Hi debaters,

I have three years of judging experience and have been very active in the speech and debate circuit this year. If I am judging you in public forum, please don't speak very quickly- I won't get everything you say if you spread. I am a flow judge and use it when making decisions in PF. Please don't speak over your opponents in crossfire in a rude or unreasonable way. When asking a question, please give your opponent an opportunity to answer.

During the debate, you should make your main arguments clear, and make it clear what you want me to vote off of. Weigh in summary and final focus, and if you want something to be a voting issue, put it in both summary and final focus. I am a fan of clear and smart frameworks.

Thank you and good luck! Enjoy the tournament.

I am looking for insightful and new analyses of a topic in OO

I am hoping to be pleasantly surprised in INFO

I want honest and truthful storytelling in INTERP

I prefer performances that feel natural and effortless to overacting.

Put me on the email chain: bastianethan3@gmail.com

Criminal Justice 2020-2021: Limited lab assistance. I helped write the Abolition K aff, so that's what I'm most familiar with. Assume I don't know acronyms for the time being. I'll vote for who wins, but it should be noted that I don't find "cops good" to be inherently persuasive.

Experience: At the time of writing, I have competed in four years of policy debate, and now compete as a Junior with KU. I have run ridiculous politics arguments that win rounds, but I have also run a performative Irigaray aff, followed by a performative Trans People of Color Rage aff, so I am down for all kinds of arguments. I will admit that currently I am debating more on the policy side (check my aff for this year).

General: I default to an offense/defense paradigm. I am sympathetic to tech over truth in the context of dropped arguments, but I think that the claim that an arg is "dropped" is overused. I'll protect the 2N. 2AR lies can be justified, but it's a steep battle. I rely heavily on the flow as a judge, so please tell me where you are and what arguments you are answering. Please tell me what I should vote on and why, because I too hate judge intervention. I am very expressive with my face so you will likely know what I am liking or not liking. Flashing/email is not prep, unless it is excessive. Keep chatter between speeches to a minimum, we're on the clock. Don't be over-powering or dick-ish in CX. Let your partner talk.

Speed: Go for it, just please be clear on tags and slow down on analytics - especially theory. I can flow pretty well, but nothing feels worse than knowing I need to give a competent RFD on T when I can't be sure I got all of your arguments.

T: I view T debates as two competing models for debate. Reasonability isn't really persuasive to me unless it is dropped/undercovered. Fairness is an impact unless you win otherwise. Impact work please, why do I vote for limits? Why is precision an impact?

FW/T against aff: Fairness is an impact until proven otherwise. Be aware of the terminal level when doing impact calc, IE how does collapse of the activity/fairness compare to the impacts of their aff. Debate is at its core a competitive activity, but I think that it also offers unique educational opportunities. If you go for only one of those aspects as an impact, explain it's interaction with the other aspects of the debate. In these debates I generally let the aff weigh their case as offense unless otherwise persuaded and will also default to competing interpretations as mechanisms for both teams to resolve their offense. Please have a TVA, though in some cases it may not be needed.

FW(aff) against K's(neg): If your framework is "K's bad for debate", I will not grant you much ground. "Let us weigh the aff" is usually a better route in my opinion. "Only links to the plan" is acceptable, but you have to debate still. Defend your method, IE policy debate education good, predictions good, role-playing good, Etc. My personal idea of what framework ought to look like is that the aff needs to defend its reps, but the aff can also weigh the impacts of the case against the impact of each link. More leaning over time to assumptions-based links being bad.

Theory: My threshold is pretty high on theory, higher than T. I err neg on conditionality, dispositionality, and perfcon arguments. I think perfcon is best deployed as link non-uniqueness for reps or rhetoric args. I can be persuaded by condo if the aff can prove the pertinence of the abuse (IE Two Cps and a K with T and one or more DAs is definitely enough for me to begin considering in round abuse), but rarely as just another piece of offense because you could fit it in the frontline. Show me what strategic options you've lost as a 2A. ASPEC is generally pretty ridiculous, but in round abuse is persuasive. If you read from the troll a-z spec file or anything in the troll vein of theory I will likely not be voting for you. I dislike most PICs, but particularly condition CPs and Delay CPs. Fifty-State Fiat: as this has become a contended issue on this topic, I will say that while I generally err neg on theory I can be convinced fifty-state fiat is unrealistic or bad scholarship.

DA's: I love ptx DA's. Explain and defend the internal link scenario clearly. I am willing to vote for a DA without a counterplan with sufficient defense and turns case arguments.

CP's: The counterplan should solve some part of case. I likely won't judge kick unless you tell me to and/or it's dropped. I personally dislike CP's that use multiple planks to FIAT out of solvency deficits, and think there may be a theory debate to be had on that question. If you use a sufficiency framing explain what that means in terms of the aff and how that changes how I evaluate the debate. See above for where I stand on theory debates.

K's: Impact out each link. Explain in depth why links are DAs to the perm -making a blippy assertion has never seemed like enough to me. Explain your alt. I will default to it as a frame to evaluate the debate rather than a CP unless told otherwise. If you win offense against the alt, explain why it matters. I find this direct response to the theory combined with weighing case to be quite persuasive. Explain in depth and minimize jargon, I have a decent knowledge of most literature bases but much less so of jargon associated with a given theory. Side note: Death good is a pretty bad arg so at best you could get a low-point win with a very irritated rfd out of me afterwards when reading it.

K's on the aff: I personally think this is just part of debate and that "K's bad" generic framework is pretty outdated. Cross-apply the above. My specific comments would be that I prefer you to affirm the resolution and prove relevancy to the topic. Explain what your aff does and how it relates to your harms, and on what level I should evaluate it (IE in round, exportable method, hypothetical imaginary, etc.) Explain to me what you think debate should look like v FW, as I will weigh two interpretations at the end of the round. I am willing to weigh your aff in that decision. You get a perm unless you get whooped on theory. I like method debates.

HELLO!!!!
I am a fairly new judge to debate.

I expect RESPECTFUL debate...the minute you get an edge to you and become aggressive toward the other team...I shut off and will cast my vote for the other team. It is SO IMPORTANT that we have a respectful exchange of ideas and debate those accordingly. I do expect there to be a clash of ideas...just not a clash of personality. Questioning is important.

I enjoy strong connection to your material and expect you to provide strong reasoning and support for the points you are bringing to the table. If you have to spell it out for me, please do so. Be meticulous in how you explain things for me so that I can follow what you are saying. ORGANIZATION to your delivery is the key.

Speed: I am NOT a fan of spreading so do NOT do it.

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.

I LOVE terrific cross-examination!!!

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, clarity of delivery, and organization.

I've been apart of the speech and debate community for 22 years and have literally judges every speech and debate event at every level of competition. Many moons ago, I was trained a "traditional LDer" where persuasion was valued above all else (this was before computers in debate). Over the years, I have been trending towards progressive debate. I will gladly listen to critical literature, theory arguments, and anything that you believe to be relevant to the round. Do not assume that I will correctly apply your arguments. Tell me where to flow them and why they are important to this particular round.

Over the last decade, I have been running tournaments more often than I have been in the judging pool, including this year, so I am a bit out of practice when it comes to spreading. If you wish to spread, please include me in the email chain so that I can follow along.

Do not be afraid to ask me any questions prior to the debate so that I can clarify my paradigm.

kylebrenner@protonmail.com

For judging I am incredibly easy when it comes to judging.  I like good debate that is clear and easy to follow.  I'm not a huge fan of spreading.  Especially in debate formats that it isn't meant for.  I will pretty much flow anything in the round with in reason.   If you stretch too radical then I'm not inclined to buy into your thoughts.  I've been judging world schools the last 9 years so prefer to stick to the ideals of world schools.  Definitions should be clean and easy to follow, nothing squirrely.

General note for both speech and debate: how you behave in a round matters. I expect you to be cordial and collegial to your opponents. If you are not, your speaker points and/or ranking will reflect it.

Racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc. comments and/or arguments and/or behavior are not tolerated. You WILL lose the round and/or receive 0 speaker points. Don't do it. And that includes coded language. If you use stereotypes of identities (particularly race, gender, disabilities, and/or ethnicities) that aren’t yours, especially for comedic effect, you will be ranked last.

A little about me: I was a policy debater in high school (20+ years ago). I currently run Lakeside Debate and Public Speaking School, where I am the head coach. For four years, I was the Congressional debate coach for Lakeville North and Lakeville South High Schools. For two years, I also taught Congress and PF for Potomac Debate Academy. I was the Head Coach at Wayzata High School for two years where I coached policy. I also coach speech (all categories), most recently at Edina High School. I've literally coached and judged it all. I also have a PhD in social ethics.

Here’s the TL;DR version:
Clash is the minimum expectation in debate rounds. Make sure that the speech you give fits where you give it (i.e., extemping a rebuttal on the third cycle vs. reading a prepared speech in the third cycle for Congress). I love Ks and critical argumentation (but know your theory!). Give me the ballot in every speech after the constructive! And don’t conflate ethics and morals! See below for more detailed information for events.


CONGRESS

Each speech should have proper argumentation (claim, warrant, impact(s)). IMPACT OUT YOUR EVIDENCE!!! You should know why the evidence you’re reading or the statistic you’re citing matters and you should communicate that! Road map your speeches. Signpost during them. If you are not the first speaker on either side of a bill, make it clear that you're following what's come before you. Acknowledge your fellow representatives when you're building on their point or when you're refuting it. CLASH IS EVERYTHING!

I expect crystallizations and rebuttals to include weighing/impact calc. I rank POs unless the round is chaotic/incredibly poorly run. Precedency and recency matter. I track the number of questions you ask in addition to scoring your speeches. The person who gets my top rank is the person who performed best in the round, factoring in questions, speeches, and in-round behavior. I'm looking for cordiality and collegiality, strength and uniqueness of arguments, fully impacted out arguments, and excellent in-round engagement with the thoughts and arguments of others. Generally, I care more about the content of your speech than your delivery, unless the delivery makes it impossible for your arguments to land.

LD/POLICY/PF DEBATE
In a round, I'm paying close attention to whether arguments are complete and if they're well supported by the cards used. It's not just about cramming as much as will fit into an X-minute speech; it's about making sure that your evidence says what you're saying it does and using information to make your argument stronger. I'm looking for claims, warrants, and impacts. I will vote on impacts, so make sure you extend them. ***Trigger warnings are not enough; you need to have a non-explicit case that you can run.***

I'm not a strict flow judge, but I am tracking all the arguments. If questions are raised in rounds that are a priori(need to be addressed prior to addressing the resolution), I'm paying special attention to how they're run and responded to; T and K are voters that, for me, always take precedence over case. RFDs will not be tech heavy.

Clash is important! Rounds where the sides talk past each other and don’t engage with the arguments of the other side are not good rounds

Tell me why you should get the ballot in all post-constructive speeches. Make your case for why you win the round. But please do not tell me that I have an ethical obligation to vote a certain way, unless you're giving me the ethical paradigm from which you want me to vote. Otherwise, the phrase "you have an ethical obligation to vote for us" means nothing. Ethics and morals are not the same thing, so please don't conflate them. Morals are an appeal to shared values, while an ethic is simply a way of being in the world. Knowing how to make these arguments successfully will make you better debaters.

