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

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

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

Timing

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

Speed

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

Flex Prep

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

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

Evidence Ethics

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

Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

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

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judging style

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

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

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

Topicality

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

Theory

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

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

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

Burden Interpretations

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

My background: I debated for Georgia State and West Georgia. I was heavily involved in debate for a decade (competing, coaching and judging as a hired gun). I have judged, literally, hundreds of rounds (mostly high school) and coached teams to TOC bids. I'm not working with any schools this year, just judging. I judged a fair number of high school rounds last year and this year and at GSU on the collegiate level. 

Prep time ends when the jump drive leave the computer -- if you're into that sort of thing.

Here are my biases:

1) Debate is a game. Like sports, the game affects life outside of the activity, but it's just a game.

2) Not all inclusion is good. The game needs limits and structure, but that's the beauty of debate is that you get to make arguments about how the rules, norms and structures of the activity function.

3) My role is to evaluate competing arguments each team makes and weigh them.

Be good and be good at it.

Congressional Debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kelvinmaiohmai@gmail.com

I will disclose my decision and give RFD. Will also disclose speaks on request. For every minute you post-round me, I take away one speaker point (asking for legitimate feedback is ok). Please be sure to read my paradigm in its entirety (yes it's long but too much information is always better than too little). I don't mind giving a summary before rounds, but if you neglect to read my paradigm and do something I don't like and then you lose because of it, that's on you. If you're looking for policy, you can skip to the bottom but reading through might help you. If you're looking for PF, skip to the bottom.

Cheating is an auto-drop. I don't care how hard you may be winning everything else, if you are caught cheating you will automatically be dropped.

Prefs:

1: Case, LARPing with an LD framework, philosophy

2: K

2.5 (don't dislike but don't actually like either): Theory (only if actually abusive), LARPing without an LD framework

3:

4 (strike me please): Friv theory, tricks, RVI, etc

Background:
Debated for 3 years in varsity LD at Northview High School from 2012-2015. Have been judging on and off for the past 6 years. Currently working as a quant risk analyst in the banking/financial services industry after finishing my masters in quant risk analysis.

Speed:
I'm ok with speed for the most part. Spreading is generally ok if you are clear, but if you aren't, I will clear you twice before I stop flowing. Don't sacrifice clarity for speed, you'll lose speaks. Make sure you look up once in a while to make sure I'm flowing and understanding your arguments (not an issue with email chains). Slow down a bit for taglines. Not an issue if you do email chains, but make sure you're letting me know which cards you're cutting. If you do email chains, don't forget your clarity still matters for speaks. For online tournaments, there might be difficulties and so I would prefer a generally slower pace in case issues arise.

Prep:
I'm ok with flex prep. Flashing doesn't count towards prep. Don't steal prep. I'm a really lenient and reasonable judge so I'll let you finish your sentence.

CX:

I don't flow cross, so if you want to make a point, make it in a speech.

Roadmap/signpost:

Please do this. It makes it easier to flow the debate and will make it easier for me to give an RFD.

Voters:
Please do this. I want you to write the ballot for me. Tell me EXACTLY why you win, and why I should uphold your framework over your opponent's. I shouldn't be doing the work for you.

ARGUMENTS:

"Tech over truth."

Tabula rasa

***I am a more traditional LD judge who accepts progressive arguments as long as they have a clear LD framework. I believe that the framework in LD is the fundamental difference between LD and policy, and so if you don't have this framework I will default to voting against you. If you only want to run policy framework, you might as well just switch to policy. I'm not asking for a super philosophical debate (although I do know a lot of philosophy and enjoy it), but I am asking for some sort of LD framework. Framework is like 70% of my RFD. Clash is good.

Adjust to your opponent. If you run something like K or theory against a novice, that won't reflect well in your speaks.

Theory and RVIs (3/7/2020 post-GA varsity state update):
I find theory and RVIs incredibly boring to judge, and I honestly don't even get what RVIs are since they weren't really a thing when I debated. Don't read theory shells if your opponent isn't actually being abusive, I'll probably vote you down. If both debaters choose to read theory/RVIs when neither are actually being abusive, I reserve the right to stop flowing and just flip a coin to decide winner. Both speakers will then receive a 27.5 in speaks. Friv theory is an autodrop. Don't waste my time or your opponent's time. Not a fan of tricks either. Don't waste my time with blippy one-liners. Reading the same theory/RVIs for every tournament is incredibly boring for me to listen to.

DAs:
Sure, make sure well-warranted and links to resolution.

K:
I love listening to k. That's not to say I'll always vote for them, but I will understand them and will vote on them if done correctly.

CPs:
Yes. I love CPs as well so I'm ok with them as long as they link and are unique. I will vote on a perm if your CP is non-unique. Kicking a permed CP is going to negatively impact you.

Impact calc:

Impact calc is good. I weigh impacts in the RFD if needed.

Dropped arguments:

Don't just say "extend _____ b/c opponent dropped it." Explain how the dropped argument impacts the debate itself

Above all else, have fun! I believe that if you don't enjoy what you're doing, it's not worth doing, so please have fun and relax. Good luck!

Other prefs based off judging rounds:

If you're going to read arguments on analytics/data science/economics/finance/financial theory/markets, please make sure you at least research the topic. I'm a quant in the banking industry and it can be frustrating to hear people butcher these things so hard. You don't need to have a PhD level of understanding, but please at least do some reading on it.

I've also taken some actuarial theory/insurance mathematics, so if you want to run super technical args about actuarially fair priced insurance/optimal insurance and stuff like that I'll understand.

Don't read identity k arguments while not being a member of that identity AND read a link that your opponent is speaking for others in their advocacy. It comes off as incredibly short-sighted, and if your opponent calls you out and says you link I'll vote you down.

