While qualified to judge PF and LD, I am primarily a Speech coach. I admire the analysis and argumentation skills developed through debate, but these should not take the place of solid public speaking skills--and the worst thing is for debaters to develop poor speaking skills as a result of trying to fit as many arguments as possible into the time limit. So, do not spread! Make eye contact with me and with your opponents. You may talk quickly but it should be expressive rather than robotic. Sound like you believe what you are saying, not just spitting out statistics and references.

Other than that, stick to the basics: counter each of your opponent's contentions with clear arguments. I want to see you clash head-to-head, not talking past each other.

I appreciate you articulating what you see as the voting issues in the round, but be careful not to tell me multiple times I "have" to vote in your favor. It's a pet peeve of mine to be told what to do by someone I do not know.

Credentials: 4 years of high school competitive experience in numerous speech events and LD. Coach since 2011, head coach since 2013.

For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

I know a lot of judges pontificate for 1000+ words and detail every element of their judging philosophy. I'm not one of those judges. For one thing, I have a life. For another, my philosophy when it comes to judging is actually pretty simple.

Debate is a competition about COMMUNICATION. It's an argument about ideas. That means that the arguments you make matter and the way you make them matters just as much. I'm a flow judge and will penalize debaters who drop points altogether. Extending an argument by reference or even within the context of clash doesn't take much time. Even if it just seems like you ran out of time, who am I to know whether you actually just have no good evidence to refute your opponent? At the end of the day, if both contestants make good arguments but one has points that they extend that were never addressed, those contentions flow in their direction and may determine the ballot. It's only fair.

But the way you make the argument is often overlooked but SO important. This is particularly true in L/D, which after all is an event steeped in the history of the Lincoln/Douglas debates of the mid-19th century and Public Forum, which traces its roots to Ted Turner's frustration with the deterioration of debate as a contest of communication. Can you imagine Abraham Lincoln spreading? Me neither. I respect your ability to spread, but the cacophony of words issuing from your mouth isn't communication, it's a gimmick, substituting quantity over quality. I can't award you wins on arguments if my flow can't keep up with your rate of speech. And if two debaters clash and each make good points, and I can't quite decide who won the argument of ideas, I'll use speaking ability and persuasiveness to break ties and award victories. I also reserve the right to award higher speaker points to the losing debater. After all, sometimes the better speaker has worse arguments.

I'm not a fan of theory debates. Disclosure Theory, in particular, seems like a very lame way to frame a debate and go for a win. I came for a debate on the merits pro/con on a matter of public policy. That's what this whole exercise is about. I am very likely to judge the round based on who makes the best arguments on that front. I've never considered a theory argument an RFD. It's not to say that I never will... it's just to say that I never have previously.

Professionally, I served for nearly five years as Secretary of the Senate for the State of Nevada and for three years as Director of the Kentucky Legislature. I see facilitating speech and debate as fundamental to the health of our democracy, which let's face it could use more cogent well-reasoned well-informed debates.

I missed my high school graduation in order to go to NSDA Nationals in my senior year of high school, over 25 years ago. Speech and Debate runs in my blood. I love being a part of this and hope you find as much fulfillment out of it as I do. Good luck.

tl;dr Debate is a contest of communications. Speak well, make good arguments, earn my ballot!

I did LD debate for 3 years in high school at Cary Academy. Now I'm at UNC and where I continued competing for a brief time period.

For LD- I tend to value in-case points over value structure points so I wouldn't spend too much time making solely value structure arguments, though I understand it is necessary to address.

For all debate- I will pick a winner based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. When judging communication, I take into account speaking pace and organization. I will flow with you to keep up, but appreciate sign posting.

Other than speed, I have no strong preferences about cases and am open to listening to all arguments.

I am just a parent judge, but I have judged LD & PFD for 5 years now and this year (2020) would be my third time judging for the National Tournaments.

For the 2020 National Tournament conducted virtually, the first and foremost thing you should know is about the speed of your delivery. While I don't use speed of delivery as a factor in judging and really have no problem with spreading in face-to-face judging, please keep in mind that neither your $0.5 built-in laptop microphone nor typical network latency favors a fast delivery. If your words get distorted or lost during the transmission, I simply cannot understand you or follow the flow of your argument. Slower, but clear and precise, delivery works much better in this virtual format. If possible, you should test your video and audio setup when you are scrimmaging with your peers before the tournament.

As far as judging paradigm, I am pretty traditional and general audience type. For LD, I know the different philosophies, but I still expect a short and clear description when you say utilitarianism like any general audience adult would like. I am looking for a complete and comprehensive rationale, so please clearly tell me why your value weighs more, when measured/evaluated based on your criterion, demonstrated by your contentions and evidence, than your opponent's.

If you are a PFD competitor reading this because I end up in PFD judge pool, my PFD judging methodology is basically the same. Since most teams are basically using the same framework, if you want to invoke slightly different criterion, you are expected to explain and help your judge orient to your way of weighing things, even though for me I can probably guess pretty easily what you are trying to say since I have judged both LD and PFD.