While I am an old school policy debater, my doctoral studies were continental philosophy, critical theory, cultural theory, and social ethics. Bring on your critical arguments! I love critical argumentation in both LD and Policy when it's done well. I welcome it in PF, too. I expect students to understand the theory that underlies their critical arguments, as that is the only way to successfully defend arguments of that kind. My decisions in many rounds come down to a priori questions to the resolution, especially Ks.

Speed, in and of itself, is not a problem; speed without clarity is. If I can't understand you, I will say “Clear” once. Slow down and enunciate. If I still cannot understand you, it's an issue that will impact speaker points. Please slow on your tags and citations.

This is the single best advice I can give you if I am your judge: do not conflate ethics and morals. An ethic is a way of being in the world; it does not require morals. Morals, conversely, are principles by which one lives one’s life. While many ethics include morals as part of their structure, ethics and morals aren’t the same thing. If you’re making a moral appeal argument, you need to tell me what the morals to which you’re appealing are and why they’re important. If you’re making an ethical argument, you need to tell me what the ethical framework is that I should use. Otherwise, telling me that I have an ethical or moral obligation to vote in a particular way means nothing; you need to give me the framework or the values you want me to use to evaluate the round. When you don’t, it means that I am using my own ethical or moral framework to evaluate rounds and, because no two people have the exact same ethic (way of being in the world), it lowers the persuasiveness of your argument.

PF-Specific Preferences:
Evidence ethics matter!!! DO NOT PARAPHRASE IN FRONT OF ME. Read the actual card. It doesn't take any longer to read the card than it does to paraphrase it. There are no excuses for not reading the actual card. If you take longer than a minute to provide a card that's called, I will strike it from the flow. If the card is called and you were paraphrasing it, I reserve the right to drop you, especially if there are any discrepancies between what you said and what the source says. Critical arguments are always welcome, but make sure you can prove a violation if you’re running T or a norms violation (disclosure, trigger warning, spreading, etc).

SPEECH
I’ve coached every NSDA category and regularly judge them. There are a couple big things that I’m looking for when I judge a speech round.

1) Performance: Can I hear you? Do your movements make sense? Are you comfortable with the material? Do you wait for the judge before beginning? Does entire performance fit with the material? How well do you perform or present your piece? Are you off book? Do you speak with confidence and authority?

2) Category specific things: For interp generally, I pay close attention to transitions, pops, and character work. Are they clean? Are they distinct physically and vocally? Getting those to a point where they’re clean is a huge hurdle, but one that matters.

In humor, do the jokes land? Are they told well? Does the performance include pauses after jokes that elicit a laugh? Do you know what your laugh lines are? Is the piece funny? Are you relying on racial/ethnic, gender, or other stereotypes for comedic effect? (If you do, you'll rank last!)

TRAUMA FOR THE SAKE OF DRAMA IS NOT OKAY! There is no reason for the details of an assault to be included in a piece or portrayed during a performance. Trigger warnings must be delivered properly; if I am your judge and your piece needs a trigger warning, please communicate that to me prior to the start of the round. I will take care of alerting the room and allowing time and space for people to take care of themselves. Do NOT turn the trigger warning into a performative action that does not allow time and space for people to take care of themselves.

In POI, I’m looking for a cohesive piece that has a clear narrative arc throughout it. Do the piece selections fit with each other? Is each piece identifiable? In other words, can I tell when you’re popping between pieces? Does the theme carry through? Have the cuttings been done well?

In Info, OO, and other student-written categories, does the text make sense? How well written is the piece? Does it succeed in being interesting and engaging? In an OO round, is the speech persuasive or is it dramatic? Does the solutions fit the problem? And in an Info round, is it an informative speech or is it persuasive? I want persuasion in OO and informative in Info.

For extemp, I want to see both an understanding of the prompt and an understanding of the arguments advanced. Are arguments complete (claim, warrant, impact) or are they missing a piece? Does the argument have ground? Is the question closely tied to the arguments made by the student? Impact out your evidence!

3) Category requirements: do the piece and its performance adhere to the NSDA rules or the operative rules for a tournament? If you’re not sure what they are, you can find that information on the NSDA website or the tournament website (NSDA rules are used widely, so start there).

4) Respect and collegiality: do you treat everyone with respect? Are you on your phone or engaged in watching your peers? Put simply: don’t be a jerk. No one likes a jerk. If you’re disrespectful in a round, it will impact your ranking.

Make my ranking decisions hard for me! The best rounds are the ones where I have a hard time figuring out how to rank you.

Overview: I have been the Head Coach at Scottsdale Preparatory Academy since founding the team in 2013. I have been fortunate to coach dozens of students both at the AZ-local level and on the national circuit, but believe this activity (regardless of event) is first and foremost about "seeking the truth" through deep reading, active listening, clear thinking, and finally honest speaking. Your goal should not be to only be able to convince people with insular prior experience and expertise in S&D; good communication is good communication and should be about being able to reach anyone. As a coach, I also have the privilege/challenge of training lots of new parent/community judges who are scared to judge for the first time. My honest belief is that if you've "read a book before, watched a movie before, listened intently to a lecture before, and had a conversation with someone who disagreed with you" then you have sufficient life experience to become a good speech and debate judge (assuming they also learn the event rules/format, give feedback, and keep asking questions to keep improving).

Congressional Debate: Congressional Debate will forever be one of my favorite events. Your job is to be the whole package: convincing speaker, solid researcher, active questioner, and get into the collegial role play (without wandering too far into excessive, unnecessary motions).

- Speeches: There is no specific speaking position that is prone to do better or worse than others for me. I've seen and coached dozens of students who were primarily constructive speakers who liked speaking in early cycles on each bill. Thoroughly researched and original constructive speeches are vital for inviting good debate to follow. Others preferred (and were successful) at being a mix of late-constructive-speaker with some refutation (I welcome direct refutation as long as it is deeper than "Rep XX says YY and I disagree", offer an analysis of their claims/warrants/impacts). Others preferred to be a late cycle ("crystalization") speaker with greater emphasis on "weighing" and clarifying the overall issues brought up in the debate (please know that just giving a laundry list of previous speaker names, what they said, and whether you agree/disagree is not a crystalization; I was already here to hear their speeches, you still need to offer unique research and original analysis, even if it is analysis of their analysis). Any of those three speaker positions can do well or can do poorly depending on the speaker/speech. All three of them have an important role to play in Congressional Debate. In all 3 speaking positions, evidence is necessary.

- Decorum/Speech Length: The NSDA rule is that speeches have a time limit of 3 minutes, but does not specify a penalty for those who abuse the speech length. My belief is that exceeding the time limit is un-collegial (privileging one's own speech over those of others), shows a lack of decorum, and disrespects the rules. Many tournaments/leagues have begun offering a 10 second grace period (with the idea of letting a speaker finish their sentence/thought). If you are competing at a tournament that allows such a grace period, know that your goal should still be to give a 3:00 speech and not 3:10 speeches. Exceeding 3:10 is frankly rude (I've been horror-struck to see speeches go to 3:17, 3:26, 3:42, etc.), particularly when your PO is giving you several warnings. Stealing time from Congress’ ability to get to other speeches is unfair and poor form.

- Presiding: I have trained many students to preside (and even been fortunate to coach a student who Presided in the Finals at Nationals), and know how incredibly difficult it is to lead your peers. I have judged many POs who have been ranked in my Top 1-3 or Top 6, and also judged POs who have been in the bottom 25% of my Parli ballot. I know how difficult POing is and wish to reward a truly great PO, but the bar for leadership is still quite high and getting elected is not a guarantee that you're going to earn a good rank. POing takes practice both inside and outside of tournaments.

- Mentorship/Civility: In some ways I am grateful that there isn't a novice division of Congressional Debate because it means that new students or competitors from teams who are new to Congress will hopefully get to see some good models from experienced students in the room which they can learn from and emulate. If you are an experienced Congressional Debater, you already have a sizable competitive advantage over these students learning the ropes; they are not a threat to you. Build them up, invite them to discuss the docket with you before the round, encourage them to come to the next Congress (its in your best interest for Congress to grow across the State and Nation). Bludging a new congressional debater to death or being condescending just makes them never want to do the activity again, and makes judges less inclined to vote for you (even if you give solid speeches). This activity is about more than winning rounds; "speaking with good purpose" should be about more than giving quality speeches.

Public Forum Debate: Despite having a background in debate, I wish teams would emphasize the "Public" nature of Public Forum Debate. I competed in Public Forum Debate shortly after it was founded, and remember that part of the rationale for creating it was that debate was getting too far removed from the public and becoming increasingly insular If this community exists to only persuade those who have been specially trained to think in a specific way, then this activity fails at its goal of being relevant in the real world.

Speak clearly, medium slowly, persuasively, and be grounded in thorough research (in all speeches, not just the constructives). Unsubstantiated claims, or rebuttal/summary/final focus speeches that keep re-hashing your side while ignoring the opposition's side, are not rewarded. Even though I am coach, you are inevitably far more broadly and deeply read on this specific topic. Your job is to teach me just like it would be to teach any judge. I should leave feeling like I've learned something about the world, or think about the topic in a slightly new way.

Lincoln Douglas Debate: Please allow me to give you the respect of speaking honestly. I have coached lots of Novice LD through the basics of traditional LD, and past that I admit my limitations. I am essentially non-responsive to kritikal arguments and spreading. I acknowledge that you are significantly more thoroughly read on the topic than I am and likely will ever be. Use that knowledge responsibly and teach me. I should leave the round feeling like I as the judge learned something new about the world (or I should think about something in a new way), because you slowly taught it to the audience. Make it obvious your side is winning.

Policy Debate: If a tournament is in dire straits and desperate enough that I am judging a round of policy debate, then God rest all of our souls. Firstly, consider what I've said above about Congress, PF, and LD. If judging policy debate, I will basically adopt a "policy maker" paradigm, and your job is to (slowly, like a real policymaker would) convince me that the policy plan put forward is or isn't the better option. If I can't understand you, then I don't write it down and it didn't happen. You will have more success with stock arguments: topicality, advantages/disadvantages, maybe counterplans. If you're willing to meet me where I'm at, I'll give you a fair listening. I understand the need for progressive/kritikal arguments to exist in this form of academic debate, but they will most likely not help you win my vote.

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

I like to see a variety of sources in extemp. Don't just throw it in there to have it, make sure it helps paint the picture.

I like to see some type of extemp walk to help me visualize the speech more.

Threads not the most important to have in extemp, but there should be some solid transitions going into each point.

Significance in all speech events are super important to me. I need to know why I should listen to you.

If using language it really needs to have it's purpose.

Debate:

Talk Pretty

I enjoy role of the ballot and role of the judge you tell me how to vote on the round.

Run whatever as long as you can explain. Key word is EXPLAIN.

