I debated Lincoln Douglas for 4 years in high school; I was a state semi-finalist, finalist, NCFL octo-finalist, and three-time NSDA qualifier. I debated for three years at Brown University and I'm now the LD coach for Upper St. Clair.

I prefer moderate speed; arguments should be well articulated to me and to your opponent. I hope that anyone I'm judging prefers to win based on their merits, rather than speaking too quickly for their opponents' (many of which may be local competitors) to understand. I won't drop anyone for speaking quickly, but if you win because your opponent cannot understand you, I will reflect that with low speaker points.

I majored in philosophy and strongly believe that LD is and should be a value driven debate. I'm open to most any argument, but I ask that your arguments be intended to engage with the topic and make for a meaningful debate.

Please do not go out of your way to make your position intentionally inaccessible or confusing. I will vote according to the the flow; regardless of my personal opinions on your debating style.

Disingenuous and gimmicky debate approaches will be met with low speaks; show to me that you've researched and thought more about this topic than anyone else.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

Have competed in LD, PF, Policy, and Extemp; have coached LD, PF, Policy, and Parliamentary Debate. Will flow all debates. Hate spreading in all events.

LD: Stats and empirical data are fine but without strong philosophical backing, it will be hard for me to give a win. Prefer applications of philosophical framework that show some level of thought and intuition (I think a Value of Morality is fairly weak and needs an extremely strong VC to be successful).

PF & Parli: Nothing major, but again, no spreading. Require credible sources with actual data — opinion pieces are fine, but much weaker than empirical data. If you try to extrapolate data from a source like multiplying stats incorrectly, then quote them as part of the source, I will give you the loss automatically. It must be very clear what is your own mathematical extrapolation (which is more than likely incorrect), and what is actually part of the original source. If you do not have a piece of evidence cited in your case, you will also automatically receive a loss.

Policy: Do whatever you want.

ericafan564[at]gmail.com

I debated (LD and occasionally policy) for four years in PA, and a lil on the national circuit.

It's really difficult to win in front of me if you don't talk about framework. I expect some sort of grounding for your normative claims. It's a given, but I weigh all claims on whatever framework wins/is agreed upon. That is, if you don't talk about framework, I assume you agree with your opponent. If neither of you talk about framework, I default to whatever I feel you are implicitly supposing. That said, please weigh bc I'm generally not very charitable when I am forced to weigh arguments for myself.

I love K debate if ya know how to do it, though I'm not an excellent theory judge. I default to reasonability and drop the argument. But can be easily convinced otherwise if you just really wanna run theory.

I'm fine with all sorts of arguments and argument styles. Performative pieces are fine with me. I will take any of your arguments seriously if you take them seriously. I will not reject arguments that seem intuitively wrong (death good, violence good, slavery good, etc) on face, but these arguments are really easy to refute. If your opponent makes some horrifying claim like "racism is good" you should be able to easily tell me why that's wrong, but I'm not going to drop an argument that wasn't answered. That said, I really don't feel comfortable voting for things that are straight up morally repugnant, and will only entertain such arguments for the sake of education (hopefully, explicating why these claims are So So So wrong during the round). I take these kinds of arguments seriously, and if it so happens that these claims go unanswered and I am forced to vote for a case that supports any deeply offensive and discriminatory claims/ideology, I will hold debaters after round to talk about the veracity (or more likely, lack there of) of these arguments outside of the round. I would prefer not to be put in that position! so either answer all arguments or don't run horrifying arguments!

Speed is generally fine if you do choose to spread, but I'm out of practice and I have a high threshold for clarity. If I have to say clear more than twice, I will start deducting speaks. If it gets kinda ridiculous (me yelling clear a bunch, and you not slowing down), I will drop the debater.

At the end of the day, debate is just an activity and I find kindness to be an important virtue! So, I have no tolerance for rudeness, or unwarranted aggressiveness during round. I have no qualms about dropping debaters that make purposely offensive remarks to their opponent/make their opponents feel unsafe.

I'm happy to answer questions before round. Also, philosophy is amazing! If you have an interest in philosophy, and have any questions/just wanna talk about it, I would love to have those conversations.

Kale Fithian—Erie (PA) McDowell Policy Paradigm

Background: I competed in extemp in high school and speech/LD in college in the early to mid 1990s. I never competed in policy debate. I picked up judging after being trained about 20 years ago. I judge 10-15 rounds a year mostly at local tournaments in Western Pennsylvania/Eastern Ohio. I occasionally judge circuit debate and have judged several times at NCFL Grand Nationals.

I would best be described as an experienced traditional judge with some exposure to circuit policy debate. Speed is not something that I am philosophically opposed to but I can probably only handle about 65-70% of the fastest spreading. Clear tags and direction on the flow will help. I will say clear if needed.