Other than that, I don't really have any specific requirement or expectation. Maybe keep in mind to not just try to discredit/throw your opponent's evidence and forget to actually attack the argument. LD is typically better than PFD on this because there's a frame work debate element, but sometimes when you have the same framework as your opponent's this still happens.

I am in my 4th year judging Novice and Varsity Lincoln Douglas debates. I am a parent judge, and lack a lot of the technical lingo that goes along with the event. However, I have a good record at being a fair open-minded judge who is able to discern a good argument. I do not like spreading. If I cannot understand you I cannot effectively judge your argument against your opponent.

Call me old fashioned; I believe that an argument should be well thought out, well structured, and cogent. I like to see debaters who challenge their opponents on their points with a crafty and well-timed rebuttals, in other words, able to think on their feet.

I am a flow judge, I listen, take copious notes, and when I give my decision, I clearly state why I picked one side over the other. I am fair, but do not insult my intelligence by coming into the room without knowing your topic nor your history. That will hurt you. At this level I expect debaters to have original arguments and a solid framework that is sound and in order to win able to withstand their opponent's clash. 

I am a traditional judge who coached the Marriott's Ridge High School debate team for four years and I now also coach middle school debate. I have judged over 50 tournaments and I have extensive college debating experience. I judge both on value criterions and contention level arguments. I am willing to hear and consider progressive arguments but I do not prefer them. I do not like excessive speed. I prefer quality over quantity.

About me: I debated at Ardrey Kell for 4 years for at the high school level (1 year of PF, 3 years of LD). I focused more on traditional LD due to the nature of the LD circuit in NC, but went a more progressive route my senior year when travel was more an option for our team. I'm currently a senior econ and public health double major at Chapel Hill going into consulting post-grad.

General: IM HELLA RUSTY but still believe in my capabilities to judge well. I very much think debate should be a space where everyone is free to express ideas in any manner they please, and am open to basically any type of advocacy. Case positions that are out of the norm on your particular circuit, deviant styles of argumentation, interpretive dance cases- you do it well and I'll judge it. I really admire people who debate the way they feel they can do the best despite backlash from their circuit/other debaters. That being said, being outwardly racist, sexist or homophobic does not constitute self expression and I have no tolerance for any sort of rudeness that I think would make someone uncomfortable within the debate space. You do you, but know the line.
*DISCLAIMER: Parts of my paradigm are shameless stolen from Joe Bruner, we agree on a lot of things*

Email for email chain: gd09cms@gmail.com

Specifics-

Gestures- So nobody freaks out, here's what these things usually mean.
Nodding vigorously- This usually means I'm a) following the argument well or b) Recognize/like the card or evidence you're using. It does not mean I think you're right or you're automatically about to win.
Smiling- I smile at almost everything, it's nothing special, I'm just a fairly happy person. Please keep making your argument.
Straight Face/Unreadable expression- I understand this point and speaking about it more is probably a waste of your time, please move along with your refutation/arguments. Only exception to this is probably during final speeches when you're reiterating args for crystallization.

Speed- Slow down for tags/author names. Please don't start off full speed, you can work your way up to whatever speed works for you. I am not averse to yelling clear if you are being unclear, but after 2/3 times I will probably stop flowing. If you are going fast, I expect you to case flash your opponent if they ask though the trend of emailing cases is pretty prevalent so I'd rather you do that for them if you're emailing it to me too.

V/VC- I hate the Value/Value Criterion so much. I have yet to meet a single individual on earth who weighs arguments under a single standard, and personally I feel like this adherence to a single standard takes away from the debate more often than not. If you take it out of your case and just weigh impacts or argue that you analytically prove the resolution true, you'll probably do better in front of me. If you want me to explain this more, ask me, but this is what it is. I'm going to explain it more here since I get asked so much: I do not think it is either philosophical or realistic to appeal to only one criterion to the exclusion of all others when making decisions, and I don't think most authors think so either. So I have a strong preference against hearing you claim stuff like "only explicit violations of categorical imperative matter" or "any miniscule risk of extinction causes you to vote aff if I solve at all.

At the same time, I'm not trying to be prejudiced against traditional LDers who are used to relying on this heavily, so if you DO decide to use it, please be extremely clear on what the link between the Value and Value Criterion is, and especially what the link between your contentions and your value criterion is. Even better would be if you actually supplied a good reason the truth of the resolution hinges on your value above all else. If this isn't clear and you're using a V/VC and spending tons of time talking about your framework, I'll have a really hard time voting for you, even if you appear to be winning.

Theory- I CAN understand theory arguments, I know the parts of a shell and have engaged in theory debate once/twice but since I debated in North Carolina I'm not a "theory hack". If your strat involves multiple shells for time suck OR for avoiding engaging with more foreign substance level args, you will not have a fun time in front of me. THAT BEING SAID- in cases of actual abuse I don't mind evaluating theory. ALSO NO THEORY THAT IS NOT IN A SHELL FORMAT (other than in case spikes)- I don't care to figure out where your magical blip theory argument applies towards your opponents case in a high power round.

Topicality- I don't have as much of an issue with this, and actually don't mind it as much as theory. But I also find it fairly tedious- run it if you need to.

