UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters let it overcomplicate their arguments or worse. Some may even allow it to further make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you will probably be sad at the end of the round.

Brief Summary:

I went to La Salle and debated in LD for three years and debated in Policy when I was a senior. When I did LD I started out as a more traditional debater but became a bit more progressive through my career. And my time in Policy sorta desensitized me to atypical debate forms, meaning I will judge pretty much anything. I know that's not super helpful. 

Policy background means I love, and I mean love, good impact calc. Mainly, just focus on making well-warranted and impacted arguments, and proving why your impacts are more important than your opponent's. Also, don't be offensive. Any sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, generally discriminatory, etc. rhetoric will probably make me vote you down. We're all here to enjoy debate and the education we're supposed to get from it. Don't ruin it with offensive shit. 

Also. I judge with the mindset of tech over truth. I only judge the arguments that are made in round. I won't infer arguments on behalf of you or your opponent, no matter how intuitive. If your opponent doesn't address an argument of yours, regardless of how ridiculous, I will assume that argument is true. That said, I hate voting for dumb things. So please, please, please address your opponent's arguments. 

Speed is fine. Clarity is more important than slowing down. If you spread, make sure you spread clearly and still sorta enunciate. If your spreading becomes a hum, I'll probably be irritated. Also, slow down for taglines. That shouldn't really need to be said. I'll say clear if you're being unclear. 

I don't flow cross-ex, but if you reference part of cross-ex in a subsequent speech it'll get you hella ethos in my book, so def use that. I prefer when cx is used strategically to undermine your opponent's position, but if you need to ask clarification questions that's fine too. Don't be rude though. You may disagree with your opponent's argument, but I don't wanna see ad hominem stuff. I'd rather see you dismantle the argument. Also, I'm cool with flex prep. 

A little more info:

So I did LD for three years and I saw a lot of weird atypical frameworks and a lot of completely "normal" traditional-style frameworks. I will vote for either so long as they are well justified. This means that you prove why x-weighing system is better than y-weighing system. If you just say that x-weighing system does z-good thing, that isn't really a justification. You need to directly compare to your opponent's framework (unless they drop FW but that would be dumb so don't rely on it). Counterplans are fine, but you're gonna have to prove that they're mutually exclusive. Same with K's. (See policy background above.) Read a Disad if you want...but a DA is basically just a neg contention, so reading it with a separate DA format in LD would be kinda weird. 

The Framework debate should be handled as a weighing system in a way and a moral lens in the other way. I'm not crazy about deon if it's not well-warranted and I find util to be a lot more intuitive and easy to justify...but if you justify a deontological framework well, and defend it well against your opponent, I will probably pick you up on framework. Justifications and warrants and impacts are key. Also. Framework is how your impacts have to be evaluated and weighed against your opponent. Which means if you lose framework and you can't link your impacts into your opponent's framework you're probably SOL. Which is why framework clash is so, so important. Like, even if your values are both Morality you both probably have different conceptualizations of morality, so just because you say your values are the same doesn't mean framework is a wash. Clash. Or you'll probably lose. 

Contention level stuff is gonna be really dependent on your warrants. Policy has conditioned me to care more about cards than about analytics, but if you have a killer analytic and it dismantles your opponent's warrants, I'll probably notice and be impressed. So long as the logic and warrants are clear I probably won't have any issues with your contentions. In terms of impact calc, just be sure to link into the framework that won the framework debate and prove how you can achieve the value in the round better than your opponent. 

K's and critical arguments are fine. Just make sure you clearly articulate what the world of the alternative looks like and contextualize it with relation to the weighing system of the round. If you don't articulate an alternative, I'm going to flow the "kritik" as a disad. Because a K without an alt is really just a disad. Make sure you clearly articulate the alternative and explain why the mindset shift to that of the alt is preferable to SQuo. 

TL;DR weigh your impacts well and make sure your arguments are warranted and don't say offensive shit. Do these things better than your opponent and I'll probably pick you up. 

Debate Experience: Debated for three years in high school, coached four years in college.