I flow on legal pads and don’t access technology during the round. It has to be on my flow for me to vote on it and not just in an email chain.

I am reasonably well versed on current events but do not have any especially specific knowledge of this topic area.

Round Procedure: I will time just in case there is a dispute but otherwise you are welcome to time yourselves. I won’t count any technology time such as flashing information against prep but it is your responsibility to let me know that you have stopped prepping.

Open cross-ex is fine with me but I will not require any questions to be answered during anyone’s prep time.

I am not overly concerned with formality of procedure but I will penalize heavily for clear unsportsmanlike or inappropriate behavior. Treat the activity and your opponents with respect and this should not be an issue.

I will disclose and do a brief reason for decision but I write most of my comments on the physical or computer ballot.

General Philosophy: My goal at the beginning of any round is to be as non-interventionist and tab rasa as possible. It will be the debaters’ job to identify the key issues of the round, argue them and guide me by providing voting issues. If there is a true breakdown of the round or lack of clash I will default to policymaker with an impact calculus as my preferred method of round evaluation.

Specific Arguments:

T—I have a fairly high threshold for T. I will tend to default to a reasonableness argument unless the Neg clearly wins the line by line.

FW—I am always open to either side framing the debate and setting up the importance of the arguments (as noted above in my tab rasa philosophy). I will not vote specifically on FW but if you can show the specific reason your arguments win under a FW I agree with you will most likely win the round if your points truly match the FW. If you can show what specifically you are missing out on if I accept your opponent’s framework that would go a long way.

CP—I am open to CP’s by the neg. If your CP will lead to a better net benefit than the Aff plan then I am going to potentially vote for it as part of the impact calc in the round. Likewise if the Aff plan has better net benefits then the Neg then I would be inclined to vote Aff at least on the plan portion. I am however not opposed to the Aff running T, harms, DA, etc… against a CP.

DA—I will consider both the Aff and Neg running DAs against a plan or counterplan to be fair arguments relating to the effectiveness of those cases. If the DAs outweigh the net benefits of either that can be a key voter in the round.

K—I am fine with Ks being run but it is up to the debater running it to make sure they explain the potential impact/consequences/reasons for the K to be accepted and to show why the topic or case is truly related to the K.

On Case—I am favorable to the Neg being able to attack the Aff case. I am more likely to vote on some sort of harms but will vote stock issues if it is clearly won in argumentation.

Performance Aff/Aff K—I am not very familiar and hold a high threshold here. If this is done it will need to be clearly explained as to why this is clearly better than running a traditional case.

Fiat—I will grant Aff fiat and any non-attacked plan gets full benefits as if it happened (granted harms etc.. could still be argued).

Lincoln Douglas Addendum:

I have been judging Lincoln Douglas for about 20 years and judge about 20-25 rounds each season mostly at local tournaments in Western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio. I have very limited exposure to any sort of circuit Lincoln Douglas but since I judge policy somewhat regularly I am still passingly familiar with the style. However I do not feel spreading or excessive speed should be common in Lincoln Douglas. Fast conversational pace should be the highest pace needed.

For all of the round procedures see above from the policy paradigm. For Lincoln Douglas I still try to be as Tab Rasa as possible and have the students determine the key voting issues in the round. However both my philosophy and judging experience leans heavily towards the traditional LD style. So in a close round I will default to who won the value and potentially criterion clash more heavily than practical applications, policy implications, or solvency. I do flow the main arguments and rebuttals for the debate but I am fine with grouping or big picture arguments and cross-application. However it must be clearly explained why an argument successfully counters multiple opposing views or why a cross-application is valid. I value the argumentation aspect of debate in LD more as I consider it to be a truly separate event from policy.

Traditional judge
Speak clearly and convince me of your side of the case

One could consider me as both traditional parent judge and non-traditional parent coach. When it comes to experience, I have never participated in actual LD debate myself. However, I have a strong interest in philosophy, history and political science and have formal education in these subjects, even though I work as a physician. I am very much involved with coaching my daughter who participates in varsity LD debate. It means that I have spent some time on the topic that you are debating in front of me, and I am very well familiar with most of aff and neg arguments. I leave my opinions at home. However, it is your job as a debater to convince me that your arguments are stronger than your opponent's. Everything matters. You have to explain how you derived your values and criteria from the resolution, provide a framework, construct contentions which connect and re-enforce your framework, demonstrate superiority of your values and criteria via clashes and rebuttals. Non-traditional routes such as debate theory, disclosure, tricks, etc are fine but it will not grant you victory if it is your only strength in the round. You may talk as fast as you want but I have to be able to flow your round. I do not like spreading - it puts emphasis on your ability to talk fast ( perhaps beneficial to your potential career at auction (just kidding)) but takes away the essence of an interesting and constructive debate. If, in my opinion, you are talking too fast. I will let you know. I evaluate your speech skills and ability to think on your feet. You have to present yourself professionally and be courteous to your opponent. Throwing ideological labels and calling your opponent's arguments idiotic, racist, misogynistic, leftists, right-winged, etc will not win this debate. You have to prove your side. That is the point of LD debate. It is an honor to judge your round, and I take this job very seriously. Best of luck. I am looking forward to your debate.