Substance:Coming from NC, I really felt pigeonholed a lot of the times in terms of argumentation, purely because of the clash between what I wanted to run/ what worked in front of the judging pool. As a result of having to write more traditional cases, I ended up really enjoying philosophy that isn't just PoMo, so any case that utilizes philosophical elements well will do well in front of me. Util is cool, I have grown to become a larger fan of Kant, and any spins on traditional Deon are appreciated. I'm also a big fan on ancient greeks (Aristotle, Plato, etc).

~Moral Skep: No thank you~ *This is mostly because I got sick of hearing people butcher, misinterpret/shit on Nietzsche*

I don't like it when people say they don't have to prove solvency- If you don't understand what this means/think it's unfair PLEASE ask me to explain, this is something I feel fairly passionate about.

K's/CPs/Disads/Performance/K affs- I ADORE Kritiks and Kritik literature. I spent a good amount of time reading K lit my junior/senior year and really found myself expanding my horizons of thought. I think they help improve critical thinking, are valid forms of argumentation and I used them more my senior year as I traveled. I do expect the K to have all the parts of a K, but those parts do not have to be explicitly stated, I can follow the structure well. A strong yes to K affs as well- I've had some of my most enjoyable debates using K affs. If the K is something more obscure (Lacan, DnG, whatever), more explanation is good.

I would like debaters to better explain what the real-world impacts and solvency of voting for the K are. My ballot is probably not actually preventing extinction or ending neoliberalism. I would like debaters to better articulate what REALLY HAPPENS when I vote for either side in K rounds as opposed to reading "cap causes extinction" or "structural oppression first duty to oppose" cards. Neoliberalism and Capitalism are probably bad and Racism and Sexism certainly are, but I the trend of debaters not clearly articulating what the PRE-FIAT impact is on an argument that is supposedly PRE-FIAT is alive and well so please don't contribute to it.

CPs and Disads are great tools in the proverbial toolbox if they are relevant- except politics Disads. I have never seen a good politics disad, if you really think you can change my mind, I won't stop you from running it but no promises.

I have literally only ever debated against one performance/narrative debater, but if that's your style go for it, I think the perspectives that these types of advocacies bring are really nice and make for interesting debates.

Evidence: I am generally very trusting of the evidence that people bring into round, in the sense that I believe anyone who is serious about competing and not an utter douchebag would not falsify evidence. If you are accused of messing with evidence, reading a card the way a way it's not supposed to be read, etc. AND I call for the card and see your opponent is right about that accusation, expect that to be reflected in your speaker points. I will call for cards that are very important to your advocacy if they are heavily contested, otherwise I trust that your stats are true.

Voting Issues: These are critical in how I make a decision, and I prefer them to be a more or less line by line. Tell me what arguments you think you are winning/are extending, why they matter more than your opponent's and the impacts coming off of them.

Speaker points- Expect fairly high speaker points unless you're insufferable in round.
That being said, surefire ways to get 30's include
- Using Eastern philosophy in case (except Mozi, I hate Mozi- someone I had beef with on the circuit used to run him a lot)
- Using Nietzsche/ Paulo Freire in case
- Quoting Childish Gambino at any point during the round, including CX

I'm a huge YuGiOh buff- if you take out your opponents case in 5 points (can be turns, blocks, whatever) and then say 'I HAVE SUMMONED EXODIA THE FORIBIDDEN ONE" that's basically an automatic win with a 30 unless your 5 arguments are not good. Take the gamble if you're a real one.

Other judges seem to dock excessive points from aggressive women and minority debaters, so if you are a woman or a minority and debate especially aggressively, I will give you additional speaker points as long as you still remain polite and don't engage in personal attacks. I appreciate sass :)

Surefire ways to get me to hate you
- Look down on an opponent for the style of debate they do in round
- Completely destroy someone past the point that is necessary for victory simply for the LOLz

That's about it. I look forward to judging rounds, if you have any other q's feel free to ask me in round, happy debating!

I am a parent judge and have been judging for many years now. I prefer to not hear spreading, theory, or complicated kritiks.

Justin Green - Head Coach - Wake Forest University

wfudbt@gmail.com

I plan to clap when the round is done; your effort is appreciated!

Argument Defaults

Preference - The good ones about the topic. Most of my research is on the policy side, but lucky to interact with great debaters and coaches across a wide spectrum of approaches for many years.

Topicality - Yes offense first; defense is essential. Impact turning or going just with reasonability without a quality counter-interp rarely wins.

Policy Aff v the K - Specificity is crucial for both sides. It's rare that I don't consider both the effects of the plan and the scholastic/rhetorical choices including the interactions between the two. Aff's should be prepared to defend the claims made in the 1ac. Winning the world is ordered by an oppressive structure is not enough.

CP Theory - Legitimacy of process CP's increases with more specific advocates. Some conditionality most likely OK - go beyond 2 or 3 or 2nc CP out of impact turns to do the opposite of the 1nc impact; less likely to be ok.

Case Debates - Where have all my heroes gone?

Effective Techniques:

- Articulate when reading! There has been an increasing trend in debates I watch where syllables are consistently muddled or skipped. I'll yell clearer. If I yell it twice know that you are in the danger zone.