Don't be rude to one another or you will lose speaker points.

General Experience:I am a retired coach (one diamond) who judges a few tournaments a year. I competed in extemp and LD as a student and went to nationals in LD.

Speech Paradigms:

Extemp: You must answer the question. I will weigh both content and delivery when making my decision. Academic integrity is paramount, so I may check your sources. An excellent speech will clearly answer the question, offer insight and analysis (in-depth look at the issue), back arguments up with relevant and timely sources, and do all of this with a conversational and professional delivery.

OO & Info: I am looking for a balance of content and delivery. Do you bring forth new ideas or perspectives with your topic? Do you offer insight and analysis? Do you make me care? I expect top speeches to have smooth and professional delivery that uses variation in rate, tone, and volume to keep listeners engaged. It is nice to hear ideas backed up with research. Informative speeches should have visuals that contribute to our understanding of the topic (not just something for us to look at and you to do.)

Interp Paradigms:

I love a great performance that showcases your talents while clearly presenting distinctive characters. BUT I equally want content and understanding of the material. Have you cut a selection from the source that conveys a story or point or theme? (And am I able to follow it with your interpretation?) Does your "cast of characters" use vocal variety, physical movement, and overall performance to aid (as opposed to hinder) my understanding? And I love to see classic works, so bonus for high quality content done well.

L-D Debate: I am a somewhat old-fashioned L-D judge. I want to see persuasive communication and a clash on values and value criteria.

Experience:

I am a retired coach (one diamond) who judges a few tournaments a year. I competed in LD as a student-- when dinosaurs roamed the earth and LD was value, not policy, debate.

What I want to see:

I like a mix of pragmatic and philosophical arguments. The winning debater will have a mix of persuasive speaking, logical arguments supported by either philosophy, empirical evidence or expert opinion, and the value which has been proven to be superior based on the criteria in the round. I don’t want to see evidence during or after the round. I don’t think I’ve ever voted for a kritik.

Delivery:

I will flow. I don’t have a problem with speed. Keep in mind, I value convincing delivery in making a decision, so don’t go for speed if you can’t do so clearly and persuasively. You should stand when you speak.

Deal Breakers:

Your chance of winning the round drops dramatically if you:

- don’t allow fair ground for debate

- are rude to your opponent

- show me the back of your laptop instead of your face

- mis-use or mis-quote evidence (academic integrity is paramount!)

I have been judging Speech and Debate for over ten years.

As far as speed goes with regard to debate- spread at your own risk. If I can understand you, there is no problem. If I can't understand what you are saying, it makes no difference how good your argument was. I have to be able to hear and understand what you are saying to win.

I'm not nit-picky when it comes to the intricate details. It's very simple- whichever team makes the better argument and defends it better will win. Present an articulate, well researched, well reasoned argument and you'll be fine.

the quickest way to lose a debate with me is to be flippant, dismissive, or disrespectful of the other team.

Public Speaking Professor. I’m neither progressive or traditional as a rule. I’m fine with spreading. However, if you speak so quickly that I can’t understand you, then I can’t judge you effectively.

I have been a PF coach for 20+ years. To win my ballot you should do the following things.

1. Clearly sign post throughout the round. I do flow but I do not like to spend time looking for the arguments you are addressing.

2. If you have a framework, you need to address it throughout the round. Stating it in the first speech and then not again until final focus will cause me to not weigh it as heavily in the round. I only insert myself into rounds that there is no clear framework or weighing mechanism for the round.

3. I can handle moderate speed as long as you articulate. It is to your benefit that I get all the info I can.

4. I vote on the arguments presented. I will listen to all arguments but you need to make sure they are clearly explained. If I do not understand it I do not vote for it. I will not vote on K in PF

5. Extend arguments not cards. You need to give the argument the card is making just not the author's name when extending.

6. Give me clear voting issues in the final focus. I like to hear why you should win. The focus should be on your case not your opponents.

7. Speaker points are based on how well you present yourself throughout the round. I am a speech and theater teacher and like to see good communication skills. Yelling at me or your opponents is not good communication. Crossfires need to be conducted with civility. You can be civil and still have clash in the round. I rarely give 30’s, those are reserved for truly outstanding persuasive speakers.

• Speak at a reasonable pace. I understand that you have a time limit and that you can't be idle, but there is a difference between speaking quickly and creating a rap album. You will not win if I can't understand you.

• Be aware of your persona and style. Your case's content will primarily decide who wins the round, but content composes just one part of an argument. Be as rhetorically effective as possible: have a strong, clear, concise speaking style; pose a defendable thesis-centered argument; maintain eye contact; and act professionally. You could have the most well prepared case, but if you present it poorly, you will quite possibly lose.

• Don't be disrespectful. This point coincides with the second point, but I cannot stress enough that disrespect will make me want to vote against you. This does not mean that I don't appreciate sass - I do, and I think that sass can make a debate more interesting - but you need to be able to differentiate between harmless sass and a hateful tone. If you can't present a case without being hateful, then your rhetorical skills are disturbingly underdeveloped.

CX Debate

I consider myself to be a Tab judge, but I also have more of a traditional background. I'm comfortable evaluating the style of argumentation presented in the round. However, I don't have as much experience evaluating policy debate rounds this year as I typically would because of the online format. That means I'm not as familiar with the literature, so be mindful of that. I recommend that you explain to me how there's a path to vote for you in the rebuttals. Tell me how you think arguments should be weighed in the round.

Speech

In interp, I look for a clear storyline and development of characters. I expect to see a teaser and an intro that justifies the selection/tells me why the performance matters.

In platform and limited prep, I listen for effective speech construction, meaningful content, and smooth yet conversational delivery. I like the use of humor and other elements to add personality to the speech.

I debated 4 years of policy in High school for Bellarmine and 1 in college for UT Dallas. I coach Policy and LD currently at Presentation High School. I have been there for 7 years. If quals matter I was in CEDA octas as a frosh in college.

brandon.garrett@gmail.com for the email chain.


General/CP/DA
Despite being mostly a T/K debater in high school, my team in Dallas was a very straight-up oriented team and as a result I am familiar with and accepting of those types of arguments as well. I read plenty of counterplans and disads in college and high school. I have had and judged tons of politics debate and states counterplan debates and soft vs hard power debates. I don't dislike these debates on face, I just dislike when they lack substance in the sense that theres no analysis happening. I am pretty okayish at flowing so prolly can get you at near top speed but will yell clearer from time to time. As with anything, if you cannot clearly articulate your argument or position, I will not vote for it.

That being said, I definitely havent judged these debates much lately bc most people think I am a K hack, but I actually find them easier to adjudicate and enjoy them a lot when they are good. In a policy v policy style round, I think I am generally a pretty good judge for these debates despite preferring to judge the more left debates.

T/K affs/Fwk
I am relatively familiar with most critical literature but thinks like schlag and heidegger and baudrillard need a lot of link work analysis and alt explanation as do other dense kritiks. this type of explanation will help you in the long run anyways.

I have been told I don't get preffed because my paradigm may be a bit strongly worded. I definitely feel very strongly about use of framework as a way to silence teams with a legitimate gripe against institutional and systemic injustice that is relevant both to this activity and students autonomy. I think there are certain schools that are obviously uninterested in engaging with the substance of these types of arguments because it doesn't benefit their hegemonic structure that is self reinforcing or because it puts coaches outside their comfort zone. I think these arguments are intrinsic goods to the future of the activity and I would tend to think the trend of the community voting patterns and explosion of identity and performance arguments corroborate this direction and opinion.

I am highly inclined to believe that T-USFG is very problematic against certain types of Ks or performance affs. Debate isnt just a game, but certainly has gamelike attributes. I think entirely gamelike views on debate ensure hegemony of opinions.
True procedural fairness doesn't really exist because of structural issues, judge bias, and humans being humans and not robots. Education in some form is inevitable - its just a question of how open you are to learning something and what you are contributing.

This activity matters, what we say in it matters, and if you feel like you have no answer to a K or performance argument then go through the following thought process real quick:
1) Am I more concerned with winning than understanding the arguments of my opponent (if you answered yes you prolly wont win my ballot)
2) Do I want to win and engage the substance of my opponents arguments (If you answered yes then you can proceed)
3) Do I have anything to actually engage with the probably true argument that people of color and women and other disadvantaged people are set up to fail and the institutions of the state and debate have failed them? (If the answer is no you can still potentially win this debate: contribute to the discourse or attack thiers/create your own methodology, and tell me why you think that should enable you to win my ballot. That or cut more cards and prep better answers)

Most people who read these arguments do it to discuss real issues that really matter to them and to our community. The norm of the community to try and avoid these conversations with theory spikes or T arguments that are unspecific and poorly developed is depressing and most definitely not a strategy i support.

To clarify: I think its fine to read Policymaking good / framing against a security K or cap K - but when the debate is about an individuals autonomy and recognition in the debate space (for example - a survival strategy for a PoC) that neccesitates an entirely different discussion.

I think T-usfg/fwk (its pretty much the same thing dont lie) is a competing interpretations debate and there is pretty much no convincing me otherwise. If you cant explain what your version of debate looks like then why should you win? I love a good fiat/framing debate and can vote either way on it.

Voting
I tend to favor the team that does more analysis and explanation of warrants. If you are extending your tag and cite but not explaining the warrants of your evidence your opponents will probably win. I also dont typically look for the easiest way out. You all put a lot into this activity and I want to make sure I consider every avenue.

I definitely think that extending a dropped argument is pretty impactful - many judges will tell you just because its dropped doesn't mean its true, but until your opponents make a reasonable refutation, I will evaluate dropped arguments with a high degree of weight. I will NOT, however, give you huge impacts for dropped arguments that are extended in a blippy manner.

I feel like the biggest thing I am lacking in most rounds is impact comparison across layers. I often find myself doing unnecessary intervention because no one tells me how their impacts interact with their opponents. If you want me to vote for you make the path to the ballot really clear, and I will follow your line of thinking. When there are a bunch of open ended questions at the end of the round and doors that are not closed there is always going to be a gap of understanding between my decision and your interpretation of the round. It is definitely your responsibility to minimize that gap as much as possible.

Theory and T
In terms of theory I don't really like to pull the trigger on reject the team unless there is proof of in round abuse. I could vote on a reject the team argument but they would have to be setting a pretty uniquely bad standard for debate. I think things like "must read a trigger warning" or "condo bad" definitely fall within this description. I have a very low tolerance for frivolous theory and am definitely not your judge if you like that style or tricks. There are winnable theory arguments in front of me but stuff like 'new affs bad' or 'plans bad' that dont make realistic sense arent gonna fly. Lookin at you LD community.

Speaks
I will take away speaks if you tell me to judge kick things. Do your job as a debater.

Speaks are about ethos, pathos, and logos. If you are lacking in presence or your arguments dont make logical sense it will be hard to get perfect speaks. The best technical debater in the world is probably only a 29.5 without ethos.

