrapolations for you.

-Send analytics too- Its ethically shady to not. Debates are won by the better debater, no the better trickster. Also, see tip 1.

Paradigm Proper

TL;DR: Check Bolded

GENERAL STUFF:

I wanna keep this relatively simple, so: Hi, I'm J.D. Swift. I am a former competitor and former coach of Holy Cross School, currently an Assistant at The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men (New Orleans, La). I'm too old to use this platform as an ego boost so I won't bother re-putting my qualifications, accolades, etc. I have either judged, coached, or competed (or done all of the above) in nearly every event under the sun, so I'd call myself pretty familiar.

My resting face may not prove it, but I am always approachable. If you have any questions about stuff before or after around, and you spot me, please don't hesitate to have a conversation, its why I still do this activity.

For Everyone:

+ I do not tolerate any forms of: racism, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia, or ableism. This activity is special because it is the most inclusive activity that I know of. This space actively works to include all members of society and I will not stand for any tarnishing of that. I do not believe that you will be any of those things, but if it happens in round, I will stop the debate, give you a loss with the lowest possible speaks, and have a conversation with your coach.

+ I prefer an email chain, please add me:jdswift1028@gmail.com

+ I prefer to disclose. You won't be able to adjust from round to round if you don't know exactly how you won or lost a round. That being said: if any competitor in the round would prefer me not to disclose, I will not.** I also don't disclose speaks, that's just kinda weird to ask **

+ On Postrounding: I'm absolutely down to answer any and all questions as long as time permits. I take pride in the notes I take alongside the flow to give back to debaters. However, if you begin to challenge my decision, or (yes, this has happened before) you get your coach to challenge me, you can finish postrounding with the empty chair I left behind.

+ I know you care about speaker points. I don't give a whole lot of 30s (you can fact check me on this) so if you get one from me, I will be speaking high praises to others about your stellar performance. 2 rules of thumb for if you have me as a judge: 1. Make the debate accessible, 2. Let your personality shine through. No, I won't clarify on what those things mean. ;)

+ My face is very readable. This is semi-intentional. If I'm confused, you will see it. If I'm impressed, you will see it.

+ If you don't see me writing, specifically if my pen is obviously away from the paper/iPad (usually palm up) and I'm just staring at you, then I'm intentionally ignoring your argument. (I only do this when you are clearly over time, or if you are reading new in the 2)

+ In terms of intangibles such as: Your appearance, dress, how you sit or stand, etc. I do not care at all. A wise man once said: "Do whatever makes you comfortable, I only care about the arguments." -JD Swift, (circa 20XX)

For Novices:

+ I hate information elitism, meaning, if any jargon or terms in my paradigm confuse you-- please, please, please ask me for clarification.

+ Debate is a competitive activity, but it is foremost an educational one. If you see me in the back of the room, please do not feel intimidated, we as coaches and judges are here for y'all as competitors.

For LD & Policy:

+ Run whatever you like, please just explain it well. If you don't trust your ability to provide quality warrants on an argument, do not run it.

+ Please extend full arguments, most importantly the warrants. Not just impacts, Not just card names, but all of it.

+ No amount of signposting is too much. The more organized you are, the better I can give you credit.

+ Speed does NOT impress me. I can hang, but if you're sacrificing clarity for speed, I won't strain myself trying to catch the argument. If you want to go fast, go for it, just make sure you're clearly distinguishing one argument from the next, and that your tags and authors are clear.

+ Please do not reread a card, unless the card is being re-read for a different purpose(re-highlighting, new warrants, etc.). You're killing your own speech time.

+ If an argument or concession is made in cross, and you want credit for it, it has to show up in speech. I'll listen out for it, but if I don't hear it, in speech, it didn't happen.

+ Not a fan of petty theory at all. If there is real, round impeding abuse, I'll vote on it in your favor. If the theory argument is petty, I give RVI's heavy weight.

+ I don't like tricks. This is not a forum for deception.

+ If you're gonna kick the alt on the K, and use it as a disad, please articulate why the disad is a sufficient reason to not pass the plan.

FOR PF

+ Framework is important, otherwise I believe topic areas get too broad for this format. Win your framing and then use that to win your impact calculous. That's the fastest way to my ballot.

+ I have little patience for paraphrasing. If you want credit for evidence, read the card and give context.

+ I hold PF to the same evidence ethics and standards as Policy and LD.

Most importantly: please have fun; If what you are doing is not fun then it's not worth your time.

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.

My name is Darius White and I debated at C.E. Byrd High School for 4 year and debate for the University of Oklahoma currently.

Speaker Points: I generally give fairly high speaks, and I understand that their is going to be some rudeness in the debate, but try not to over-do because that will be a speak-point decrease. Also stealing prep, and speaking CONSTANTLY during your partners speech will drop your speeches quite a bit, but I usually try to be generous with the speaks.

