Debaters in both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum debate need to stay focused on their resolutions. In LD, proving a philosophy doesn't matter if debaters can't prove their resolution to be true. Whether or not a person has a value or a criterion doesn't matter, as long as that person can prove or disprove the resolution. However, looking at a resolution through the lens of a particular value can be helpful.

Remember, the words in each resolution are there for a reason. Aff/Pro debaters need to defend them. Neg/Con debaters need to prove that they aren't true. Debaters also need to make sure they speak clearly.

Speed isn't a problem as long as a person speaks loudly and clearly. If people have any doubts whether or not they can be heard and understood, then they need to slow down. As a judge, all the evidence and analysis in the world are for naught if a debater cannot be understood.

Lincoln-Douglas:

Major Issues:
The debaters are responsible for identifying, defining, and establishing the key issues in the round. I will vote on whichever is the strongest-argued, and while that does sometimes come from a large spread of evidence, it is the interpretation and management of those issues that ought to determine which side outweighs the other.

For example: if both sides agree to debate which of them is more just, that refines the debate to a discussion of that metric. Each can determine how they get to "more" in their own way, but that can happen along a multitude of approaches as magnitude and volume are not the same thing. Debaters should read the round attentively and be prepared to follow the arguments, gaining offense along the way while not leaving arguments available for opponent' extensions.

Plan Text, Solvency or Kritik:
I'll hear just about any argument, but if the debater cannot tell me why that is the better option for framework arguments, I'll default to value and criteria. Clash should be clean and accurately reflect the burdens that each debater accepts after the first two speeches.

Speaker points:
30: your round is suitable for a tournament final
29: your round is suitable for a tournament semifinal
28-27: your round is suitable for a winning record

My background:
I am a 10th and 12th grade English and composition teacher with a literature, rhetoric, and philosophy background. I have served as an LD coach from 2012-2016 and 2020-2021 and am very experienced with both the activity and its myriad topics.

**DISCLAIMER** IF YOU ASK MY PARADIGM BEFORE A ROUND -- BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS EVEN THOUGH I TOOK TIME TO WRITE IT -- YOU WILL MAKE ME ANGRY AT YOU. Feel free to ask specific questions regarding my paradigm before the round though :)

A few of my thoughts on PF debate:

1) Speed: I can keep up with speed, but please make sure to articulate yourself. If I can't understand the words you are saying at the pace you're saying them, then I can't flow. In addition, the speed at which you're talking at shouldn't interfere with your presentation. If I don’t flow it, it doesn’t exist. I will yell "slow" once, and then I'll just stop flowing.

2) Theory/Kritiks/Counterplans/Plans: In any capacity, these will = the L. If your strategy includes elements of this/you are unsure of what constitutes as theory/k/CP/plan, please ask before the round. If you don't ask and you run one of these arguments, this is on you and not on me.

3) Rebuttals: If you are speaking first, I'm fine with you spending all 4 minutes on opp case. If you are second speaker, you should defend your case in some capacity and briefly respond to args made on your case. At minimum, you must answer turns. If you speak second and don’t answer turns in rebuttal, you will almost certainly lose the round if your opponents go for those turns. This is not to say I think you need to go for everything in second rebuttal. I’m fine with you kicking arguments and thinking strategically during the round.

4) Summary/FF: I like clear voting issues. Summary and final focus should crystallize the round. Don't just do line-by-line. Also, if an argument isn't extended in both summary and FF, I won't vote on it.

5) Prep time/calling for cards: I won't take prep time if you call for cards and you're reviewing them. However, if you are working while you are looking for/reviewing cards, that IS prep and I will start the clock. I'm fine if you time your own prep, but know that I am also keeping time and my time is the official time.

6) How to win/lose/be upset with my ballot: Debate is a game. Evidence matters. Your crappy analytics don't hold as much weight for me as much as what the actual evidence says. If left to weigh an analytic against actual evidence, I default to the evidence every time. Also, provide analysis to the round -- AKA tell me what your evidence means. Racism/sexism/homophobia/xenophobia/anti-semitism/etc = immediate L with zero speaks. Be civil & polite. Shouting/condescension/insults will result in a reduction of speaker points. Speaking of speaker points, any Office references will bump up your speaks by .5. Something else you should know about me -- if I am left to weigh/figure out where you want me to vote on my own because you are not telling me what to evaluate, there's a good chance you won't like the RFD. You need to explain where you want me to vote and why. Clearly extend authors, clearly tell me voters, clearly tell me why you won those voters. CLARITY MATTERS. DISORGANIZED SPEECHES ARE BAD. If you are still reading this and are unsure of something, it is YOU JOB to ask me before the round. If you don't ask, that's on you.