I don't really give 30s and a bunch of 29s and 29.5 is really for an amazing debater. 30 for me is perfect. That being said, I also don't really give 26 or 26.5 unless you are doing really poorly. If you got a 26.9 or lower you were probably very offensive towards me or your opponents. 27 range is you messed up some fundamentals like dropped an important argument, made a contradiction that was obvious, were uneducated on your own positions, etc.

PF specific:

I favor evidence far more heavily than other judges in this event. I am SO TIRED of kids not giving dates or cites to your evidence. There are NSDA evidence rules for a reason. I am gonna start docking a speaker point for each member of each team that doesn't properly cite your evidence. If I wanted to I could not evaluate any cards you dont read author and date for because of these rules.

You force me to intervene when you read 1 liner pieces of evidence. Just stop misrepresenting and paraphrasing cards and we will get along.

Arguments in Final Focus need to be in the summary or second rebuttal. I prefer if you are second rebuttal you respond to the first rebuttal but wont hold it against you. Its just the correct strategic choice.
Extending cards by name will help you win my ballot. Weighing is huge and matters a bunch. I think you should probably use cross ex for clarification and understanding rather than making arguments. Im not flowing cross-ex.

Diction and speed should be clear and reflect insight to the meaning of the piece. Think of variations in speed and volume other than just faster and louder to show emotion. Sometimes a whisper is more powerful than a shout.

When appropriate to the event, do not be afraid of movement! Please consider blocking that is truly reflective of the meaning of the piece and internal motivations. In duo events exceptional performance includes a mature interaction and awareness of the other - active listening, genuine reactions and responses, blocking that is integrated and realistic- not just pacing around each other.

For prose and poetry, exceptional performance includes clear distinction between characters / pieces maintained throughout the performance. A clear understanding of the purpose for each piece in the overall theme is also key. Consider the intro as an important opportunity to guide the audience to the lesson or impact you’d like the performance to have.

I am a parent judge. I have experience judging Extemp/LD/Poetry at locals in the Texas circuit and Extemp/other IEs at the TOC. I value rhetoric and persuasive speaking over speed and the other technicalities of debate.

I am an experienced judge in both speech and debate, having coached for 30+ years in all categories offered within the spectrum of S&D. I began coaching Lincoln Douglas and Congressional Debate in the 1990’s, have coached PF since its inception, having coached the first PF team that represented NJ at Nationals in Atlanta, GA. I currently coach the NJ World Teams.

I am a flow judge who looks for logical arguments, a valid framework, and substantiation of claims made within your case. As a teacher of rhetoric, I appreciate word economy and precise language. Do not default to speed and redundancy to overwhelm. Persuade concisely; synthesize your thoughts efficiently. Be articulate. Keep your delivery at a conversational rate.

A good debate requires clash. I want to see you find and attack the flaws in your opponents’ arguments, and respond accordingly in rebuttal. Cross examination should not be a waste of time; it is a time to clarify. It is also not a time for claws; be civil, particularly in grand crossfire.

Disclosure is not a discussion or a renewed debate. Personally, I am not a fan, in large part, because of a few unwarranted challenges to my decision. You are here to convince me; if you have not, that will drive my RFD.

I consider myself a traditional judge. I judge based on good argumentation, clash, composition, articulation, and poise. I prefer speed at a moderate rate and volume within a reasonable range.

Lincoln-Douglas

I am a traditional LD judge with experience. As the competitor, you must explain to me why you win. While I will vote on arguments if that is what you convince me to vote on, I prefer that you strongly support your value/criterion and impact. You are able to win under your opponent's value/criterion. I am not a strong proponent of progressive LD, so if you are going to run theory or a K, you must be prepared to strongly defend its use. I will not automatically vote down the the use of theory or a K.

Moderate speed - if I can't understand you, I am not flowing or following your arguments.

Public Forum

I have experience judging PF, but I have never competed in PF. As the competitor, you must explain to me why you win - convince me. Impact your arguments clearly. Also, I am not economist.

Moderate speed - if I can't understand you, I am not flowing or following your arguments.

I am the current director of speech and debate at the Milwaukee School of Languages.

From 1997-2004, I competed in LD, Congress, Policy, and most speech events in high school and college. Since then, I have coached all events at one time or another.

I will not vote for debaters who physically threaten or verbally abuse their partners or opponents; if you offend your opponent in some way, an authentic apology and reckoning is generally your best option to continue the round.

I would like to be on the email chain (hannanja@milwaukee.k12.wi.us), but only for reference after the round; I will not read along as a substitute for clarity. I will say clear twice if I can't understand you because of enunciation, but then you're probably on your own. If you spread theory blocks/underviews, I can't understand you and I won't be able to flow it.

I will make decisions that are good if:

you explain things to me; you establish a clear standard, role of the ballot, value, or other mechanism and explain to me how I can use that to make my decision; you compare or weigh offense and explain how it is linked to a standard.

I will make decisions that are bad if:

you expect me to do work for you on the flow or among your arguments; you assume I know more than I do.

I will listen to and attempt to flow any speed, but I strongly believe that the faster you go, the less I or any judge will understand. I am reading every week to better understand all sorts of critical theory, but dense stuff delivered at speed is going to be tough for me; ditto for theory/underview/analytic blocks that are a series of two-sentence claims delivered in three second bursts.

I probably will not vote for theory without a clearly explained abuse/harm story and an indication of how the ballot will remedy or prevent that abuse/harm.

I don't think I have any other ideological preferences for argument types or structure; within the constraints listed above, do whatever you'd like and explain to me why it merits my ballot.

PF: if it's in the final focus, it needs to have been in the summary. A complete extension has a link and an impact, preferably with evidence for each. I prefer to make decisions based on clean flow-work; lacking a clean story on the flow, I will occasionally call for evidence to help resolve an issue; I often find myself assessing the 'risk of offense' at the end of rounds based on flow work, evidence quality, consistency of the story between summary and final focus, and the degree of opposition the argument received.

Congress: I care deeply about inclusion and equity, especially in moments where students can have direct influence on which voices are heard. Please work to include everyone in all aspects of procedure and debate.

Any other specifics, please ask.

Speaker Points: I find that a lot of paradigms have speaker point sections that sound like "30 - you're going to win the tournament", and I think that's not helpful (it doesn't really tell the student how to obtain better speaker points) and maybe also actively bad (if you can only get a 30 if the judge thinks you can win the tournament, it means debaters need rep to earn speaker points). So I will try to give you some specific criteria to keep in mind for speaker points in front of me; I'll also probably adjust these criteria and speaker point values over time, and for tournaments that have different speaker point norms.

A top-level speaker (29.5-30) will: demonstrate a strong commitment to explanation, argument comparison, and persuasion; enunciate clearly and consistently; treat their opponent with respect and empathy.

A second-tier speaker (29-29.5) will enunciate clearly and treat their opponent with respect; they will explain arguments well, but generally not do a superior job of comparing/weighing arguments or persuading me of their position's value or truth.

A third-tier speaker (28.5-29) will enunciate clearly and treat their opponent with respect; they will explain their arguments, but may not compare arguments or make an attempt to persuade me.

A fourth-tier speaker (28-28.5) will treat their opponent with respect but may have some clarity issues; they will explain their arguments but could do a better job with the explanation.

A fifth-tier speaker (27.5-28) will not treat their opponent with respect (they may be condescending, or mean, or dismissive, etc) and/or may have clarity issues; they typically do not explain their arguments.

Below a 27.5 would require a confluence of the issues described above.

Quick paradigm- I feel I am strongest in judging interpretation. I enjoy Informative and Oratory speeches as this gives me an opportunity to learn what is important to the performer. My least favorite event to judge is extemporaneous as I am not well versed in politics.

Laura Harvey, Jesuit High School

Background: Four year Policy debater in high school, four year Parli debater in college, 20 years coaching debate and IEs. Ten years as head coach at Jesuit High School in Carmichael, CA. I've judged final Policy, Parli, LD and PF rounds at invitationals and national tournaments.

PARLI PARADIGM:

With a policy topic, I am largely a policy maker with stock issue leanings. I want the arguments to be topical, the reason for the plan to be clear (significancy), whatever is keeping the status quo from working to be resolved (inherency), the plan to actually solve the problem (solvency), and for advantages to outweigh disadvantages. In essence, consider me a member of Congress hearing arguments for a plan of action. In my eyes, all debates start from the same basic place: there is a problem. It's a big problem. The status quo is not addressing the problem. This is how we fix it.

Topicality: Both teams need to define and adhere to an interpretation that (1) remains true to the basic intent of the resolution--if the topic is about conserving the oceans, I don't want to hear about space aliens, and (2) gives both sides grounds to debate. I will vote on topicality violations, but only if the given definitions leave the opposing team little room to debate, and/or clearly do not remain true to the perceived intent of the resolution. If you choose to run a topicality resolution, argue why it's a violation (e.g. it skews ground), and present a more fair alternative.

K Arguments: I'm not a fan. They're rarely run well. I've voted for them, but they MUST be specific to the debate at hand. ONLY use K if the resolution, plan, or CP presumes a blatantly abhorant ideology; otherwise, Ks usually come across as elitist arguments designed to confuse and exclude, which doesn't make for a good debate. Run K if you must, but don't rely on it.

CP: I love CPs.

PERMS: I'm not a fan unless they're properly done. Usually, they waste the opposing team's prep time and first 1NC. That said, the NEG should have made their CP mutually exclusive before running it, having heard the 1AC.

PICs: I really don't like plan-inclusive-counterplans. If AFF argues strategy skew, I'm going to be symathetic.

SPEED: In Parli, DON'T. Seriously. This isn't primarily an evidence based debate. I don't need 18 cards piled up under one argument to vote for you, which was the driving motive behind spreading in the first place. If you wouldn't use this speaking style anywhere except in a high-level debate round, it's likely to annoy me. As an educator, I'm looking for ways that you'll use this experience in the wider world. Spreading would not help you convince a jury in closing arguments or brief your member of Congress before a vote. I understand it's common; that doesn't mean I'm going to perpetuate it. If I have to call "clear," I will take a baseball bat to your speaker points.

Flow: I will flow, cross-apply, and extend arguments. I allow off-time road-maps. Use them well.

Impacts: Please, don't forget these. Tell me why things ultimately matter. (That said, there are a few impacts you will have great difficulty running convincingly, like nuclear war and extinction. I've heard these for twenty years. I just don't buy it.)

Warrants: Don't forget these, either. Seriously. Don't.

NON-POLICY TOPICS: Most of the above applies, but in particular:

Value topics: Make sure your value criterion upholds your value. I will vote for the team that convinces me that their value should take precedence, and upholds it best.

Tag-teaming and Feeding: I'm not a fan outside of Public Forum.

New arguments: I don't protect the flow in varsity rounds (I do in JV rounds). Also, I will be sympathetic to AFF responses to brand new arguments made in the 2NC.

I am a lay, parent judge.

Please make it EXTREMELY CLEAR why you should win IN COMPARISON to your opponent, do not leave the weighing up to the judge.