General: I'm pretty tab. The debaters should choose whatever arguments they're most comfortable with/is most strategic for the round. 2NR/AR decisions should be made based on the flow, not what you think I want to hear. Comfortable with speed; go as fast as you'd like while still being clear.

Aff: Again, pretty comfortable with anything. I wasn't a performative debater in high school, but I'll vote on a k aff. See below for more on how I evaluate k affs vs. framework. Make sure that the advocacy statement is clear, especially for more nuanced high theory Ks.

Neg: The best thing you can do in front of me is have a substantive internal link debate with proper impact calculus. I'm not very persuaded by teams that skip to extinction scenarios without actually debating the logic chain that leads there. Good internal link take-outs, case debate, and framing arguments are key. I'll vote on theory on either side (perm theory, condo/multicondo, t, etc.) if you run in properly and can defend your interps.

Topicality: You should be doing as much impact calc on T as you are on a DA. I'm more than happy to vote on procedural issues; this is a game, and debating the rules of the game is as legitimate as the substance. That being said, just throwing out words like fairness and education won't do that much for you. T is an argument that needs substantial time in the block to become a viable 2NR strategy. Don't go for T and five other args - it's not something you can win with 45 seconds at the stop of the block/2NR.

Dis-ads: Again, internal link chains and impact calc. Make sure to kick out properly.

Counterplans: Make sure to be clear on CP solvency mechanisms. Don't just yell 50 states CP and expect that I understand how that would work given the specific aff advocacy. Clearly lay out the net benefit to the CP (internal or external). Again, impact calc is important. Tell me how the risk of a solvency deficit compares to the risk of the DA link, and why that should matter to my decision.

Kritiks: Just like the K aff stuff above, explain the K and do the same kind of impact calc you would do on a DA or FW flow. It should be clear to my how I'm evaluating the K. For example, is this a Cap K where I might be weighing the impacts of the aff vs. the neg world, or should I be evaluating speech acts before plan implementation? Usually a FW debate at the top of the flow is helpful. Clear link chains are preferred. I'm much more persuaded by Ks that have a specific link to plan functionality rather than topic-generic links. If the K is covering dense high theory (I'm thinking about some Baudrillard, a Hegel K, anything that mentions D&G), walk me through the background.

K affs: K affs are fine, but so is a good FW debate. If you're going to run a performative K, make sure to link the performance to voters. I'm generally not persuaded by a minute-long musical intro that never gets brought up again throughout the debate. Neg, if you're going to run a FW arg please set it up like you would a T debate. I need interps and clear voters. I know they're not running a topical plan. You need to defend your interpretation of debate, why your interp is best for the debate space (fairness, education, etc.), and how the knowledge or fairness that you gain from running topical affs compares against the education that they're bringing into the round.

Above all, please show respect to everyone in the room. The fastest way to lose speaker points with me is to be inconsiderate to your opponent. I'm more than comfortable with low point wins if I think you're not treating your opponent (or partner) with dignity.

Judge for Dallastown

Etiquette stuff:

1 .I time debate and my time is the official time but you are welcome to time yourself. Flex prep is fine as long as your opponent(s) agree.

2. Aggressive is fine as is shouting but if you are a racist or sexist then I will probably deduct points.

3. I don't care if you spread as long as you are articulate -you are at a debate not an auction.

In Debate
I really like empirically-supported arguments. Framework debate is also good...don't assume that I know the philosophy to which you are referring...it's part of YOUR job to explain it.

All that being said, I do like a good solid traditional debate with lots of evidence.

From JudgePhilosophies Wikispace:

Heidt, Garreth

I've been coaching LD for almost 20 years. I’ll accept just about anything, but the burden is on you to teach it to me. Thus my paradigm is one of education--being a teacher I have a good idea of what that’s about, and being a student, you should know what it’s about as well.

Your job is to teach me about why your position on the resolution is the one that should be the most valid in the round. As a teacher, you should strive for clarity and concision because education is a communicative act and a clear, concise message offers you the greatest chance to communicate successfully.

As far as adjudication, I need to know why something is important for me to learn in the round.  Whatever you chose to run in a round, then, should be explained so that I grasp the argument at hand, the support for that argument, and the reason why that argument is important in the round.A lot of that is self-evident, I know, but you should consider that I won't finish arguments for you.