Cross-X: I defer c-x being binding (unless told otherwise but they need to be nuanced, not tag line extensions of theory shells) and tend to flow c-x

After-round evaluation of evidence: I will try as best as possible to not call for evidence unless you are highly reliant on one piece of evidence in your last speeches, and/or evidence is into question (i.e. if you call for me to look at a piece of evidence after round), but other than that I tend to try to judge the debate on the actually speeches given by the debaters.

Theory: I have a high threshold for theory arguments and hate when teams spray through your theory blocks; I usually default to reasonability and reject-the-arguments-not-the-team
unless you win the abuse story i.e. I don't think one conditional advocacy destroys aff ground so just try to be reasonable and very persuasive when going for theory.

Disads/CP's: Impact calculation is always a good idea, and even though I am more on the K side of debate, I am down to listen to a really technical CP/DA as a net-benefit debate, so don't be shy to run these arguments in front of me. But, I feel that the CP does need a net-benefit for me to vote for it, so if the 2NR is just CP with no net-benefits, I will have a hard time finding reasons why I should vote for the CP. Turns case arguments on the DA are always tight.

Impact Turns: I really enjoy these types of debates, and they are very persuasive in my opinion, so if you got any in your files, I am down to listen.

Kritiks: I hate when teams read a random K that they have no idea what it means or says, and that is always a pet peeve. Don't run a K in front that you are not comfortable going for, but if you are very well at going for a specific criticism then do your thing because I am more familiar with this side of the debate. I feel that the alternative portion of the K is very under utilized and would like to be a debate I would want to see, but if your thing is going to turns case, then do your thing.

Framework: This is the argument I least agree with but if will listen and flow if required.

Flashing: I don't count flashing as prep unless you are taking hella a lot of time in which I will inform you that I am about to start your prep time; PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, do not steal prep.

Random shit: I like jokes, and making me laugh usually gets you some where speak point wise. Using historical references is always a good idea and paints a better picture on the impact calc. Remember to jump your cards over before the speech, and if you read any new cards that aren't on the flash, flash them before c-x or before the next speech is about to start, this is not prep time.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me: darius12456@gmail.com

TOC Conflicts (besides DTA): Isidore Newman AB

About Me
Basic Info

he/him

Associate Director of Debate and Speech, The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men

Notre Dame ‘23 (Political Science, Philosophy)

9th year in debate, 5th year coaching

Add me to the email chain: dta.lddocs@gmail.com (Subject Line: TOURNAMENT --- ROUND --- CODE)

Ask questions: blakeziegler.debate@gmail.com

Learn more: blake-ziegler.com

First and foremost, I’m a teacher, which means my aim is to maximize the educational experience of competitors in a safe and equitable manner. I believe debate offers vital skills and opportunities for young people, which is why I’m still involved in the activity. Due to this, I see my ballot as an implicit endorsement of the strategy of whichever debater I vote for. This means that if I see your strategy as morally repugnant or you're not taking this activity seriously, it'll be very hard to get my ballot. As the adult (or one of) in the room, I also seek to ensure this space is void of discrimination, harassment, bullying, and the like. I take that responsibility seriously. Any arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, etc. will result in an immediate loss.

Conflicts
James Logan (former Head LD Coach)

Pref Shortcuts

1 - Ks, soft left affs

2 - Policy args, non-topical affs

3 - Phil* (see phil section), T/Theory

4 - Trad

5/Strike - Tricks

Lincoln-Douglas Philosophy

Note for Jan/Feb '24

I really like this topic, but I highly recommend that if you're reading Israel/Palestine arguments in front of me, be careful with the rhetoric, especially in how you frame Zionism. I've seen a lot of affs that go beyond criticism of Israel and verge into antisemitism. This is not me saying don't run Israel or don't criticize Israel - please do. I'm just asking you to be mindful of how your rhetoric may unintentionally be antisemitic and account for it. If you're unsure, please check out this and this.

Similarly, this note shouldn't be taken as me stating any criticism of Israel is antisemitic. Lack of knowledge or awareness of Jew-hatred lends itself to manipulation. If you're going to accuse your opponent of antisemitism, you should be sure about it. Again, criticism of Israel itself isn't antisemitic.

Overview
I competed in LD in high school and exclusively coach this event. I’ve competed and worked in traditional and progressive styles. I believe that the only difference between those styles is the emphasis on persuasion and the way arguments are packaged. With that said, my basic view of this event is as follows:

The affirmative’s burden is to show that the aff a) has someone doing something and b) is a good idea. The negative’s burden is a) to meaningfully engage with the aff and b) show the aff is a bad idea. Whether either side wants to add to their burden is up to them, but that’s how I enter the round.

Both sides should link back to a framework and tell me why I should care about their impacts. LD is unique as a values debate and it’s unfortunate the way it’s been left behind on progressive circuits. I evaluate the debate as to who best demonstrates they link back to the framework of the round.

Extensions, impact weighing, and crystallization are very important to me. Evidence is especially important - it’s the foundation of any argument. Be clear about your advocacy and your arguments. Extend arguments with claim, warrant, and impact instead of just stating the card name. Consolidate the round to its key issues and show me what matters. Sign-posting is very important. Give me voters in the last speech!