I will drop progressive arguments (Ks, theory, other things like that). If you run progressive arguments, you should have a second, more straightforward case as well.

Speak slowly and clearly.

my email is huanghazel65@gmail.com

I evaluate based on flow. Stay topical and be respectful, but also provide clash. Jokes are appreciated. 

I look for an interesting introduction, 2 or 3 areas of analysis with sufficient evidence especially latest events. Must be able to refute other senators. Be polite, involved and maintain the decorum in the chamber. Need to have a good presentation with eye contact, vocal variety and fluency of speech. End with a good conclusion.

PF Paradigm:

The number one priority of Public Forum Debate is that it remains accessible at all times.

Debaters are expected to time themselves and their oppenents. If there is some discrepancy on time, your speaker points will be in jeopardy. Please be responsible.

Go at whatever speed you are comfortable as long as it is not spreading.

I will flow what is said during speech, but not crossfire. I expect you to extend arguments from crossfire if you want to use them.

You must provide your win conditions. I need a framework to interpret how the round will be judged. That also means that weighing needs to be considers as well.

Don't assume definitions especially in the resolutions.

I will look at evidence only in the case that both teams appear to have evidence that contradict each other.

InterPA

Tech

Diction matters more in online competition than in face to face competition. In synchronous rounds, please emphasize your diction more.

You are welcome to ask for feedback regarding your placement within the camera.

I'd recommend you make sure the camera is perpendicular to your eyes/face. The angle coming from below sometimes makes viewing facial involvement unclear.

Preferences

Content Warning before your pieces. If you have any belief that your content could upset someone, you owe it to your audience to prepare us. Plot twists are not worth hurting your audience.

I really evaluate the quality of the cut/writing in close rounds.

A cut needs to have a clear beginning, middle, and end. The beginning means the characters, relationships, and problems are introduced. A perfect teaser has these element. The middle shows the characters attempting and failing to resolve a problem. The end discusses whether characters resolve or fail to resolve the problem and then what happen because of that.

Public address speeches follow some kind of previewed and road mapped structure to the speech.

Event Specific

Info

I don't evaluate lack of VAs as negative. I evaluate overused or nonhelpful VAs as a negative.

I don't really care about how you move in your speech.

OO

I follow PCS and CES structures the best.

I am sucker for empirics. I don't believe something is inherently a problem that affects everyone until you show me with a source that it affects people more than yourself. For example, if your speech is about how "We say no too much," you better prove beyond a doubt that we empirically say "No" a lot.

DI

I'm kind of over traumatizing DIs. DI is my favorite event though.

I value verisimilitude in the characterization and the blocking.

HI

Characterization matters the most. I value clear characters and efficient movement between the characters.

I also really pay attention to the resolution of the problem in HI. If the problem is resolved in a sentence or through an apparent unknown force. I blame the cut.

Duo

I hate how its done digital and really hope no one assigns it to me.

Blocking should highlight the conflict between the characters.

I find speaking towards the camera instead of pretending the two are in the same piece to be more believable.

POI

Characterization should be clear. I shouldn't doubt the differences between the characters.

Binder tech or lack of binder tech is irrelevant to me.

Extemp:

Tech

Time yourself for synchronous rounds. I don't trust internet connections to be consistent to allow me to give you effective time signals.

I can tell if you're reading off of your computer.

Sitting or Standing don't matter to me.

Preferences

I will flow the speech.

I don't look down on speeches past 7:00, but 7:20 is a little risk

Link back to the question always. Tell me why you are answering questions.

Fluency matters insomuch that I can understand you. Short pauses and disruptions will not be marks against, but if I cannot follow what you are saying then I will have trouble evaluating your speech.

For all debate formats- Run whatever you want, but for the love of all that's good and right, please, please respond to what your opponent runs, explain your clash analysis, and give me a weighing mechanism.

AND...

LD- Not only should V/VC be defined, I'd like to know your rationale why they are superior over other V/VC you could have chosen. ALSO, have clarity on how the VC gets you to the V. And of course, contrast how your V is superior. In the event your opponent has the same V, and/or tries to claim your advantages through his/her V, clarity of comparison analysis, and reinforcement, are pretty darn important. All too often I'm seeing debaters essentially referring to an opponents position, as if that somehow provides clash. I need analysis of opponents arguments to give me a reason to flow to your side.

CX- I like on-case arguments, T is fine. Not huge fan of Theory when all you know is how to read the canned script of your Theory argument w/o understanding or being able to explain your own argument, same goes for K.

PF/Parli- Comparative Impacts! Logical pace w/o spread- breathe and just explain ideas and clash.

PF PARADIGM:

Head Coach at George Washington in Denver

I have watched many rounds on the topic and am very familiar with the literature base.

I will vote off the flow if I can which means you need to sign post and keep the same names and structures for arguments as they were coming out of case. In other words, do not rename arguments later in the round. If I cannot figure out where to flow the argument, I am not listening to what you are saying, but rather trying to figure out where it goes. I am most happy when you guide my pen to the flow and tell me exactly where to write and what to write!

Make sure whatever you carry into Final Focus, is also part of Summary. All of the sudden extending arguments that have not been part of the debate is not a winning strategy.

Weigh the round, explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. Be specific; do not just say you "outweigh" leverage certain cards and contentions to explain

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why they matter!

Truth over tech; facts and reality matters. I will not vote off improbable, unrealistic or fundamentally flawed arguments. This does not mean opponents can just say they are improbable and move on, work must still be done to explain why the arguments are flawed, but if it is close and the arguments have been discredited with evidence and analysis, I will err on the side of "truth".

Dates matter and NSDA rules say you should at a minimum read the year of the card; please follow these rules or I will not flow your cards.

Views on Theory: Not a fan of it in PF. Run at your own risk.

Kritiks: See theory above

Views on Spreading: Do not spread! Reading quickly is not the same as a full out spread.

Please share all cards you are reading in a speech before the speech. Set up an email chain! This will avoid the annoying wait times associated with "calling for cards." All cards should be appropriately cut, please do not share a PDF or link and ask the other team to look for the relevant passage.

I am not sure I am a fan of "sticky defense."

Pet Peeves

Please do not ask every single person in the room if they are ready before starting to speak. One simple, "everyone ready?" does the trick! Once you ask, give a little bit of wait time before you actually start speaking.

As far as I am concerned, the only road map in a PF round, is "Pro/Con" or "Con/Pro". Please do not use the term "brief off time road map." Or ask if I time them!

Avoid calling me "judge".

I stop listening to Cross-Fire if it is loud and the debaters talk over each other.

maryrosekohan@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

Head Coach George Washington High School.

If this paradigm isn't completely clear, please ask questions before the round! I'd rather you be informed than to be inconvenienced by a misunderstanding about anything said here.

Most Importantly: I haven't judged much circuit policy, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing.

If you want to have a good round in front of me, there's a couple things you should do/not do.

1. PLEASE take it easy on speed. Given that I do not judge on the circuit often, I'm a little out of practice flowing. This means that if you want me to understand what you're saying, you need to slow down. Obviously, this means you should far and away strive for clarity over speed.

2. If you are reading positions that are silly/don't make sense, expect to be disappointed with the decision that I make. Overly absurd Kritikal positions, and politics disads that seem to not have any internal links are definitely a no-go in front of me. I'm open to Kritikal positions, and I think they're interesting, but things like Death-Good aren't up my alley. Read a position that you know well in front of me and I'll enjoy it.

3. I'm comfortable evaluating Framework debates. I think affs should be at least tangentially related to the resolution. I'm not fond of just "Anti-USFG" affs. In addition, don't assume that I know all of the arguments that you're trying to make. On either side, the arguments should be explained clearly and concisely.

LD Paradigm

Although I come from a state that does primarily traditional value-criterion debate, I am an experienced policy coach (see the paradigm above). I can evaluate policy style arguments and am very open to them. I am much more persuaded by arguments that are related to the resolution and can be linked back to it as opposed to Kritikal arguments that do not link. I am, however, excited by some the resolution specific Kritiks and would love to hear them! I am familiar with a number of off case positions and theoretical arguments, please do not make assumptions and take time to give brief explanations.

I may not be able to easily follow or be familiar of all theory arguments. Slow down and explain them.

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why. You do not automatically win just because an argument is dropped.

As far as speed goes, I can keep up with it if it is clear and well articulated and has the purpose of covering more arguments. But I am not a fan of going fast just to go fast.

1) I like watching debates that would inspire an average student who doesn't do debate to join the activity, or an average parent/guardian judge to urge their student to join.

2) Everybody in the round should be able to watch back a recording of the round and be able to understand what was going on. In other words, don't intentionally run arguments that your opponents won't understand.

3) While developing the skills to win the game on the circuit is certainly laudable--because of debate, I now listen to everything on x2 speed--I don't enjoy watching most circuit debates. I prefer debaters to hover around 200-250 words per minute. Choose quality arguments instead of gish galloping around the flow, and collapse on your one or two best pieces of offense. Weigh those key arguments against your opponent's, taking them at their highest ground.

3) Don't make claims that your evidence doesn't support. Powertagging is bad scholarship. If I call for a piece of evidence and see that it is powertagged, I will intervene.

4) I am more likely to intervene in a theory-level debate than a case-level debate. If you tell me that your opponents' practices are making the activity worse, I will consider their practices in the context of what I know about the activity. I am open to my mind being changed on these issues; my knowledge of the activity is limited. However, I am biased against evaluating what I see as frivolous theory arguments or tricks.

5) Tell me where I should be flowing at all times. If you don't tell me, I may mess up.

6) I don't find rudeness to be a persuasive rhetorical tool. You can be an incredibly effective debater and advocate while focusing on your opponent's arguments, not their personal deficiencies.

7) It's helpful to acknowledge where your opponents may be winning. Give me a permission structure to believe some of their arguments but still vote for you. "Even if..." "The tiebreaker is..."

Hello! I have been a commercial litigator for 39 years and have tried numerous cases to judges and juries in addition to arguing thousands of motions.

I have been judging speech and debate competitions for six years.

For Debate:

I do not mind speed as long as there is clarity. If I cannot understand you, I cannot follow your arguments. I do like a road map to help me follow you.

I am fairly familiar with debate jargon, but not necessarily every specific term. I enjoy seeing clash in the debate, flowing your arguments all the way through, and weighing arguments. I want to see the impacts and links within your arguments.

I do not mind passionate debaters, but please be respectful toward your opponents.

I do not like and don't understand progressive arguments.

For Speech Events:

I enjoy creativity in content and expression in delivery. I like movement and vocal expression.

For performance events my rankings are based mostly on the quality of the performance but also on how well your speech presented a full story.

For extempt and impromptu, I have a greater emphasis on organization and content than on delivery.

Updated for 2020-21

Pronouns: she/her/hers

If you have questions about anything here, just ask!

Congress:

-I don't have a preference between early/mid/late round speeches - just give the best speech. I evaluate each speech for the role it needs to serve in the round. So, if you're sitting on a neg and we go to a 2-minute recess because you're insistent on doing a crystallization speech and no one else has a neg, I'll be annoyed. If you're able to show me multiple types of speeches throughout the session (especially if I'm the parli), that's great.