- Cross Ex Matters! and it has a time limit – I listen, flow, and those who reference answers from the CX are likely to get higher points. When the timer goes off, it's judge prep even if the two teams decide to continue the CX during prep time. If the two side agree on something when a judge is not there "ex. neg agreed they could kick planks or part of the alt"...please fill me in.

- Smart Analytics exposing flaws can go a long way. Internal link chains and neg K alt solvency are two of many places where this can potentially be effective.

- Quality of Evidence+Quality of Explanation+Quality of comparison=weight of argument

- 2 Tips for last rebuttals beyond impact calculation - Give your partners credit explicitly. Acknowledge where the other side might be correct, but why that is not enough.

Just in case it happens, some strong defaults....

- No shenanigans policy - I expect a 2v2 debate. No three person teams, no one person taking all the speech time, please don't ask for something besides a debate to determine a winner, etc. Two people speaking in the same speech, ok if part of a pre-scripted performance early in the debate. In subsequent speeches, only one person's words count.

- If you ask for a 30. Your speaker points will likely have a 3 in it; 3 will most likely not be the first number. If both you and your partner are asking for a 30, you are playing a dangerous game given the previous sentence.

- Hard to imagine myself voting on elements not related directly to an argument made in the debate (coin flips, previous debates, what their coach did, how someone interacted outside the debate, initials at the end of the card, month of the year). Verified blatant false disclosure of more than a card or two and could be a voting issue.

- Evidence ethics. Yes, follow AFA, ADA and CEDA guidelines. And also, not really trying to vote on: whether the citation includes date accessed, initials of the card cutter (or who cut the card), if there were accidental exclusions of the text that had no material effect.

ENJOY!

I debated on the national circuit for Millburn High School for 1 year PF 3 years LD.

 

IF THE ROUND IS STARTING IN ONE MINUTE 

do whatever you want. i’m not going to try to ruin your debate experience. if you all want to turn this into a PF round and bring a friend, I don’t mind.

 

 

IF YOU HAVE TIME

 

I got through circuit debate by pretending I knew what I was talking about while running K’s, reading generic responses to theory/T because I didn’t feel like learning how to interact specifically, and pretending to flow while I was really just reading the speech doc.

 

I got through lay debate by speaking loudly, being an ass in CX, and always asserting that I was right (even if I was quite wrong).

 

That being said, I really did enjoy debate. To not screw up anyone’s tournament, here are some fun facts:

 

• I tend to give very high speaks because I’ll probably be impressed by you.
• I am open to any arguments, and I like hearing quirky arguments.
• Be kind. Your speaks will show.
• I will try my best to understand everything and give you the benefit of the doubt since I’m awful at flowing. If your opponent challenges me, I’ll read the speech docs/cards. If it’s not on a doc, I will have to default to my flow.
• If you don’t weigh, don’t expect to win. Tell me how to vote/what to vote on. Otherwise, you might be unhappy with the way that I vote. I will judge the round according to whatever framework the debaters put forwards. 
• I will be particularly expressive. If I don’t understand your argument, I will show it. Look at me! Am I nodding at what you’re saying or am I nodding off? Debate still has aspects of presentation, so make sure that you’re connecting to your audience.
• If this is your bubble round and your opponent is not going to break, feel free to talk to your opponent about it. If you make an arrangement, I don’t mind complying.

 

 

email me at patrick.hong@duke.edu if you have any questions.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

Deena R. McNamara, Esq.

Updated for Harvard 2024

Please include me on the email chain at deena.mcnamara@ahschool.com or create a SpeechDrop before the commencement of the round. If the round starts at x time, then please ensure that the doc is sent or uploaded by x time.

My Background:

I competed in LD and policy debate in high school. In college, I competed in LD and CEDA. College LD and CEDA (back in those days) were very similar to circuit LD. Debaters used T, theory and even Ks back in those dark ages of debate.

I have been a litigation attorney in excess of 26 years. I have judged LD on and off for the last 20 years. Both of my children competed in LD. Even though my kids have already graduated from college, I have remained in the community as a debate coach and judge. I have been coaching LD for American Heritage Palm Beach since 2021. I believe that debate is life changing for students of all backgrounds and abilities. I view my role as the judge not only to adjudicate your round fairly and to the best of my abilities, but to teach you something that you could do better next time to enhance your skills and arguments.

I have judged at high level competitions and in out-rounds at Harvard, Yale, Emory, Princeton, Glenbrooks, Bronx, NFL/NSDA nationals, CFL nationals, Duke, Florida Blue Key, Wake Forest and many others. I always familiarize myself with the topic literature prior to each tournament. I pay attention to every detail in the round. I can flow your case as fast as you can say it… I will keep saying clear if you are not clear. I want to hear every word that you say as it matters in the round. I take the round very seriously and I even flow CX. CX is super-important in the round, so please make sure that you are not sitting in a desk facing away from me during CX. Judges who think that CX does not matter really do not understand the purpose of debate; I will leave it at that. Additionally, I will not view your speech doc unless my hearing fails me or I am reviewing your evidence for context and accuracy. I care about your round and will do my absolute best to judge it as fairly as possible.

I try to be a tabula rasa judge; however, like everyone I do have certain dislikes and preferences.

