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.

I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

Tech over truth. I also will give you higher speaker points if you incorporate puns into your speeches, but please make sure they are good puns.

Please give me a good way to weigh the round (See what I did there, that is what I want in the round if you want good speaks)

Please signpost and do not be rude in cross.

I will get pretty pissed if you purely extend through ink (Meaning if the other team makes a response, do not pretend they did not make it. Address their response before you extend the argument)

If you make a racist, sexist, homophobic, or any offensive comment, you are getting a 3 for speaker points and a dropped ballot.

Gonna keep this short cuz I thought all judges with super long paradigms were very extra [when you are trying to persuade someone in real life, you don't get a two page doc of preferences].

BACKGROUND:

-study Math + Computer Science at Stanford

-did Public Forum in high school on both the local (Georgia) and national circuit [NSDA Nationals and the TOCs]

-I've also done a bit of APDA/BP in college.

PREFERENCES:-

-Don't go TOO Fast.

-Don't mis-cut or BS evidence -- I will likely call for cards each round.

-Please weigh -- it'll make my job easier. This is *key* to getting higher speaks AND winning rounds.

-I prefer solid analysis over rote card dumping [no need to have 5 responses to every warrant].

-I like intense cross-fires! Forces me to listen.

Past debater, ask if you have any questions before round

History: I did PF debate during highschool, debated in the GA circuit and went to many National Circuit tournaments. I have been judging PF for a while now. I have been off the circuit for a little while though, and may not be knowledgeable about recent developments within the last year in regards to PF.

How I evaluate the round: I expect you to extend your arguments throughout the whole round. This means offense from the rebuttal needs to be extended through the Summary and Final Focus for it to be weighed in the round. I also do not like it when teams bring up something from rebuttal in the final focus without extending it through summary (called extending through ink), doing this will likely result in the argument being dropped off my flow.

Argumentation: I expect all arguments to be properly warranted and impacted with supportive evidence to go with it. However, don't just speak off cards.

If you want the argument to be important, then make sure I know that it is important.

I was founding moderator and head coach of Lambert High School's Speech and Debate Team since its inception in 2012 through May, 2021, and I judged regularly during that time, mainly in PF, LD, and Individual Events. I hold a bachelor's degree in English, a master's degree in Communications Psychology, and a doctoral degree in Management and Psychology, all focusing on learning and communication in human development and in the workplace.

Although my formal debate activities in high school and college occurred in classroom settings only, I did participate in public speaking and theater/telecommunications productions during that time, and I've studied philosophy, logic, international business, rhetoric, and persuasive writing over 40 years as student and educator at the high school and college level. I have numerous academic publications and one book on writing, cognition, and communications; and, as an instructor of Advanced Placement (AP) Language and Literature, as well as college courses in Communications and Marketing, I've taught classical methods of argumentation to my students as well as how to identify and respond to logical fallacies and manipulation of language and thought. I have completed the NSDA Cultural Competency training, traveled and taught overseas, and have worked in a wide variety of diverse American schools. I treat each debater as a unique individual worthy of respect, regardless of background or lifestyle, but you need to tell me a story, connect the dots, and support theory with examples to win.

When judging student debate, I look for consistent definitions, contentions, frameworks, and logical flow of argument, as well as clear explication of ideas, responses to opponents' contentions and values, and an understanding of the implications of the affirmations or negations of the propositions. Students who articulate respectfully and confidently earn better speaker evaluations from me, and I appreciate preparation, addressing appropriate counterarguments, the citation of sources, and the accurate inclusion of current events from news and readings. I encourage audiences for public speaking, value truth and technique, and I require that evidence to be shared in a timely manner. Add me to your e-mail chain before beginning your round: cwhyatt007gmail.com.

At the end of the day, the students who will win have more clearly, logically, and consistently presented their own positions while effectively responding to their opponents. It's all about The Clash, my friends, so stay free, stay free.

I am a Business student at Georgia Institute of Technology with experience as a CX debater for 6 years. Prior to college, I was captain of the South Forsyth High School team. Throughout the end of my high school years I have judged multiple rounds and was a coach at a local debate institution. I'm an extremely flow judge; but I'll vote you up through if your opponent does not know what a flow is. Greater timeframe=Dub.

Other rules that I tend to agree with from Zakharov Paradigm:

1) Please don't make bigoted arguments or do bigoted things

2) If you want me to evaluate something, please warrant it thoroughly (e.g. don't rely on the existence of a card as a sufficient explanation for your argument)

3) Defense in summary is a choice for the debater (as a general rule, if it's important, you should bring it up in every speech, but this is a matter of personal preference for the debater); responding to 1st rebuttal in 2nd rebuttal is a choice for the debater as well

4) Theory isn't really appealing to me, nor do I think it gels well with the structure/intention of PF, but if there is an instance of actual substantial abuse and the theory is not an excuse for not debating and I'm explicitly told how to evaluate it, I'll evaluate it

5) I'll only call for cards if both sides are saying opposite things about the same piece of evidence and/or I'm explicitly told to call for the card

6) I can flow any level of speed, but spreading will reflect poorly in speaks

7) If you don't bring up a certain contention throughout the rest of the debate I will consider it dropped.

8) Not a fan of K's in PF Debate. I will vote on them if I have to, but I really don't want to.

For LD, which I judge from time to time, all of the above applies (except 3 obviously, and theory is fine but again needs to be well applied, and you can speak quicker than you would in front of a parent but still don't spread please.

RAP Paradigm:

Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are unhelpful.

Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence.

Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.

Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track.

Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.

Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).

Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time, etc. Avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.

Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.

My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor ELA, History, and SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.

The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:

PF—

--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s first two-minute speech.

--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.

--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.

--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.

L-D—

--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum.

--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions.

--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).

I value both truth and tech equally. Be persuasive and clear with your arguments. Good argumentation = good speaks. Don't extend any argument through ink (meaning if your opponents make a response, don't act like they didn't). A weak response is better than no response.