-I hate one-sided debate - it isn't debate. I don't have a set rule "if you speak on the same side as the previous person I'll mark you down x # of ranks," but it definitely has a negative impact on the final ranks. If you speak on the same side as the previous person, it is very, very unlikely (albeit not impossible) I will rank you in the top 3. This is even more true for a crystallization speech.

-Expectations for authorship/sponsorship/1st aff: problem/solution; identify a framework/burden/scope to evaluate debate; have a central narrative

-Expectations for mid-round speech: Refute; have a central narrative

-Expectations for late speech: Refute & boil the debate down to a main issue or 2; have a central narrative

-Have a clear, specific, and offensive thesis coming out of the introduction.

-Have clear warrants; if they stem from the legislation directly, even better. Particularly in mid/late speeches, weighing/clash is super important.

-Clear, humanized impacts are key.

-I'm not going to open the legislation packet - it's your job to bring it to life for me. If I know a detail of the leg from coaching my own students but you don't mention it, it won't help you - I'll be as tabula rasa as possible with the docket.

-No rehash. It's possible to extend something from your own side with new warrants/impacts, but new data is just rehash.

-Neg speeches can't say the leg is bad because it doesn't do something unless that thing is mutually exclusive with the action of the legislation; if the leg is that we should all eat more bananas and your neg is no we should eat more apples, unless you can prove that we can't eat apples AND bananas the point doesn't work. I also don't love points about complacency - they generally feel stock to me (unless you're talking about a social issue when the issue attention cycle is a legitimate concern). Both of these types of points (do x not y; complacency) feel like avoidance of engaging with the actual legislation - neg speeches must demonstrate the inherent harm(s) of passing.

-No stock intros/conclusions - if it could work for any piece of legislation, it's too vague. I like an attention-grabbing intro of some kind and when the conclusion ties a bow with the opening.

-I don't have a preference for being in the simulation or avoiding it. If you start talking about your constituents and your office in D.C., I will likely roll my eyes. On the other hand, talking about your current high school Bio class doesn't work either.

-Stay involved throughout the entire session. If you give an A+ speech but ask zero questions, you'll get ranked below an A- speech and strong, well-spaced questions.

-I will rank you as the PO if you're a strong PO (fast & efficient, knowledgeable about RR, clear command of chamber). Being the PO is neither a guarantee of a rank nor of a drop for me - if you do an A job as the PO, it'll be ranked the same as if you did an A job as a speaker.

PF:

-I don't flow cross; if you want me to evaluate something out of cross, you need to mention it in a later speech.

-If you want me to evaluate something from FF, it also needs to appear in the summary.

-Make sure to identify moments of clash. Don't let the two ships just pass in the night; tell me where the boats crash and why yours stays afloat.

-Make sure to weigh arguments. Tell me what the key points of the debate are so that I don't have to determine them myself.

-I won't make a decision based on politeness, but being excessively rude/abrasive in cross annoys me and will negatively impact your speaker points.

-Unless there's true abuse in the round, I won't vote on theory.

-I haven't judged circuit PF since Stanford 2019, so you're better off avoiding "progressive" PF stuff. Treat me as more flay.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Alief Elsik High School in Houston, TX. As such, I currently coach and/or oversee students competing in a wide variety of events including all speech/interp events as well as Congress and World Schools debate. My debate paradigm is better explained if you know my history in competitive debate. I was an LD debater in high school in the early 90's. I then competed in CEDA/policy debate just before the CEDA/NDT merger. I started coaching speech and debate in 2004. In terms of debate, I have coached more LD than anything else but have also had a good deal of experience with Public Forum debate. Now that I am at Elsik, we really only have WSD and Congressional Debate in terms of debate events.

When adjudicating rounds, I do my very best to intervene as little as possible. I try to base decisions solely off of the flow and want to do as little work as possible for debaters. I hate when LD debaters, in particular, attempt to run policy positions in a round and don't have a clue about how the positions function. If you run policy stuff, then you should know policy stuff. I am open to the use of policy type arguments/positions in an LD round but I want debaters to do so knowing that I expect them to know how to debate such positions. I am also open to critical arguments as long as there is a clear story being told which offers the rationale for running such arguments and how the argument is to be evaluated in round. I am not a huge fan of a microdebate on theory and I strongly encourage you to only run theoretical arguments if there is clearly some in round abuse taking place. I will obviously listen to it and even vote there if the flow dictates it but know that I will not be happy about it. In terms of speed/jargon/etc, I do have a mixed debate background and I can flow speed when it's clear. I don't judge a ton of rounds any more as I find myself usually trapped in tab rooms at tournaments so I cannot keep up the way I used to. With that said, my body language is a clear indicator of whether or not I am flowing and keeping up. I do see debate as a game in many ways, however I also take language very seriously and will never vote in favor of a position I find to be morally repugnant. Please understand that to run genocide good type arguments in front of me will almost certainly cost you the round. Other than those things, I feel that I am pretty open to allowing debaters to determine the path the rounds take. Be clear, know your stuff and justify your arguments.

The last thing I think debaters should know about me is that I deplore rude debate. There is just no room in debate for nasty, condescending behavior. I loathe snarky cross ex. There is a way to disagree, get your point across and win debate rounds without being a jerk so figure that out before you get in front of me. Perceptual dominance does not mean you have to be completely obnoxious. I will seriously dock speaker points for behavior I find rude. As a former coach of an all women's debate team, I find sexist, misogynist behavior both unacceptable and reason enough to drop a team/debater.

I feel compelled to add a section for speech/interp since I am judging way more of these events lately. I HATE HATE HATE the use of gratuitous, vulgar language in high school speech/debate rounds. In speech events in particular, I find that it is almost NEVER NECESSARY to use foul language. I am also not a huge fan of silly tech and sound fx in interp events. Not every door needs WD40...lose the squeaky doors please. I think the intro is the space where you should be in your authentic voice telling us about your piece and/or your argument - STOP OVER-INTERPING intro's. Sometimes folks think loud volume = more drama. It doesn't. Learn to play to your space. Also recognize that sometimes silence and subtlety can be your best friends. With regard to OO and INFO...I think these are public speaking events. Interpatories generally don't sit well with me. I don't mind personality and some energy but I am finding that there are some folks out here doing full on DI's in these events and that doesn't work for me very often. I am not one that requires content/trigger warnings but do understand the value of them for some folks. I am really VERY DISTURBED by able-bodied interpers playing differently-abled characters in ways that only serve as caricatures of these human beings and it's just offensive to me so be careful if you choose to do this kind of piece in front of me. Also know that although I have very strong feelings about things, I understand that there are always exceptions to the rule. Brilliant performances can certainly overcome any shortcomings I see in piece selection or interpretation choices. So best of luck.

Congress Paradigm - I have been judging congress on a national level for over 30 years and look to the following criteria when judging competitors.

I appreciate the debate element of congress but there is a difference between congress and debate. I look for focus on the key issuesrather than speed and coverage of all issues raised. Empirical evidence is crucial when it comes to persuading on policy issues that have the potential to impact millions of lives. I appreciate good rhetoric but it is no substitution for real analysis and evidence. If you are speaking later in the round, I will look for crystallization and the bringing to light and analysis of the key issues in the round.

Never forget you are a legislator and this should be evident in your arguments, language and decorum.

My paradigm boils down to four points:

1. Please provide me with a framework/weighing mechanism for the round.

2. Do not spread. I will put my pen down if you're going too quickly for me to understand.

3. Tag your points and subpoints––as a judge, I like to be able to strike through these points as the other team tackles them, or else to draw them through several speeches. That way, it's very clear who won and who lost, and little is left up to my own biases/personal paradigm.

4. Be nice to each other :)

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.

Tom McCaffrey

In Public Forum and Extemp: I prioritize reasonable framework and clear analysis supported by evidence from credible sources. I'm interested in the big picture, and more in the significance and impacts of arguments than the quantity. I can't vote for points and impacts I can't hear or understand, so slow up for key points and explain them clearly. Be smart but be kind, don't yell at me or each other. I often see a negative correlation between persuasion and volume or intensity. I assign speaker points from 27-30, which may reflect positive and negative behavior, and may include partial points when allowed (e.g. 27.5, 28.75).

In Congressional Debate: I value natural delivery of points and impacts, and reasonable positions; talk pretty. I look for acknowledgement of prior speakers' points and clash leading to good argumentation and refutation, and for purposeful questioning leading to clarity, understanding, or insight. Knowledge of and adherence to Parliamentary Procedure is expected in the chamber. Skillful Presiding Officers make sessions a positive experience for all and will be ranked accordingly.

World Schools: a great debate event that should not sound, look, or feel like any other event. Please demonstrate that you understand, use, and respect this event's differences, norms, and value.

In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance when not obvious.

I like POI as the most wide-open opportunity we have to connect and weave an unexpected and dazzling array of related choices to elevate an important advocacy.

In DI, HI, DUO: I think of everything we do in Speech and Debate as storytelling. Tell me a story! Among chiseling tools I prefer the precision of a scalpel to the raw power of a jackhammer. It's easier to get and keep my attention with thoughtful, meaningful, measured creative performances of cuttings that preserve a storyline than with more frenetic or extreme choices.

I believe speaking skills can, do, and should win tournaments. There are only two outcomes, and they're both great: you win or you learn. And you keep and add to the learning forever! Be kind and have fun!

Chris McDonald (He/Him) - chris.mcdonald@district196.org

Use the above email for any email chains during the round.

Head Coach Eagan High School in Minnesota

While I mainly have coached and judged Policy Debate for the past 37 years I do judge my fair share of LD, Public Forum and Congressional Debate Rounds.

Items for all formats to consider:

1. Disclosure theory: While I understand why this started out as something good for the community it has unfortunately morphed into an abusive argument and as such I will not consider it in my decision for the round.
2. Evidence sharing: Have a system for sharing evidence setup before the round begins. This will make this more efficient and your judges happier. If you are asked for a piece of evidence you just read and it takes you more than 15 seconds to find the card, I will treat it as an unsupported argument.
3. Paraphrasing in Debate: I dislike paraphrasing and even though the rules allow it I find that is has become an abused by some debaters. I would ask that teams read actual quotes from evidence and not paraphrase.

Policy Debate - Please know that while I used to judge a lot of rounds throughout the season in policy debate it has been a few years since I judged more than just a handful of policy rounds. I do work with my school's novice and varsity policy teams.

My philosophy has pretty much remained consistent throughout my career. I consider policy debate to be a test of policy based ideas between two teams. How those teams approach the topic and frame the debate is entirely up to them. Below are a few things to know about me on some specifics but please know my primary objective is for us to have an enjoyable round of debate.

Delivery Speed - Since it has been a few years for me since last judging lots of policy debate my ability to listen to really fast debate has faded. Please keep it to a slightly slower speed of delivery especially using the online platforms. I will let you know if you are unclear or going too fast by verbally indicating such during your speech. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being oratory speed and 10 being approaching the sound barrier (only joking here) I would place myself as a 7 these days.