Important:

Please do not text or message with anyone outside of the round during the round for any reason whatsoever. To be clear, you should not receive any texts, messages, emails, documents or any other form of communication whatsoever from anyone outside of the round during the round.

Case type/argument preferences:

Phil- 1

K -1

Perm with Doublebind arguments- 1

Turns on case and/or FW-1

Line-by-Line -1

Non-T Affs-2

T- 2

Disads- 2

Theory to check abuse- 3

CP- 3

Kicking arguments- 4

Contradictory case positions-5

Collpasing on an argument in last rebuttal when there is offense on other arguments in round- 5

Theory read as time suck- 5

Policy Affs/Plans/LARP- 5

FW/Phil Debate:

I love phil cases, dense phil cases, detailed frameworks with lots of philosphical warrants and well-written analytics that are interspersed in your framework. I am especially familiar with Kant, Ripstein, Korsgaard, Rand, Aristotle, Locke, Rawls, Rousseau, Hobbes, Mill, Bentham, Petit, Christiano, Moore and probably a few others that I cannot think of off the top of my head. I expect detailed frameworks and contention level arguments that link to the framework. You cannot win on FW alone, unless it has offense sufficient to affirm or negate the resolution.

Ks:

I love Ks when they are well-written. I am familiar with Agamben, Butler, Baudrillard, D & G, Foucault, Hedva, Ahmed, Wilderson, Warren, and some other authors that I have come across since I started reading these books. Just ask me and I will let you know my level of familiarity with the arguments. If you decide to run a K, then provide me the link and alternative. It is insufficient to say, "reject Capitalism" and leave me hanging as to what happens after we reject it. On the ROTB/ROTJ args, you have to make them specific; don't just tell me that you win because you minimize oppression of minorities. Who? How? Also, please weigh your arguments against your opponent's FW or ROTB/ROTJ if they provided a different one. Don't tell me things like "they keep biting into my K" as some justification you expect to win on. Seriously- I need analysis of arguments, not just blippy responses that you think qualify as extensions or arguments against your opponent's args. If you make a blippy argument, then that is how I weigh the argument in the round- minimally. I know that your time is limited in round, especially in the 1ar, so I do take that into consideration.

Plans/CPs/DAs/Perms:

I am not a fan of LARP debate. If you want to read a bunch of evidence with heavy stats and nuke war impacts, then maybe you should consider policy debate. Debaters have been reading brink arguments since the beginning of time and we are still here. If you read a Plan or Counterplan in the round, please ensure that it is suffciently developed and there is offense. Please do not read generic DAs- make sure they are relevant and specific to the argument made by your opponent. If you read a Perm then please slow down and explain it because debates get messy when these arguments are not fleshed out. When you are making arguments against a Perm, please slow down and explain your arguments clearly as to why they cannot Perm or why you outweigh on net benefits. I am not going to go back to your speech doc to figure out what you said and make the connections for you. I do love double-bind arguments and I think they are very strategic in policy debate. If you make a double-bind argument, then please slow down so I can truly enjoy the argument as you make it; I aprpeciate it.

Non-T affs, T, theory and misc.:

I am fine with non-T affs, but I think you can figure out some way to make the Aff topical so the Neg can engage in the substance of the debate. I am amenable to reasonable topicality arguments - not BS ones for time suck.I know that everyone wants to uplayer the Neg and read so many positions that the other side cannot answer; however, one of the key purposes of debate is to engage critically with the arguments made by the other debater. When the neg takes no prep time before the 1NC and says that they are sending the doc, I always question what level of engagement will occur in the 1NC if the doc was ready before the Neg even had the opportunity to question the Aff. Please do not just run a generic theory arg because you expect that I will vote on it before your opponent's case. It has to be a legit violation. You have to try to clarify in CX and CX is binding. I am fine with theory ONLY to check abuse. Again, check it in cx. I am fine with flex prep too. I am not a fan of disclosure theory because it is harder for smaller programs/lone wolf debaters to be competitive when they are prepped out by larger programs. However, I do expect varisty debaters at national competitions to email the entire Aff before reading the 1AC and the neg to email the NC that will be read prior to reading it, etc. This does not need to occur a half hour before the round unless the tournament rules say otherwise. I do expect debaters to send cases and evidence in round or to provide hard copies. If your wiki says that you will run disclosure theory if….. (insert made up rule here), then please do not expect me to vote on that. Like I said, theory is supposed to check abuse in the round. I am not voting on what happens outside the round. Also, T is different from theory. If you do not know the difference, then please do not argue with me after the round. I will explain the difference to you, but I won't engage in a lengthy debate with you on it. I get my fill of arguing in Court with pain in the a$$ attorneys. I expect you to address all of your opponent’s arguments and uphold your own in each of your speeches. No new arguments are allowed in rebuttals, but extensions and refutations of ongoing arguments are encouraged (and necessary if you would like to win!) Speaking quickly/spreading is acceptable if you slow down for the tag lines and key arguments; I will yell clear. However, your arguments need to make it onto my flow. I am a flow judge, but if I cannot understand you, then I cannot evaluate your arguments. I will have a copy of your case, but I do not want to rely on it. Communication is critical in the round. If I am reading your document, then I am not listening to you. I can read at home… I want to hear the arguments made in round.