Consider the round a type of test you're giving me. First, it should be clear to me what’s on the test and second why certain arguments are more important than others. If you write a test I understand and can learn from, you'll win the round. Thus, your victory is a type of merit pay.

Theory: I'd rather not vote on this. I think too many debaters use it as a way out of the more substantive ethical matters at hand. That said, I'll consider it if you run it well.

Critiques/DAs/ and other CX cross-overs: Sure, if you have the time to teach me, I have the time to learn. Just tell me how it's to function in the round.

Rebuttals: Crystallize and write the ballot for me.

Standards: They give me a clear manner by which to weigh the round. If you use a traditional value/criterion structure, then understand that links and impacts to standards are important to me, but they’re not the only way I’ll weigh the round. Given my paradigm, you could run anything else, so long as you are clear, weigh it, and tell me why it’s the best way to adjudicate the round.

I invite creative, innovative ways to frame the debate, but they require an extra burden on the debater’s part to make things clear and conscise.

Experience

Debated 4 years in HS from 2007-2011 (LD [3 years] PF [1 years]) on the circuit.

Preferences

Speaking

I judge several tournaments a year, but am largely removed from the event otherwise. This makes egregious spreading inadvisable. I will say clear once if you are unintelligible, however after that point you are on your own and my retention of your arguments may suffer. Please enunciate card names. I can't stress this enough.

Philosophy / Arguments

Ultimately, i'm going to judge you on the flow. The years have made me slightly more traditional, but i'm still very open to non-traditional cases. Plans, CP's, disads, are all kosher with me. Careful with the more critical material, and if you do run it make sure it is explained well. I tend to have a higher bar of expectations for those who run kritiks, so bear that in mind. I believe theory is necessary to counter abuse, however, if you run it make sure it's well explained and necessary. I'm largely unsympathetic to debaters who employ it offensively.

Technique

Most often, the more technically proficient debater will win my ballot. Make sure your extensions are clear (author names, internal warrants). Give me a standard, link and impact to that standard, and give me weighing analysis for competing offense.

Misc. Preferences

I'm not going to decide the round on whether you sit or stand, or what you're wearing. Do what makes you most comfortable and will produce the best round. Flex prep is more than okay with me. It is expected that you will time yourself. I will keep time for prep, and that's it.

I am an experienced LD judge and former coach. By all measure, I am a traditional judge. I want to see clearly outlined value structure and clash between opposing values. I expect you to link your impacts to your warrants. Crystalize your voters and remember; it is your responsibility to show the judge why you have won the round. I believe flow tech is vital. It is the responsibility of the debater to extend dropped arguments not the judges'. I have no issue with speed. I will vote on any argument as long it functions within the structure of Lincoln Douglas Debate. Also, never forget this is a public speaking event; if you are speaking you are standing.

La Salle College HS:
Policy Debater 2004-2007
Head Coach of Policy Debate, 2012-2016
Head Coach of Speech and Debate, 2016-2023.

As of September 2023, I am no longer actively involved in coaching, but will still judge from time to time.

I have judged debate (mostly policy, but also LD/PF) since 2008. I no longer judge with regularity and while I am fine with speed, etc. I am no longer a judge who does any topic research.

General Debate Thoughts

Policy--------------X------------------------------K
Tech-----------------------------X----------------Truth
Read no cards------------------X-----------------Read all cards
Condo good----X--------------------------Condo bad
States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad
Politics DA is a thing------------X-----------------Politics DA not a thing
Always VTL-X--------------------------------------Sometimes NVTL
UQ matters most--------------------------X------Link matters most
Fairness is a thing----X---------------------------Fairness isn’t an impact
Try or die-------------------------------X----------No risk
Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard
Clarity-X--------------------------------------------I’ll just read the docs
Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground
Presumption------X--------------------------------Never votes on presumption
Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev
"Insert this re-highlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

• You should do what you do best and do it well – I think I am a good judge in that I will allow the arguments to develop themselves, and take the responsibility of the judge being a educator seriously.
• I will not vote on any argument that makes me uncomfortable as an educator. You should ask yourself, if my teachers/administrators were observing, would I make this same argument?
• Speed is fine, but clarity is important. Most debaters could slow down, get more arguments out, and increase judges comprehension.
• Tech>truth; however, when you have tech and truth on your side, it’s hard to lose.