I competed in LD in High School and Parliamentary in college.

I don't mind speed, but clarity becomes more and more important the faster you go. If I can't understand it, I can't flow it, and I can't vote on it.

Everything needs to come back to the value debate, so I'm happy to hear stats and facts, but it needs to make a cohesive picture with your value structure. I've done graduate work in philosophy, so it is fine if you are doing something wild there as long as you explain it clearly.

Impact your arguments and tell me why you won.

I am a parent judge, please speak clearly and emphasize the key reasons why you won at the end of the debate.

I am a traditional judge. Speak loudly, clearly, and please do not spread unless you are experienced enough that you can do it successfully.

I debated Lincoln Douglas for 3 years in high school, and have coached for the past two years with novice debaters. Most of my experience was in western Pennsylvania on a local level, but I did compete occasionally on the national circuit.

My judge paradigm is limited only by what I can understand, because I don't really have any preferences concerning how students should debate or how the round should play out. If you take sufficient time explain your arguments then you can do whatever your want. I'm fine with theory or k's or any other off args, but am not used to evaluating them based on the level of debate I usually judge nowadays. Speed is fine as long as I can flow (can follow the slower end of what is considered "spreading" but not ridiculous speeds). Still debaters should preference clarity over speed. If a point is especially important, slow down. 

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Speed

I am a traditional judge.

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.

The faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak.

In general, You will come across more confident if you speak slower. Speaking fast means you are trying to hide something from the judge.

yes I want to be on the email chain: junewearden05@gmail.com

Pittsburgh Central Catholic '18

Pitt '22

WARNING: I have only been peripherally engaged with the immigration topic - if you're going to use acronyms / do in-depth law analysis you're going to have to slow down and explain it to me

When I debated in high school I primarily ran soft-left affs, but I don't (think) I have a strong ideological preference. I'm not going to pretend I'm tabula rasa but there are very few arguments I will a priori vote down. (For instance, I'm never going to vote for racism = good)

As long as you can provide me with a coherent explanation of your world-view and how that relates to what is being said in the round you'll be okay.

If you have questions about more specific arguments/positions feel free to ask.

add me to the email chain: djwisniew@gmail.com

I am a fifth year parent judge and a former competitor in Policy in the late 80s. Currently, I judge for my daughter who is a small school LD debater. Pref me high if you want a FLAY judge

No spreading - I do NOT appreciate spreading. Skimming through a document trying to figure out where you are is NOT debate. I need to be able to follow and understand your arguments and responses. Dazzle me with your intellect, not your speed. I will not be relying on the docs - they're only good for reference.

For LD circuit debate - It’s in your best interest to give me signposts (a lot of them, and be clear) - policy, case, K, disad, counter plan, etc. I will evaluate the flow per your direction. If T comes before case, tell me why and we're good. I like K when done well, but it's not an automatic win. I enter the round tabula-rasa, if you're running something complex please explain it well. Make sure I know where you are in the flow!

For Parliamentary Debate - I judge you based on what you tell me, not what I know. There’s never a bad side of the motion. I will be flowing all your arguments, and I make my decisions based on who convinces me their arguments are the strongest. Don’t forget to weigh, this is crucial to how I make my decisions! Any impacts are welcome. The extra 30 seconds are intended to complete a thought, not start a new one. Ties are awarded to the Opposition. Please rise when you want to interrupt with a question. Time pauses for POCs and POs, not POIs. Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun!

For all other debate most of the same points go - run whatever you’re comfortable with and I’ll judge the way you tell me to. A list of preferences:

1. Contentions should be based on quality, not quantity. I’m not going to vote for you if you fly through 12 contentions and tell me your opponent dropped half of them.

2. In circuit debate you should slow down and literally write the ballot for me. I don't like tricks, but for everything else tell me what weighs and I will vote for the most convincing.

3. I will weigh all arguments carried through, and consider the impact of dropped arguments per your direction. (please don't drop your opponent's entire case). In LD, please weigh your argument against your framework.Framework is crucial in LD, and you should always have impacts. In all others, please clearly state how your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

4. I don't consider any new arguments in final speeches.

5. In your final speeches, please number or letter your voting points so we are all on the same page. I’ll flow you regardless, but it’s in your best interest.

Debate should be educational and fair. Good luck and have fun!