7) Disclosure: I will disclose my decision after the round, unless specifically asked not to by the tournament. I don't mind being asked questions about my decision; I love helping people understand my thought process/increasing overall education [......that is what debate is about after all, right?] However if you argue with me after the round because you feel the need to try and change my decision, please know you have a -100% chance of changing my mind and a 100% chance that I change your speaker points to something that will take you out of the running for any speaker awards.

**In close rounds, I will call for all important cards extended in final focus. Your miscut is your fault, even if it wasn't mentioned in the debate.

Experience
I debated LD for 4 years in South Dakota and debated LD at Nationals my senior year. 

How I vote
I'll vote ultimately for the arguments presented in the round. I look first to a Resolutional Analysis (if one is presented) this frames the round and establishes the burdens for the debate. Next I'll look to Value/Criterion or Standard (if supplied) here please warrant why I should use your framework and do not just define how it works. Then I look at the Arguments, and Evidence presented in the contention level.

Framework
I prefer if there is a value and criterion.
It is okay if the debate comes down to impacts as long as your value/criterion also support this and you can explain why we're looking at impacts in the first place.

Delivery
For speed, I don't want it to be as fast as policy, but should be much quicker than a conversational speed. If you're going to speak fast please be clear and organized, also slow down to make sure I can catch tags and burdens presented.
Standard LD jargon is acceptable but I really prefer not to have policy jargon in LD rounds.

Also I'd rather debaters not continue cross-examination during prep time except for asking for evidence or sources. Please be proffessional and polite in round (this won't count against the results of the round except for in speaker points).

Voters: please tell me what issues to vote on and provide voters or crystallization in the last speech. These voters or at least the last speech should include points about the framework/standards, value and criterion.

Argumentation
Cross-Applying and extending arguments are fine but explain why extending it is connected to the round and why it matters. Also make the arguments for me, don't expect me to connect it all if you haven't explained how you win.

Theory
I do not really like theory especially if it is really generic or doesn't relate to the resolution.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Greaver%2C+Alliyah 

Traditional judge. Many years of experience, but not a fan of speed or kritiks. Approaches rounds as a policymaker unless persuaded otherwise. Speaking skills are important and the flow is important. In Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum rounds, Rhetorical skills and audience communication skills will weight heavily with me. I take old-school, in-depth PAPER notes. Argue “man in the street” to me.

Policy: I prefer that the debate center around classic stock issues. Topicality is definitely a voting issue: failure to argue the resolution itself is failure to affirm (or negate) the resolution.

Lincoln-Douglas: Every argument should revolve around the value contentions. Show me consistent positions within a well-defined value framework, clash between opposing value frameworks, and reasons to adopt one value framework over the other in the context of the resolution.

Public Forum: I approach the round with an open mind, but I expect evidence, logic, and attentive rebuttals.

----

Speed: I don't mind if you speak quickly, but I want to understand every word you say.

Tag Team: No. Except in PF Grand Crossfire, cross-examination is a conversation between two people. No one else has the floor.

As an LD judge, I am very pragmatic. Philosophy impacts the way I may view certain issues but to me, your position must be able to live and brief in the real world. I believe your value must be upheld by your issue contentions, and not just 'tacked on' to have a value. To me, your criteria is part of your analysis. It doesn't have to evaluate both side but help me evaluate and understand your case. I'm not opposed to subsuming a criteria (or value) and using it to your advantage but it is not required. Also, criteria usually doesn't factor much in my decision. My focus is on whether you prove the resolution true (if you're affirmative) or false (if you're negative) and whether there is value in voting for that position. Finally, to me, this is a communication activity so too much speed is not appreciated. While I'll do my best with speed, you jeopardize your persuasion and my ability to flow you. Signposting to help with flowing is also appreciated.

I did policy debate for 4 years at Sioux Falls Washington High School in South Dakota. I primarily debated policy style arguments, but I was familiar with debating the K.

Email: mckeekyl@sas.upenn.edu - if you've got a thread going I'd appreciate being on it!

Policy Debate:

I default to a policymaker paradigm, but I am willing to listen to all arguments. If you want to run an argument and you feel like you are good at debating that argument, then read it.