General Paradigm: Do what you do best, Tech>Truth, Speed is fine.

Experience: I did policy debate and some LD at La Salle College High School from 2012-2016. Since then I've consistently judged ~20 rounds per year.

Aff: I typically went for a soft left policy aff but I enjoyed running big stick offs too. I think affirmatives without a plan are an important and educational part of the activity as well. What ever you option you choose just make sure that at the end of the round I know:

what the 1AC is supposed to do
how it is supposed to do it,
and why what it does matters.

I'm not the best person for a No-plan vs. K debate simply because I wasn't in and haven't seen as many rounds like that.

Neg:

Framework: If the affirmative doesn't defend a plan Framework is the strategy I most often used as a debater and am most familiar with. When executed poorly Framework debates are boring. I'm personally like fairness and education standards. Only go for fairness if the affirmative really does make the round unfair (which they sometimes do). I think Topical versions of the affirmative are important and can make it hard for the negative, especially if you can find an actual solvency advocate for the T version, but I appreciate quick thinking too.

Ks: I went for security and Neolib fairy often. The same rules apply to the Alt as apply to the Aff; at the end of the round I need to know what the alt is supposed to do, how it is supposed to do it, and why what it does matters. I think the link debate is very important, I think the turns case analysis is important. I can be sympathetic to aff claims that the alt is vague but that's easily mitigated by: 1 not having a vague alt, or 2 making the affirmative seem like such a bad idea that a vaguer alt is a better idea. I find that in rounds where the Affirmative doesn't defend a plan and the Neg goes for a K the role of the ballot debate gets really messy, the cleaner that is the easier my decision is. If there are role of the ballot and role of the judge arguments explain why: 1 they are the same thing and competing, or 2 they are different and how they interact. I'll be hard pressed to believe that the affirmative doesn't get to weigh the 1 AC in some capacity.

DA: The more specific the better. I think probability, time-frame, and magnitude are all important. I believe a DA can have zero risk. If the affirmative wants to go this route they're best off reading something that says "low risk = no risk." At the end of the round make sure I know why the DA matters more than the 1AC.

CP: An Advantage CP(s) with impact turns are awesome debates(but who didn't already know that). CP solvency is important. If the affirmative makes a theory argument on the CP it's a reason to reject the argument, probably not the team.

Topicality: I'll buy reasonability but it's fairly easy for the neg to beat it. If the affirmative can win reasonability they probably could have won the CI/we meet debate too, reasonability is just an easier route. T is just another argument, it needs a claim, warrant, and impact. It's easy to convince me that a term of art definition beats two words defined separately.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Schmidt%2C+Joshua

I debated policy 4 years for Lake City High School in Coeur d'Alene Idaho (ok, technically I debated 3 years for CdA and then 1 year for Lake City which was a brand new school). I did this in the 90s. Policy debate was different back then.

I did not debate in college and have coached for many years now (PF and LD).

Lincoln Douglas

I value the resolution. I believe Aff has a burden to show the resolution is, generally speaking, a true statement. Neg has the burden to show it is a false statement.

The method by which we typically answer the question of the resolution is the criterion (value-criterion or standard). I should note that I am completely open to other methods of answering the question of the resolution. What most people mis-understand is that these methods must actually address the question and not some other question that you wish we were debating.

When it comes time to decide the round I will do the following: First - I will try and decide which criterion to use as a method for deciding the round. This means that you are extremely well advised to compare and contrast your criterion with your opponents. If both criterions are shown to be not worth using then I will just weigh generic “impacts” broadly defined and largely up to my own personal biases. You don’t want this to happen.

If I happen to choose your opponents criterion then you want to link into it and show how you also win the round under your opponents method of deciding the victor. This is a very good idea and I encourage you to do it.