LD as a sport:

LD is a sport. It requires hard work and endurance. You are an LDer because you choose to be. There is no other event like it in debate.

However, LD can also be toxic for some debaters who feel excluded, marginalized or bullied. Please make sure that you are courteous to your opponent. If you are debating a novice or an inexperienced varsity debater, please do not spread like you would in an out round. Try to adapt and win on the arguments. Just be kind to them so that they do not leave the event because they feel they cannot keep up. They may not have the private coaches that you do. It is tough on the circuit when you do not have the circuit experience because your school does not travel, or you do not have the funds to travel. Some debaters are in VLD, but do not have the experience that you do. If you are the better debater and have the better case, then you will win. We want to encourage all LDers because LD is truly the best event.

Please be considerate of triggers and of past experiences that your opponent may have suffered. It is not fun to judge a round where a competitor is crying or losing their cool because of something that is happening in round. No round is worth hurting someone else to win. Plus, if you act like a total d-bag and are so disrespectful that I am angry (which takes a lot to get me angry) then you will lose and be given low speaks.

Voters and what I like to vote on:

Please give me voters. It is helpful to me as the judge to see why you thought you won the round. If I think you are wrong, then I can tell you on the ballot and you will learn from it. If you are right and I agree with you, then I can use your voters in the RFD. I tend to vote on offense and who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. I do not have a strong preference of aff or neg so do not expect me to default neg. However, the aff's burden of proof is a bit more difficult. Just be clear on why you affirm or negate. Finally, I do not necessarily follow the strict "layers" of debate. So if you are curious as to what I will vote on first (in terms of theory, T, Ks, etc.), please ask me before the round. I always want debaters to be clear as to how I will evaluate the round.

Pet Peeves:

Please do not say "my opponent conceded the argument" when they really did not and please do not ask me if you can use the rest of your CX as prep. The answer is obviously “no.” Also, there are some new acronyms and phrases floating around that I am not familiar with so please ensure that you explain your arguments so I do not miss something important in your case. Lastly, please do not read off of a script. Flow and make arguments in the round; that is the fun part of debate! You do not have to send extempted analytics in the round.

I have judged several regional and national circuit tournaments, but I have never been a debater myself. I have a strong preference for the traditional style of debate because it's what I can readily understand and flow. If you spread or use progressive debating approaches like Kritiks or plans/counterplans, I may not appreciate many of the technical nuances and that certainly will not be to your advantage.

I look for both content and style - good eye contact, posture, enunciation, delivery are also important factors for me, in addition to your framework and arguments.

Lastly, keep it courteous - if I see you being rude or disrespectful to your opponent, that won't win you any points in my book. Have fun and good luck!

I am a former LD debater with 3 years under my belt. I am a flow judge so I appreciate weighing arguments, extending points that have not been discussed, and clearly explaining which point you are addressing as you are addressing it. I appreciate an off-time road map of your refutations as this helps my flow as well. I can understand most speeds as a former debater but I prefer a decent but clear speed. I will likely be able to get some of your points if you spread but there will be a lot I miss and you just don't want that. Therefore, I recommend a moderate pace. I will repeat this at the beginning of rounds and will answer any additional questions that you have that are not addressed in this paradigm.

KAVITA PERSAUD
Judge Paradigm TRADITIONAL JUDGE

Background:
Current Debate Coach at Cape Fear Academy
Coaching High School Debate 2008-2013, 2015- current
Former High School Debater, Parliamentary Debate
Physician.

Philosophy:
Debate is an educational activity.
Debate is about communication.

Likes:
1. Debating the resolution
2. Advocacy of a position
3. Framework
4. Structure & Organization with clear sign-posting
5. Clash
6. Strategic Cross-Ex
7. Engaging Speaking Style
8. Courtesy
9. Crystallization and Weighing
10. Voting Issues

Dislikes:
1. Spreading
2. Non-topical Debates
3. Generic Kritiks
4. Theory unless clear abuse
5. Tricks
6. Rudeness
7. Extinction Impacts when not truly topical
8. Poorly selected evidence or improperly cited evidence
9. Jargon
10.

Please ask additional questions before the round.

General overview:

I was a high school and college debater and have been an active high school coach ever since. I am chair of my state league as well as an NSDA District Chair. Dating back to high school, I have over 35 years of experience in the activity. However, please don't consider me as "old school" or a strict traditionalist. Like any activity, speech and debate is constantly evolving and I am open to and embrace most changes. You'll clearly understand all of the rare exceptions to that as you read my paradigm.

It is very important to remember that debate is a communication activity. As such, I expect clear communication. Well articulated, supported and defended arguments, regardless of quantity, are far more important to me than who has the most cards that they can spout out in a speech. While I'm okay with a limited amount of speed, excessive speed beyond what you would use in the "real world" is not effective communication in my mind. Communicate to me effectively with well reasoned and fully supported arguments at a reasonable pace and you will win my ballot. I don't accept the "they dropped the argument so I automatically win the argument" claim. You must tell me why the dropped argument was critical in the first place and convince me that it mattered. I look at who had the most compelling arguments on balance and successfully defended them throughout the round while refuting the opponent's arguments on balance in making my decision.