Topicality - I enjoy a good topicality debate but have found that over the years teams are taking too many shortcuts with the initial development of the topicality violation. I prefer topicality to have a clear definition, a clearly developed violation, standards for evaluating the violation and reasons why it is a voting issue. For the affirmative side you really need to engage with the topicality violation and provide a counter interpretation that supports your interpretation of the resolution. Topicality is distinct from framework.

Framework - I also enjoy evaluating a debate when framework is clearly articulated and argued by both the affirmative and negative sides. Framework is focused around how you would like me to evaluate the arguments in the round. Do you prefer a consequentialist framework, a deontological framework, etc..

Critiques - I am fine with critical approaches by the negative and the affirmative sides. For the affirmative please keep in mind that you will need to defend your critical affirmative as either a topical representation of the topic or why it is important for us to debate your affirmative even if it isn't necessarily within the boundaries of the topic.

Flow - Please label all arguments and positions clearly throughout the debate. Signposting has become a lost art. Debaters doing an effective job of signposting and labeling will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

Disadvantages - Please be certain to articulate your links clearly and having clear internal links helps a great deal.

Counter plans - I think counter plans are an essential tool for negative teams. Please note that I am not a big fan of multiple conditional counter plans. Running a couple of well developed counter plans is better than running 4 or 5 underdeveloped counter plans. Counter plans should have a text to compete against the affirmative plan text.

Theory - General theory in debate rounds like conditionality and that are fine but have rarely been round winners without a lot of time devoted to why theory should be considered over substance.

If you have any questions please let me know and I will happily answer those questions.

Lincoln Douglas

1. I am not a fan of theory as it plays out in LD debate rounds. Most of the theory that is argued is pretty meaningless when it comes to the topics at hand. I will only consider topicality if the affirmative is presenting a plan text in the round or isn't debating the resolution we are supposed to be considering at that given tournament. I ask that the debaters debate the topic as it is written and not as they would like it to be.

2. Beyond my dislike for theory you are free to pretty much debate the round as you see fit. Please keep your speed to a level where you are clear especially considering buffering time with online platforms you should probably slow down from what you think you are capable of during in-person debates.

3. Evidence should be shared using an email chain. Please include me at chris.mcdonald@district196.org

4. If you have specific questions please ask. I will disclose at the end of the round but I will also respect the tournaments schedule and work to keep it on time.

Public Forum

1. Evidence is very important to me. I prefer direct quotation of evidence over paraphrasing. Please make note of the new NSDA rule regarding paraphrasing. Source Citations: make sure that you present enough of a source citation that I should have no problem locating the evidence you present in the round. This would include the author or periodical name and date at a minimum. So we are clear Harvard '23 is not a source citation. Harvard is a really great University but has, to my knowledge never written a word without the assistance of some human that attends or works at Harvard.

2. There is to be no game playing with regards to evidence sharing during or after the round. If you are asked for evidence by your opponents you must produce it in a timely manner or I will discount the evidence and only treat the argument as an unsubstantiated assertion on your part. Even if it means handing over one of your laptops you must provide evidence for inspection by the other team so that they may evaluate it and respond to the evidence in subsequent speeches.

3. Prep Time - you are only provided with 3 minutes of prep time, unless otherwise stated by the tournament you are attending. Please use it wisely. I will only give a little latitude with regards to untimed evidence sharing or organizing your flows, but please be efficient and quick about it.

4. Argument choices are completely up to the debaters. I prefer a good substantive debate with clear clash and that the debaters compare and weigh the arguments they feel are important for their side to prevail as the debate comes into focus but the substance of those arguments is completely within the control of the teams debating.

5. Please respect your opponents and treat everyone involved in the debate round with the utmost respect. Speaker points will be effected by any rude behavior on the part of a debater.

6. I will disclose and discuss my decision at the end of the round so long as there is time and the tournament stays on schedule.

7. Finally, please remember to have fun and enjoy the experience.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

While congressional debate is most certainly an argument, this debate event takes the form of one long and continuous coversation that is more akin to a socratic seminar than to a structured debate. Entering the conversation where it is is the most important skill for any congressional debater. It is from that point that I expect each speaker to begin and then to advance the argument. Referencing the speakers who came before and their contributions to the conversation is integral to fully placing new points or extensions of points already made. While summary and crystalization has its place later in the debate, rehash has no place in a well presented congressional speech. I also look for gracious behavior at all times focusing on the strengthes and weaknesses of other arguments but no the speakers themselves. I have no patience for speakers who try to elevate themselves by putting down others.

Individual Events Paradigm:

I have coached speech and debate since 2010, but in recent years my coaching is focused on speech. I see every speech event as an argument, so I am in search of an important message, explicit or implicit, in every performance or speech I judge. Beyond message, I look for a coherent argument whether you have crafted this with your own words with original oratory, responding to a question in extemporaneous speaking, or making your argument in a program or performance in interpretation. In Informational speaking, I am looking to be exposed to relevant informaition around a topic of importance in society but without a position, an advocacy, or solutions. In all of these forms, I expect to be engaged and compelled to listen to what you are saying. This is speech where how you say it matters just as much as what you say. And, while I love creative and edgy pieces that take me from my comfort zone, every single word should work to convey and elevate your message and do so at no one's expense. I will not reward hurtful, harmful or thoughtless words or actions.

Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.

For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net

CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.

Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.

Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.

I take a holistic approach to judging debates - the winner will be the person/team that has the most convincing overall presentation. The quality of the reasoning and the evidence used to support contentions carries more weight than the number of contentions. I do flow and will consider the failure to refute or address a significant point to be a basis for giving the win to the other team. A minor point that flows through will rarely be a determinant of the outcome.

You will likely lose if you make unsupported assertions; make up or misrepresent facts; or abuse your opponent or the process. The likelihood of winning are greatly enhanced if you are able to clearly rebut your opponent's voters and emphatically point out why your contentions should prevail.

I am a coach and teacher at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I have been involved with debate on the local, regional, and national circuit as a competitor, judge, and coach for more years than I care to put in print.

Non-traditional Debate Warning: If you are looking for a judge that is into non-plan, non-topical K affs, poetry, or other interp affs, I am definitely not the best (or even second best) judge for you. I love a good POI, Oratory, and DI, but I love them in those event categories.

Speed: Once upon a time, I kept a fairly fast and thorough flow. I think that I still keep a good flow, but perhaps not as fast. I am older now (it happens to us all), and my hands hurt a bit more, so I find that I need a little time to warm up to the pace. Another issue concerning speed is that debaters, more often than not, think they are clearer than they actually are. Paperless debate has made this worse. I'll usually try give one "clearer" or "louder" warning per speaker, but after that, either you or your partner had better be paying attention to my facial expressions and whether I’m flowing. I have a terrible poker face, so it will be pretty obvious. If I don’t flow the argument or card text then that argument or card text it is not in the round and I am definitely not going to ask about it. I am inclined to be more impressed with a debater who is clear, efficient, and persuasive who speaks slightly slower than a debater who feels the need to show me their mad spreading skills. In terms of speed and T, theory, and k’s: SLOW DOWN - slow way down (see notes on kritiks). Please read my comments at the end of this page concerning the ever growing negative aspects of paperless debate.

The Role of the Affirmative: I expect the affirmative to advocate the resolution through TOPICAL PLAN action. Yes, the aff must have a plan and it must be clearly stated in the AC. If you want to run a critical aff stating that the resolution is racist, ablest, ageist, or anything else that suggests an unwillingness to affirm the resolution at hand, as written, then I am not going to be a good judge for you. I am possibly willing to listen to a critical aff that advocates the resolution. (Please see my notes on kritiks later). Performance/Project teams will probably find it a challenge to meet my view of the affirmative's role.

Topicality: It’s a voter. I like a good T debate that involves actual evidence and a description of why the aff does not meet the interpretation. The standards debate should include a viable limits argument. Why is the affirmative's interpretation of limits bad for debate? If you are going for ground, make sure you impact why it's a big deal to you in the round, and/or even for debate as a whole. Negative teams who plan to go for topicality should be prepared to go “all in." At best, you could weigh “T” and one other position. You’re unlikely to get much ground or be terribly persuasive if T is one of 3 or 4 positions in the 2NR (And really, why have four positions remaining in the 2NR?). Impact analysis on T is just as important as it is on any other position. Don’t bother to kritik T with me in the room. T is not racist. Do not run RVI’s on T. It is worth noting that a T debate needs to be a bit slower due to its needed explanation, but it does not need to be handled as slowly as a kritik.

Counterplans: Preferably, counterplans are non-topical, which creates a clearer division of ground. Counterplans also need to be clearly competitive. A CP that is basically just steals the plan is probably not competitive and is just stealing ground, but the idea of PICs can be debated in round. Conditional CP’s are probably a bad thing, but the debate as to why must be specific. A clear net benefit is better for competiveness. If going for the CP in the 2NR, the negative does not automatically get the assumption of the Status Quo as the alternative in place of the CP as a voting issue. This choice must be explained in the 2NR. The aff should definitely argue whether the neg can operate in multiple worlds, or must treat the CP as their new advocacy. Note: I find most severance perms abusive. When I have voted on such a perm, it has usually been because the neg mishandled the flow and allowed the aff to get away with it. The neg needs to note that it is the affirmative’s job to advocate their plan, in its entirety, through the 2AR. It is one thing for the Aff to kick an advantage, but it's an entirely different thing to sever part or all of the plan. Affirmatives should not argue that the "neg does not get any fiat." That's ridiculously limiting.

Disadvantages: I’m old school policy, so I like disads. Disads should have a comparable risk to the net benefits of the AC and/or serve as a net benefit to the CP. There should be a significant link debate (offense/defense) and a clear impact calculus. I hate it when teams wait until the 2NR/2AR to finally weigh the impacts. Reading more cards is not weighing an impact; it’s just reading more cards. An impact calculus requires clear analysis. I will put as much effort into weighing the disad risk as a decision calculus as you spend trying to persuade me that the argument is worth the vote.

Kritiks: Despite Newman having a new director that is well known for his love of the K, I have not grown to love kritiks. This is definitely true in terms of non-topical K affs and neg kritiks that probably have little to do with the actual plan. Some teams have become overly reliant upon them (running the same position every single year) and use them to avoid having to debate the topic or debate policies they don’t like. I find that most kritiks have ambiguous implications at best and the alternative (if there is one) is often not an alternative at all. I have found myself voting for some of these arguments, despite my not even understanding the position, because the other team failed to explain clearly why the argument has little bearing in the round or fails to point out the shortcomings of the alt. You should also be aware that I most likely have not read the critical literature you are referencing and citing. I have a rudimentary understanding of philosophy. I was not a philosophy major. I do not plan to go back to graduate school to study philosophy. If you plan to run any critical positions in my presence, you must do the following:

1) Slow Down. Really. Slow. Down. I mean conversational speed slow down

2) Explain your position clearly – no blippy tag lines or argument extensions

3) Have a specific link

4) Have a clear alternative – something more tangible than “being part of the ___ mindset," “avoiding the evils of capitalism,” or "do nothing." Huh??