Second - I will use the best criterion to decide the round. This is where I look at your contentions and impact level arguments and decide how they interact with the criterion I am using. Make sure your impacts are clearly applicable under your criterion.

General Notes: Speed - I can handle some amount of moderate speed that is getting less and less as I get older. I will generally not say “clear” because my main problem with speed is that your argument stops making sense to me, I can understand all the words just not the overall meaning. I wouldn’t say “clear” if you made a poor argument and I won’t say “clear” if you make a poor argument quickly.

Warrants - I highly value warrants that are explained well by the actual debater in rebuttals. Thus, you should extend the reasoning behind each piece of evidence in addition to just mentioning its name and assuming I will do the hard work of applying its logic to the round.

Author names - Refer to arguments themselves and not just “author name and #” and expect that to convince me of anything. I am generally unconvinced that something is true just because somebody got it published somewhere. (see point above about actually understanding and explaining your warrants, especially in rebuttals and especially in how those warrants interact with the argument).

Off Topic Arguments - these are generally a bad idea. I only consider the hypothetical world in which we enact the resolution (for the Aff) or negate the resolution (for the Neg). I do not consider “real world” impacts. That being said, if you have a particular argument that actually addresses the resolution then go for it, just be very sure that it actually answers the hypothetical question of the resolution and doesn’t do something else.

Circular arguments - most value debates come down to circular arguments where somebody will say without value X then value Y is meaningless and then the response will be, but value Y is necessary in order to fully realize value X. Understand that you should respond to these arguments if your opponent makes them because a dropped argument is a true argument. But these are unlikely to actually advance the debate in your favor. On the other hand, very specific arguments about values grounded in the resolution can be extremely convincing to me and are often very strategically wise to make.

Policy Debate

Basically, everything I said above about Lincoln Douglas is still true with a couple of relatively minor exceptions. First - Neg has presumption in policy debate and I will vote Neg if no Aff impacts carry through the round.

Second - I want to reemphasize that I view my role as the judge to compare the hypothetical world in which the Aff implements their plan to the Neg world (SQ or CP). The role of the ballot is to endorse the team that best does that and to explain my thinking about that question. I do not listen to any arguments about other ideas you might have about what the role of the ballot or the judge is in the round. Utilitarianism is not the only method for making this hypothetical comparison and I will listen to moral arguments (and indeed welcome them), but they must be grounded in the hypothetical debate world and not the “real” world.





Old Philosophy (basically the same as above, but I felt that I must have been unclear about a few things so I tried to explain better above).
I feel that debate is a game. Games have goals. The Aff's goal is to show that the resolution is generally a true statement. The Neg's goal is to show that the resolution is generally not true. My job is to evaluate who has accomplished their goal better.

The traditional value/value-criterion is a very efficient way of acheiving your goal; I understand what you are doing and therefore you do not need to spend much time clarifying how this causes you to meet your goal. I am open to other ways of meeting your goal, but make sure you are clearly explaining how your argument impacts the resolution. Also, you are probably being much less clear than you think you are, so explain your argument as clearly as you can and then clarify it more.

Speaking of clarity, talking fast really only works if the idea is simple to explain. For complicated ideas you should slow down (and almost *all* of philosophy is pretty complicated). Remember to explain your criterion particularly well as this is where I look to see exactly how you want me to evaluate the round. You want me to understand this very, very well so don't speed through it.

How I decide between two competing arguments. A good argument does the following: it is clearly explained (yes, this is a theme), it is relevant (i.e. it addresses your goal or it actually addresses the argument you are attacking), it is properly explained why your argument might be true (i.e. it has a warrant). It is important to note that bald assertions are not warrants and that quoting an "expert" who then makes a bald assertion is not particularly persuasive to me and can easily be overturned by your opponent's original analysis.

Arguments that the game of debate is fundamentally unfair are not persuasive to me (nothing in life is fair and much of what is perceived to be unfair in one way is actually tilted the other way).

Finally, I love crystallization. At the end of the debate I like a nice tidy list of things I should vote for you on and clear reasons why you are winning that list (it is also very helpful to weigh the arguments you are winning vs. the arguments your opponent might have won).