Things to keep in mind about the various events I judge:

Policy debate is about policy. It has a plan. Plans have advantages and disadvantages as well as solvency or the lack thereof. Some plans also might warrant a counterplan from the negative if it is good, nontopical, and can gain solvency better than the affirmative plan. I am not a fan of "circuit style" policy debate and greatly prefer good and clear communication.

Lincoln Douglas Debate is about values. I am interested much more in values in this type of debate than any sort of policy. However, I'm not a strict traditionalist in that I don't require both a value premise and a value criterion that is explicitly stated. But I do want to hear a value debate. That said, I also want to hear some pragmatic examples of how your value structure plays out within the context of the resolution. All in all, I balance my decision between the philosophical and the pragmatic. Persuade me of your position. However, please don't present a plan or counterplan. Switch to policy debate if you want to do that. Bottom line: debate the resolution and don't stray from it.

Public Forum Debate is about current events and was intended for the lay judge. Don't give me policy or LD arguments. Clear communication is important in all forms of debate, but is the most important in this one. I am not open to rapid fire spreading. That's not communication. Please don't give me a formal plan or counterplan. Again, reserve that for policy debate. Communicate and persuade with arguments backed up by solid research and your own analysis and do this better than your opponents and you will win my PF ballot. It's that simple. Debate the resolution without straying from it in a good communicative style where you defend your arguments and attack your opponent's and do this better than they do it. Then you win. Persuade me. I am also not a fan of "circuit style" Public Forum that seems to be increasingly popular. Communicate as if I am a layperson (even though I'm not), as that is what PF was intended to be.

Congress Paradigm: (I'll be honest. It's my favorite event.)
Congressional Debate is designed to be like the real Congress when it functions as it was intended. Decorum is absolutely critical. While humor may have its place in this event, you should not do or say anything that a United States congressperson of integrity would not do or say. You should also follow Congressional decorum rules and address fellow competitors with their proper titles. When judging congress, I want to see clash/refutation of previous speakers (unless, of course, you are giving the first speech of the topic). Try to avoid "canned" speeches that are largely prewritten. This is not dueling oratories. It is still debate. I look for a combination of new arguments and clash/refutation of arguments already made. I do not like rehash. If it's been said already, don't say it unless you have a uniquely fresh perspective. I am not impressed by those who jump up to make the first obvious motion for previous question or for recess. Obvious motions score no points with me, as they are obvious and can be made by anyone. It's not a race to see who can be seen the most. I am, however, impressed by those who make great speeches, regularly ask strong cross examination questions and show true leadership in the chamber. Simply making great speeches alone is not enough. If you give three perfect speeches but never really ask good cross examination questions or rarely participate proceduraly in the chamber, you might not get the ranking you were hoping for. Although speeches are very important and a major factor in my decision, they are not the complete package that I expect from a competitor. I'm looking at your total constructive participation in the chamber (in a productive sense, not a "just to be seen" sense). Finally, to reiterate what I said at the beginning, I take decorum very seriously. You should too.

Congress Presiding Officers: Keep your wording as brief and concise as possible. Avoid the obvious. Please don't use phrases like "Seeing as how that was a negative speech, we are now in line for an affirmative speech." Here is a MUCH better option: "Affirmative speakers please rise" or "We are now in line for an affirmative speech." There is no need to tell anyone that the previous speech was negative. We should know that already. Just immediately call on the next side. It is acceptable and advisable to also very quickly give the time of the previous speech for the reference of the judges, but we do not need to be reminded of what side the previous speech was on. The phrase I dislike the most in Congress is "seeing as how . . ." So how do I judge you as a P.O. in relation to the speakers in the chamber? Most (but not all) presiding officers will make my top eight ballot if they are good with no major flaws. But how do you move up the ballot to get in "break" range? I place a great deal of weight on fairness and decorum, knowledge of parliamentary procedure and the efficiency in which the chamber is conducted. I reward presiding officers who are precise and have minimal downtime. And, as mentioned earlier, it does not require a great deal of language (especially jargon and phraseology) to be an excellent presiding officer. I'm not judging you on how much I hear you speak. I'm judging you on how efficient the chamber ran under your leadership. An excellent P.O. can run a highly efficient chamber without having to say much. Keep order, know and enforce the rules, and be respected by your peers. That said, you should also be prepared to step in and be assertive anytime the chamber or decorum gets out of hand. In fact, you should step in assertively at the first minute sign of it. Finally, while it is often difficult for a P.O. to be first on the ballot, it is also not impossible if your excellence is evident. And as a side note, while this is not a voting issue for me, it is worth noting. When giving your nomination speech, you don't need to tell me (or the rest of the chamber) that you will be "fast and efficient." That phrase is overused and heard from almost every candidate I've ever seen nominated. Everyone makes that claim, but a surprising number don't actually follow through on it. Come up with original (but relevant) reasons that you should be elected.

Things to avoid in any event I judge:

"Spreading" or rapid fire delivery. Just don't.

Ad Hominem attacks of any kind. Stick to the issues, not the person. This is the first thing that will alienate me regardless of your position.