Please no RVIs, this has been in my paradigm for a long time and I still have people try to read them in front of me. I've literally been in a situation of judging a break round where all 3 judges (myself included) did not understand what the heck was going on.

Please stop reading generic theory shells. What's the point of getting excited for new topics if your strat is to find one or two arguments and then stuff theory shells and spikes into your case? Where is the educational value in that (yes, generally I agree that fairness>education but that doesn't mean that education isn't important). If I can clearly tell that what you're reading is 80% the same as what you were reading last topic, you'll probably lose speaks. Only use theory shells if your opponent is actually being abusive.

For the random policy debates I judge here and there:

I'm pretty ok with spreading and args, so it should be fine. If I HAD to pick a paradigm, it would probably be something like case/impacts/DA/CP>K>Topicality>>>>>>>Theory/RVI. This is not set in stone however.

For the random PF debates I judge here and there:

PF is PF, and at its core it should be lay debate. When I judge PF, I will approach the round as if I were a lay judge. If you're going to LARP, you'll probably lose speaks and the debate as well. If you spread, you will lose speaks.

My last paradigm was way overdue for a rehaul. Here are some things:

1. I'm an Emory student majoring in philosophy and biology. I love transhumanism.

2. I hate theory and will almost never vote on it unless it is actual abuse. I have seen rounds where someone runs theory because the aff didn't say resolved, but when asked in cross fire clarified. Don't run theory in front of my unless necessary.

3. Have a value structure.

4. On balance, I prefer traditional debate + speed. However, I understand for the most part this isn't always the case.

5. Impact yourself.

6. If I say clear more than once, I will probably dock speaker points. Also, if something isn't on my flow, I won't vote for it even if you said it.

7. Don't argue with me about my decision. Ask questions, clarifications, but know that my decision is final and can't be changed.

Finally, I understand this isn't really a paradigm, moreso a preference list. Ask me questions if you can intuit the answer from this. :)

Judge Philosophy

Name: Lisa Willoughby

Current Affiliation: Midtown High School formerly Henry W. Grady High School

Conflicts: AUDL teams

Debate Experience: 1 year debating High School 1978-79, Coaching High School 1984-present

How many rounds have you judged in 2012-13: 50, 2013-2014: 45, 2015-2016: 25, 2016-17 15, 2017-2018: 30, 2018-19: 30, 2019-20:10, 2020-21: 40, 2021-2022: 35, 2022-2023:6

send evidence e-mail chain to quaintt@aol.com

I still view my self as a policy maker unless the debaters specify a different role for my ballot. I love impact comparison between disadvantages and advantages, what Rich Edwards used to call Desirability. I don’t mind the politics disad, but I am open to Kritiks of Politics.

I like Counterplans, especially case specific counterplans. I certainly think that some counterplans are arguably illegitimate; for example, I think that some international counterplans are utopian, and arguably claim advantages beyond the reciprocal scope of the affirmative, and are, therefore, unfair. I think that negatives should offer a solvency advocate for all aspects of their counterplan, and that multi-plank cps are problematic. I think that there are several reasons why consultation counterplans, and the States CP could be unfair. I will not vote unilaterally on any of these theoretical objections; the debaters need to demonstrate for me why a particular counterplan would be unfair.

I have a minor in Philosophy, and love good Kritik debate. Sadly, I have seen a lot of bad Kritik debate. I think that K debaters need to have a strong understanding of the K authors that they embrace. I really want to understand the alternative or the role of my ballot. I have no problem with a K Aff, but am certainly willing to vote on Framework/T against a case that does not have at least a clear advocacy statement that I can understand. I am persuadable on "AFF must be USFG."

I like Topicality, Theory and Framework arguments when they are merited. I want to see fair division of ground or discourse that allows both teams a chance to prepare and be ready to engage the arguments.

I prefer substance to theory; go for the theoretical objections when the abuse is real.

As for style, I love good line-by-line debate. I adore evidence comparison, and argument comparison. I am fairly comfortable with speed, but I like clarity. I have discovered that as I get older, I am very comfortable asking the students to "clear." I enjoy humor; I prefer entertaining cross-examinations to belligerent CX. Warrant your claims with evidence or reasoning.

Ultimately, I demand civility: any rhetoric, language, performance or interactions that demean, dehumanize or trivialize fellow debaters, their arguments or judges would be problematic, and I believe, a voting issue.

An occasional interruption of a partner’s speech or deferring to a more expert partner to answer a CX question is not a problem in my view. Generally only one debater at a time should be speaking. Interruptions of partner speeches or CX that makes one partner merely a ventriloquist for the other are extremely problematic.

Clipping cards is cheating. Quoting authors or evidence out of context, or distorting the original meaning of a text or narrative is both intellectually bankrupt and unfair.

There is no such thing as one ideal form or type of debate. I love the clash of ideas and argumentation. That said, I prefer discourse that is educational, and substantive. I want to walk away from a round, as I often do, feeling reassured that the policy makers, educators, and citizens of the future will seek to do a reasonable and ethical job of running the world.

For Lincoln Douglas debates:

I am "old school" and feel most comfortable in a Value/Criterion Framework, but it is your debate to frame. Because I judge policy frequently, I am comfortable with speed but generally find it is needless. Clarity is paramount. Because of the limited time, I find that I typically err AFF on theoretical objections much more than I would in a policy round.

I believe that any argument that an AFF wants to weigh in the 2AR needs to be in the 1AR. I will vote against new 2AR arguments.

I believe that NEG has an obligation to clash with the AFF. For this reason, a counterplan would only be justified in a round when the AFF argues for a plan; otherwise a counterplan is an argument for the AFF. The NEG must force a decision, and for that reason, I am not fond of what used to be called a 'balance neg.'