Blue Maroon and White at Shikellamy
2017 — PA/US
LD Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideCoach 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.
I come from a background of competing in LD and Congress, but have experience judging IEs (extemp, OI, declamation, DI/HI, OO), in addition to debate events (Parli, LD, PFD).
For LD, I don't mind speed (within moderation), but ask that you are courteous and do not spread your opponent out of the round; if you spread your opponent out of the round, I will automatically drop you. I like to see a good values-based debate, since this is the fundamental nature of the event. Arguments over statistics will not win you a round; while they are important to support your claims, this is not the type of clash I want to see. When you make an assertion, tell me the source for that assertion, and why I should care (CWI structure). Your clash should be logical and flow smoothly. Roadmaps are important so I can follow where you're going. In 1NR and 2AR, give me clear voting issues to summarize the round. Be kind to one another; at the end of the day, this is meant to be fun. Do not be rude to your opponent during c-x or in rebuttal speeches. There IS a way to respectfully disagree. Do NOT go over time. When I call time, wrap up. Prep time will be called out in 30 second increments.
For PFD, the same paradigms for LD apply here, with the natural exception of the values-based debate. Present your arguments clearly and be respectful of each other during crossfire. Follow the CWI structure. Roadmap! And please tell me why your side wins in your final focus.
For Congress, PO, I will be keeping note of how orderly you maintain your chamber. Speakers, do NOT abuse the grace period. Be respectful of your fellow competitors. If you wish to preface, be sure to ask the PO for permission before you do so. I factor in overall activity in the chamber, so your score will be given additional weight if you are frequently asking questions of other speakers when able to do so. If the debate is single-sided, please try to speak on the opposite side to keep the debate going. Rehash will be noted and frowned upon. I like to see good clash, so make sure to keep track of other speakers and what they have said before you. Reference them and counter what they say, or show your support for points that they have made, while advancing the debate with new arguments. Be sure to speak clearly; while Congress is more akin to debate, there is an element of speech-like articulation that is required to effectively get your point across.
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.
I'm a tab judge, I'm never going to intervene or complete arguments for the debaters in front of me. What's made important in the round is what I'll make important on my ballot. I'm fine with speed, as long as the debaters articulate. I understand K and rhetorical arguments, and am willing to vote for whatever makes the most logical sense in the round, regardless of morals (i.e., I'll vote for an argument that kills more people if the debater can tell me why that makes the most sense).
I know debate theory and will always point out an error in link chain, though I won't vote there unless opponent also points it out.
I like voters, clash points, and world comparison.
Delivery does not weigh heavily in my decision-making, unless your speed/style becomes an impediment to understanding.
Good communication is a part of LD. Give vocal emphasis to the parts of your speech your want me to pay attention to. Tag your contentions clearly. It is YOUR burden to be clear, not my burden to untangle your lack of clarity. If you want to go fast and read card after card with no analysis, you may do that--but accept the fact that you are not a model of good communication, and I will almost certainly miss important parts of your argument, which is your fault.
LD conventions and decorum matter. Expect to stand during speeches and cross-examinations. Dress appropriately. Wait until everyone is ready before speaking. Address the judge during cross-examination. Be respectful and attentive to your opponent. If you have scorn for their arguments, choke it down. Ignoring LD conventions shows a lack of respect for everyone in the room, and the activity itself.
I expect good coverage, though I will not vote on unrefuted arguments if they don't come up in the round.
I am wary of intimidation techniques used on opponents. You should win the round on the strength of your arguments, not how much you are able to freak out your opponent.
I prefer to vote on which value structure is better upheld.
I don't respond well to quizzes about how much LD jargon I know. Be clear, be nice, be respectful.
Reading a card/evidence is not an argument. Saying "cross-apply" is not an argument. I will not fill in analysis for you.
I expect crystallization (clear voters) at the end of a round.