Kritiks - You must be extremely persuasive if you run them. I'll consider them and vote for them if they are excellent, but I'd rather hear other arguments. Very few kritiks are in that "excellent" category I just mentioned. These are mainly only appropriate for Policy debate. I'll reluctantly consider them in LD, but never in PF.

Debate that strays outside the resolutional area. Stick to the topic.

Lack of respect for your opponent or anyone else in the room. Disagreement and debate over that disagreement is great. That's what this activity is about. But we must always do it respectfully.

Lack of respect for public figures. It's perfectly fine to disagree with the position of anyone you quote. However, negativity toward the person is not acceptable.

Condescending tone or delivery. Don't even try it with me. Trust me, I'll hear a condescending tone/delivery much louder than any argument you make, no matter how good the argument is. I'll make a condescending tone a voting issue that does not play in your favor. You don't want that.

Background

I'm a 3 time NSDA/NCFL qualifier and now coach LD. I like this stuff - fun, isn't it?

General Preferences

If you won this round, you probably 1. gave me a coherent lens through which I can gauge what is important and 2. weaved a story of the round using that lens. LD is about creative weighing, much like how we interact with complicated ideas in the real world - we don't just do an in-depth cost-benefit analysis each time we make a decision, we apply multiple standards and evaluative measures to reach a conclusion (often totally subconsciously).

Basically - I should be doing as little work as possible. I don't want to intervene or even really think when judging an LD round. If you make the story clear to me, I'll vote for you.

Speed

I can handle any speed, but nobody can handle you being incoherent - I'll give you a good ol' fashioned "clear" if you're attempting to go faster than you're capable of going. Good rule of thumb: if you feel like it's necessary that I read along to understand you, it's probably because you're unintelligible, not because I'm too old and slow.

Rounds being competitive really matters to me. This means that stylistic alignment between the two debaters is necessary to create good LD. Seeing as traditional LD is by far the more common and accessible style, if your opponent is only capable of traditional LD, that is the style I expect to see in the round. I will never punish a locally active debater for not being competitive against the increasingly inaccessible and abstract style found at national circuit tournaments.

Theory

Point out the abuse (assuming it's real) and move on. Do not make it the crux of the round. Win on substance.

I will never vote for time skew theory or anything that accuses your opponent of some form of prejudice (unless they've openly and intentionally said something prejudiced).

Kritiks

I'm actually stealing this directly from one of my all-time favorite NC LDer's paradigms because it was so perfectly written - thanks to Derek Brown of Durham Academy.

"Kritiks, like theory or topicality, are a way of questioning the pre-fiat implications of your opponents' position. As a result, Kritiks must link to a practice your opponent performed, and there must exist a relatively predictable/reasonable way your opponent could have anticipated or predicted that this practice was bad. For example, I will not vote on an argument saying "the aff doesn't address black feminism", because it is unreasonable to expect the aff to read black feminism every round."

I will add that I generally do not enjoy Kritiks that you read every single tournament (and yes, I'll know if you do) - think Cap Ks, Colonialism, etc. - they aren't competitive and generally rely on tenuous links back to the topic. If you didn't have to write it specifically for the current resolution, don't run it. I have to listen to like...6 LD rounds every weekend. I don't want to hear the same stuff every Saturday.

Bonus

Make this fun for me. Be entertaining. Be funny.I get so excited when I see good LD - if you've got a distinct style, good coverage, and I leave the round feeling like I did very little work...I'm a happy camper.

My only debate experiance is from about a year of judging. In that time I've judged mostly traditional rounds (with little to no philosphy). I try to keep up on current events so informed arguments with reasonable probabilty are the best strategy when debating in front of me. Critical, progressive, or philosophical agruments will have to be explained very clearly to ressonate; I don't have any issue with these arguments, I'm just not familiar with them.

I'm Mark. I've been coaching debate for about 10 years and was a competitor in high school and college. Prior to starting at Carolina Day, I worked with the University of Kansas' policy program. I see myself as a facilitator, seeking to provide and enhance the competitive/educational experience competitors want to have. Debates are best when they are specific, researched, civil, and relevant to the lived experiences of the participants. Debates are worst when they are exclusionary, non-communicative, unwelcoming, or hostile.

I'm actively involved in research and preparation for my own teams, so the literature base surrounding each topic is fairly familiar to me. Technical, field-specific jargon is not a problem for me. Where I struggle is when debaters assume the meaning of debate-centered god terms. Frequently, when debaters think they win and they lose, it's because they assume the meaning of some term is universal when it is not a language the judge shares. If you believe something is important, explain its importance in terms of the ballot.

I don't care about speed, but ask you respect your opponents' requests to become more clear. You should also be willing to provide your opponent with a written or digital copy of what you have read. If I can't follow you, I'll say something, but that hasn't happened yet.

I used to go through lists of issues in my paradigms and pontificate on their importance. I have learned that debaters prefer to make certain kinds of arguments certain kinds of ways, and it's my job to follow them through their logic as best I can. Here is what I propose: make a genuine attempt to communicate, and I will make a genuine attempt to listen charitably.

Respect each other, respect yourselves, and have fun playing games with words. It's best for us all if you do.