On speed:
I'm alright with listening to somewhat fast debates. On a scale of 1-10, I'd probably be a 7.

On DA's:
I really like interesting DA's that aren't generic. However, I understand generics are necessary, and I will vote on them. I also like impact calc IF it's quite specific. Magnitude = Huge, Timeframe = Now, and Probability = 100% is silly. I would prefer impact calc with actual numbers.

On T's:
I default to competing interpretations as I feel examining different definitions and their merits is an important way to evaluate the resolution. I normally vote on T if the case is actually non-topical, but I can be convinced otherwise if the definitions are satisfactory. The standards debate is also pretty important to me. If you can prove abuse, it will be much easier to get my ballot on T.

On CP's:
I also really enjoy creative CP's, although I find myself not voting for CP's too often. It seems like CP's are too often a timesuck, or it isn't explained well enough to get my ballot. The perm debate is important, and the CP should be competitive, although it doesn't necessarily have to be non-topical. However, I am less likely to vote for PIC's than I would for other types of CP's.

On Theory:
I don't like to vote on theory unless it is dropped or mishandled. I will default to rejecting the argument, although I can be persuaded to vote on theory provided there is actual abuse in the round.

On K's:
I am familiar with the structure and processes of K's, but I have not read a lot of K literature. That being said, if the K is very theory heavy, make sure to give an explanation that I would be able to understand. I think the K can be a great way to garner offense, but it shows if you are not well versed in your own K. If you are going to read a K in front of me, make sure that you've read up on the literature, as it shows if you are uninformed. I also really enjoy interesting K's, and a great K debate will always keep the round fresh.

On non-traditional debate/K-Aff's:
As kritikal affirmatives become more common, I find myself more and more willing to vote for them. However, if the K aff is very theory heavy, make sure that I get a good explanation. I am willing to listen to and vote on framework if you are the negative team, but I will vote for whoever best debates the framework flow. Negative teams that engage the affirmative are also much more likely to get my ballot.

Basically, run what you want and run it well.

PF Debate:

Despite judging more PF rounds in recent years, I am primarily used to debating and judging policy debate. I'm willing to listen to a larger variety of arguments as a result. There may be useful information in my policy paradigm above.

I vote on what is left in the final focus - a very good ff to me shows me the world of your case vs. the case of your opponent. Make it easy for me to vote for you - tell me why you win - I don't want to have to do a lot of work to decide a round, and I find teams that are the best are ones that can give me 1-3 reasons why I have to vote for them.

Impact calc is good in the FF. Given the short speech times in PF, there are often dropped arguments or ones that aren't fully refuted - tell me which impacts are most important, and why they might outweigh your opponents.

I like interesting and new arguments - if you think you have a unique argument, I'd love to hear it.

I'm totally fine with speed, but this is PF debate - there's a bit more to be said about convincingly extending your case and refuting the opponents case than just spreading and hoping for dropped arguments.

LD Debate:

I have only seen and/or judged a few LD debates - I'm likely unfamiliar with the topic and will need some greater explanation if your case if very heavy on theory or an unconventional philosophy. I'm fine with speed here, but again, if it's something I don't entirely understand, too much speed might make it difficult for me to follow along.

Be nice to each other, and have fun!

I am a fairly classic LD judge. I like to hear a strong value debate and well argued philosophic positions. For me, a criterion is an absolutely necessary component of a case and must provide either a weighing mechanism for the value or measuirng mechanism for acheiving the value. As a general rule I prefer empirical evidence, but will not prefer an argument with empirics over an analytical argument out of hand. 

I am a rhetoric coach, so I look for strong structure and clear arguments. Speed will not win you any points with me. This is a public address activity. Your arguments need to be understandable and substantiated. I will consider framework, but I will not vote solely on it. Make sure that you understand what your evidence is saying.

For policy debate, I am primarily a stock issues judge, though topicality is very difficult to win from me. I am open to counterplans, etc..., and I will basically judge whatever happens in the round. Thus, "stock issues" may be what I prefer, but I judge the round based on the arguments presented and the refutations of those arguments.

For public forum, I prefer direct clash-- actually refute the opponents case with your own case. I think favorably on cross-applying arguments from your case to the opponent's case. Importantly, follow the flow and do not cast it aside once the 2 minute speeches started-- you spent time developing those cases and arguments, so see them through in the summaries and final focus speeches.