Traditional/Whole Res Cases
Go for it. This is my bread and butter. I'd recommend focusing on linking to framework and impact calculus. There isn't enough evidence comparison in this style.

CPs and DAs
A well-researched CP and DA makes me really happy, especially if the evidence has a strong link chain. Extinction and nuclear war are legitimate concerns in a lot of policy areas, but the link chain has to be very clear for me to buy it.

I love politics DAs, but the link chain needs to be especially clear if it's the 2NR strategy - why is the aff the brightline for the impact?

Ks and Phil
I read Ks and phil cases in high school and frequently coach students on these arguments. I’ve likely read whatever literature you’re pulling from, but you should assume I’m an uninformed audience. You should be able to clearly explain the argument without buzzwords or highly technical language, especially on the alternative for the K. Even if I know the argument, I won't vote on it if your explanation isn't clear. Also, be sure to identify impacts to violating the philosophy. Why should I care about it?

Debaters often misinterpret or exclude significant parts of the literature they’re using. Sometimes, this outright contradicts what they’re arguing. Make sure what you’re reading accurately reflects your author or risk losing my ballot. I recommend opponents to make this argument if applicable.

I love philosophy and spent several years working in how we should teach philosophy to students. With that said, I put it as a 3 on my prefs shortcut because I think debaters typically don't approach philosophy well. They don't understand the literature, generally only read backfiles, and can't explain these complex ideas in clear sentences. I think the biggest issue for philosophy debaters is 1) making sure their contentions actually link to the framework and 2) explaining how the philosophy interacts with their opponent's own framework and impacts. Struggle in these areas tend to happen when debaters don't fully understand the literature. If you feel this doesn't apply to you, then I'm likely a 1 or 2 for you.

Also, tricks aren’t phil.

Theory and Topicality

I still think theory is valuable for debate but am weary of it being misused. I recommend only using it if there's legitimate abuse in the round that creates a significant structural disadvantage. If you do, be clear, weigh impacts, and tell me if the shell comes before the case. I won't buy frivolous theory and have a low threshold for responses to it (i.e., "gut check - this is frivolous theory").

Topicality is different. It's legitimate to question whether the aff is topical (and whether the aff needs to be topical in the first place), but there are frivolous topicality shells that I view the same way as frivolous theory. I think a lot of these frivolous shells (e.g., "USFG acronyms bad") are better off as plan flaws.

Non-Topical Affs

Debating the topic is good. Not debating the topic can also be good. If you're running a non-topical aff, my only expectations are 1) why we should abandon the topic, 2) why the topic can't contain your advocacy, and 3) how voting aff solves your impacts. If you do that and win the flow, I have no problem voting for a non-topical aff. My biggest issue with these arguments is debaters can't articulate how the ballot solves the problem.

Tricks
Don’t run them. They’re bad for debate. It's an auto-loss and 20 speaks. This includes formatting your doc in such a way that it makes it extremely difficult for your opponent to decipher it. This also includes spikes.

I have a low threshold for answering tricks - “This is a trick. They’re bad for debate” is enough.

Disclosure

Disclosure is good for debate, especially for small school/lone wolf debaters like I was. I’m very sympathetic to disclosure arguments if it’s clear the opponent hasn’t disclosed. My expectation is that you provide an open source doc of your aff on the wiki or email to your opponent. The only exception is students whose school bar you from disclosing or there’s some other reason outside of your control, such as tech issues. In those situations, you should still try to disclose to the best capacity you’re able to.

You don’t need to disclose new arguments. They’re new.

Spreading

Spreading is fine. I'll say "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

Tech over truth within reason

Prep time ends when the doc is sent

Be respectful. Debate is an activity for everyone

No flex prep

2NRs shouldn’t go for everything

Evidence has become increasingly poor in debate and I’m sad debaters don’t spend more time on evidence debates

If you’re a varsity debater going against a novice debater and intentionally overwhelm them, that’ll lead to a loss and 26 speaks. This is not to say go easy on them, just treat them like any other opponent. The same goes for a circuit debater trying to out-circuit someone from a traditional background or just entering the national scene.

How you deliver your arguments and conduct yourself in round matters

Be brief with your off-time roadmaps and don’t say “This is a x minute speech”

If you go significantly over time, I'm docking speaks

Don't curse

Face the judge when you're speaking

Speaker Points

30: Flawless argumentation, solid delivery, and I learned something from the debater.

29.5-29.9: Excellent skills and strategy, good delivery

29-29.4: Same as above but needs work on delivery

28.5-28.9: Good debate skills and decent delivery; shows promise

27-28.4: Needs work on argumentative and delivery skills

<27: You did something bad, like a racist argument.

People who've had a significant impact on me and heavily influenced my views on debate

Byron Arthur

Aaron Timmons

Jonathan Alston

Elijah Smith

Chris Randall

Ed Williams

Bennett Eckert

Chetan Hertzig