For speech events, I follow the basic rules of each event. In drama, humorous, and related, I like to see clean transitions, clear and distinct characters, etc... In extemp, I like to know why the topic is important (why ask this question?), clear citations and warrants, and a speech that follows a logical line of analysis to its conclusion(s). In oratory and similar, clear logic (organization, thought process-- whatever is relevant to the topic and nature of the event) and a speech pattern that doesn't sound too memorized-- the speech should flow just as naturally as a conversation.

Policy

I still believe debate is a communication event. I do not like rounds consisting of throwing as much as humanly possible at the proverbial wall and hoping that something will stick. Debaters should focus on well-reasoned arguments that actually apply to the case being debated. If I can't understand what is being debated because of speed or because it isn't clearly explained, I will not consider it in my decision. I do not prefer kritiks or other random theory arguments. I will vote as a stock issues or policy maker judge.

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I like to hear a value and contentions that apply to the value and the resolution. Communication is important to me. Debaters should weigh arguments and tell me why they should win the round.

Public Forum

Debaters should communicate and run arguments that clash with those of the other team. I flow arguments and do consider drops, but debaters need to point out which issues are most important. The final focus for each team should be where the debaters frame the round and tell me why I should vote for them. I expect debaters to be polite.

Numbered points are from the NSDA ballot

1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.

2. Each debater has the burden to prove his or her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.

3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.

4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to him/her as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.

5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his or her opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.

6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.

7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.

I prefer to make my final decision of the voting issues the debaters present in the context of the round.  I do believe the debate is ultimately about the resolution. 

Deliver rate: I prefer typical conversational speed

Framework (value/criterion): Debaters need to tell me how the resolution should be evaluated based on its key value term(s) i.e. ought

Evidence:  Using known philosophical positions might be easier to understand, but are not required.  A philosophical argument does not require evidence, nor do thought experiments.  However, factual arguments require evidence.

Flowing: I write down the key arguments throughout the round vs keeping a rigorous flow.

Plans and Counterplans:  Not acceptable

Pet peeves: I dislike debaters arguing the generic faults of extreme positions on utilitarianism and deontology, rather than talking about the principles and consequences that are specifically tied to the resolution. I have become disenchanted with policy debate and don't like excesses of policy debate creeping into LD debate i.e. speed and kritiks. 

Experience:  I have judged LD since it started which was around 1979.  I was a high school policy debater.  I debated CEDA in college when they did propositions of value.  I have coached CEDA at the college level.  I'm currently an LD coach and have previously coached policy and public forum debate.  

Background:

Extemp Speaker (among other IE dabbling) and Policy Debater in high school, long enough ago to not really matter as an influence on my judging (especially considering the absence of policy debate in South Dakota, where I almost exclusively judge). Have judged all styles of debate (Policy, L/D, Public Forum) pretty consistently since 2004. I judge less frequently in recent years, but still enough tournaments/rounds to be versant in the topics and up-to-date on most argumentation trends. Tend to judge more in the later portion of the year.

Overall:

Debate and Individual Events are all about communication, so if you aren't speaking to your panel with the intent of communicating an idea/narrative to us (i.e., if you're speaking too quickly to reasonably follow you or if you're trying primarily to convince us you're charming or if your delivery is so laden with jargoned signposting that I need a decoder ring), you aren't achieving the prime purpose of the activity.

Each person in the room deserves respect that goes beyond perfunctory "Judges ready? Oppenent ready? Partner ready?" forumlas. Work to convey that respect by paying attention to the other speakers in the round, using cross examination for questions rather than soliloquoys on your own stances, and interacting with your judges like we're people rather than combination timers/transcription machines with facial expressions.

L/D:

I prefer debates that provide value clash over ones that dwell more in the contention debate and what feels like impact calculus. That said, if the debaters choose to move toward a more pragmatic measurement of the round, I can be comfortable weighing things from a more utilitarian perspective.

The debaters I find most convincing are those who craft a really great 'closing argument.' Don't think of "voters" as throw-away bullet points that you want the judge to write on their flow and copy verbatim in their Reason For Decision; use that phase of the round to boil down the most important considerations into a summation that compels us to see the round your way.

Public Forum:

I appreciate teams who can keep the "big picture" of the resolution itself at the heart of the debate. Getting too hung up in the "we-win-this-point-they-lose-that-point" recitation makes the clash the main show instead of making the affirmation or negation of the resolution the main show.

Exceptional debate comes from teams that can build and apply their argument from one phase of the round to the next. I stay the most engaged with the details of the round when debaters develop, rather than repeat or re-assert, their arguments.