Despite my personal disposition on the kritiks, the opposing team will still need to say more than “The K is bringing down policy and should go away.”

Performance/Project Debates: I’m still a cost-benefits analysis policy judge at heart. I have not changed my mind on the position that performance/project positions leave little ground for the opposing team. I have no idea how to weigh your performance against the other team’s position (performance or traditional) for the purposes of winning a debate.

Cross Ex: CX is important for fleshing out a strategy and provide clarification of arguments; I generally think that answers in cross ex are binding. I actually listen to cross ex, often take notes and even find it interesting. I also find it not that interesting on many occasions. Tag team CX is okay, but avoid taking it over. Not being able to handle your cross ex will result in lower speaker points. Taking over a partner’s CX will also result in lower speaks. CX starts when the speaker is finished. If you need 30 seconds to “set up” then that will come out of prep.

Role of the Ballot: My ballot determines who wins the round. That is all. If you win, you are (perhaps) one round closer to clearing. If you lose, you are (perhaps) one round closer to not clearing. My ballot does not send a message to the debate community; it is not a teaching tool; it is not an endorsement of a particular action or philosophy.

Theory: Save theory debates for when they really need needed and warranted. Too many debaters are running theory as their “go to” argument. Debating theory as a "default" argument every round cheapens the arguments and makes judges less likely to take them seriously. Do not run any theory arguments against Topicality (see above).

Miscellaneous:

Paperless Debate: Speaking style has simply become worse with paperless debate. Card reading has become choppy, debaters have problems toggling back and forth on the computer, debaters are taking liberties with prep while flashing or emailing speech docs, and instead of flowing the arguments as they are being presented, debaters are back-flowing from flashed material that may or may not have actually made it into the speech. Some judges have resorted to reading the email chain. These are all poor debate practices. Teams are saving paper and tons of money when flying, but debates have become sloppy.

Prep Time: Your prep ends when you have finished loading the flash drive and hand it off to the opposing team. If an email chain is set up, your prep ends when you hit “send.” This means that you are standing up to speak. If you start conversing with your partner, I will continue to run prep and I will probably dock your speaks for stealing prep.

Flowing: Do it. Follow the flow, not the “flashed” cards. Do not mess up my flow!!

Label Arguments: “First off, A-uniqueness” is not a label for my flow. Label each off case – every single one of them. When you move to the case debate, be clear as to where you are and when you are moving on to another advantage, etc. This is also true for the 1A; the AC needs to be crystal clear.

Reading Cards Post Round: I rarely do so. To get me to read a card requires a specific request during your speech and an explanation as to why and what I am looking for exactly. If I am part of the email chain, this does not mean I am automatically going to read cards. If I call for a card without you requesting it or go to the email chain without direction then something was so unclear that I felt I had no choice. This presents an opportunity to intervene, which I do not like doing if I can avoid it.

Card Clipping: It’s cheating. Don’t do it. If an accusation is brought up in the round, I will take it seriously (even stop the round if necessary). If you bring it up as an accusation, you need to be darn certain you are correct. Be clear where you stop reading a card if you do not finish. "Stop card" is probably not clear enough.

As we say in New Orleans, “Be Nice or Leave”. It is fine to be competitive, but have fun. You are competitors in the round, but you should be friends outside of the round. Being a jerk in the round will not lead to friendships and it will definitely hurt your speaker points.

Martin Page

Assistant Director--Debate

Ridge High School

Updated for TOC 2016

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm (Scroll Down for PF)

General Update 4/2016: I much prefer rounds where specific interactions happen rather than rounds where the strategy is to extend dropped arguments and blow them up without really addressing the other debater's position(s).  This is particularly true on the negative side--I FIRMLY believe the 1NC should spend time SPECIFICALLY addressing the AC on the AC side of the flow.  This is not to say that I won't vote for you if you don't do this, but debaters who do this will get higher speaks.  Also, please stop assuming I understand dense, uncommon positions--you need to be clear in your explanation.

Overview: I've been judging circuit LD for a while now and actively coach it, so I am familiar with many different types of arguments.  Please make sure it is clear to me how your arguments function in the round/how you are interacting with the other side.   I can't think of any arguments I won't evaluate (except the offensive "rape good, racism good, etc." arguments which I will drop you for running)--my goal is to not intervene. Please make sure it is clear to me how all arguments are functioning in the round.  Slow down on tags.  Overviews are much appreciated.

Some important notes:
1--I find myself incredibly uncomfortable with frameworks that explicitly use religion as a justification (evidently called the "God" case). I will attempt to evaluate them as I would any other argument, but if you're attempting to argue that God exists in front of me and that's a reason to vote one way or another, I'm not going to be very receptive to the argument. I respect every person's freedom of religion, but I struggle to understand the place of religion in the debate space.
2--I really struggle to evaluate rounds where there is no weighing, a lack of crystallization, or limited argument interaction. Please make the round clear to me. Crystallize in the 2NR/2AR. Weigh or explain why your arguments are a prerequisite or pre-empt to those made by the other side. If an argument is dropped, don't just tell me it is dropped--implicate the drop and tell me why it matters. The more work you do telling me how arguments function in the round, the easier it will be to evaluate the round, and the lower the chance that I accidentally intervene/have to play "argument roulette" and pluck something off the flow to vote off of because no one told me how to evaluate the round.
3--I am not very receptive to arguments saying that your opponent does not have the right to speak on a certain issue. This does not apply to theory arguments that say "debaters must not X" or "speaking for others" kritiks, which argue that NO debaters should do a certain thing (they don't leave one debater allowed to speak on an issue and another not allowed to speak on the issue). But I am not very receptive to "My opponent comes from X background, so she shouldn't speak on this issue, but I can because I come from Y background." If this argument has no carded evidence attached to it, I will not evaluate it. If it does have carded evidence attached to it, I will evaluate it, but I consider it an ad hominem attack and will have an extremely low threshold for responses to it. However, I am fine with (and even like) arguments that say authors of evidence are less qualified to speak on issues because of their background; this type of argument discusses how out-of-round discourse is shaped, so I'm fine with it. 
4--You really need to slow down on the tags and implications of evidence in less common, phil-heavy frameworks, especially if they come from the analytic tradition or are not very common in LD. I am not as familiar with these frameworks, so make sure you are especially clear in explaining how they function.

5--I'm really bad at keeping track of blippy cross applications when you're on your side of the flow; for example, if you're extending out of the AC on the AC side of the flow and also say "cross-apply this to X card on the NC flow" the chances are I miss that or something else right after it. So I prefer these cross-applications be made when you are making arguments on the side of the flow you are applying them to. 

Speed: I'm basically fine with speed--though the very, very fastest LD rounds might be slightly out of my comfort zone. I’ll say "slow" if you’re going too fast, "enunciate" if the words are garbled, and "louder" if you're too soft. If you're going fast on the evidence, please make sure the tags and analysis are slightly slower and are clear.  My issue is most often with enunciation and lack of vocal emphasis on important points in the case, not actual speed, so please make sure you are enunciating as clearly as possible. 

Kritiks: I really like them, including narratives/performance arguments. I enjoy role of the ballot arguments and micropolitical positions, both pre- and post-fiat.  I do not care if you are topical as long as you JUSTIFY why you are not going to be topical.  This doesn't mean you are immune from losing a T debate; it simply means I will evaluate non-topical positions.  Please make the link story clear on the negative side.  I'm better at evaluating ks and other policy arguments than I am at dealing with heavy and uncommon philosophical positions, but I will vote off the flow. 

T/Theory: I would rather hear a substantive debate, but I don’t have a bias against evaluating theory, and I am growing more comfortable and familiar with it. Please be sure to give me a clear sense of how the shells and theory strategy function in the round and interact with the other side. I prefer theory be read at a slower pace than other positions, and PLEASE slow down on interps and implications.  I understand that theory has strategic value beyond just checking abuse, but PLEASE note the following:

--I prefer (and sometimes even like) T debate to theory debate because I find it more interesting and relevant.

--I default reasonability and drop the argument.

--When a shell is missing links or poorly explained, or if I find the theory more abusive than the abuse itself (more than 4 shells in the NR, for example) I'm going to have a lower threshold for responses.

--If the neg position is actually abusive, unlike many judges, I am receptive to theory initiated in the 1 AR, but only against an actual abuse.

--I find AFC and theory that is run against an out-of-round abuse (i.e. disclosure theory) or an abuse that is not related to content (apparently "wifi theory" is a thing?) annoying, abusive, and bad for education, so I have a lower threshold for responses on these as well, and speaks will be low.  Running these things won't get you more than a 26.9.

--If there is no voter extended in the 2AR/2NR I will not vote on it unless it is the only offense in the round.  I default to voting on substance if the theory debate is muddled and lacks a voter in the final rebuttal.

Tricks and Other "Abusive" Arguments:

I am not a fan of "tricks" and struggle to evaluate these strategies, so if your strategy is to go for extensions of blips in your case that are barely on my flow to begin with, whether those arguments are philosophical or theoretical, I am going to have a lower threshold for responses, and speaks will be low.  However, I am somewhat more receptive to skep (though I certainly don't love it) and tricky philosophical arguments that are extremely well-developed--if you are running these arguments, you need to slow down.  Running skep or well-developed analytically philosophical tricks that I understand when they are argued in the AC will not negatively affect you're speaks.

When I say "lower threshold for responses" it means I think these are weak arguments or abusive strategies, so while I will always vote off the flow, I don't like these arguments to begin with, so I'm very open to logical responses to them.

Extensions: I like extensions to be clearer than just a card name; you have to extend a full argument, but I also value extensions that are highly efficient.  Therefore, summarize your warrants and impacts in a clear and efficient way.  Most importantly, please make sure you are very clear on how the argument functions in the round.  

Policy arguments (Plans, CPs, DAs) are all fine.  If you're running a DA, make sure the link is clear and you're weighing, but in general, I like policy arguments and am probably better at evaluating them than I am at evaluating heavy and uncommon philosophical positions.

Speaker Points: I start at a 28 and go up/down from there. Please note that in addition to what is listed below, I also give some consideration to clarity of spreading (enunciation especially) and word economy. If your words are incredibly garbled, I'm not going to be particularly happy--this usually makes a difference of .1-.2 speaker points. 

26-26.9--You have a lot of work to do OR you ran AFC or disclosure theory.

27-27.9--You did a decent job, but I do not think you have a chance of breaking.

28-28.9--You will probably break, but you aren't interacting arguments enough and are not making strategic enough decisions.

29-29.9--You are one of the better debaters I've judged at the tournament.  You're clearly signposting, weighing and/or explaining how arguments function in the round.  Your strategy might have a misstep or two, but on the whole, you've executed extremely well.

30--You executed your strategy in such a way that I wouldn't reasonably expect better from a high school student.

 Some Notes on Public Forum

I've judged more LD this year than anything else, and I struggle to find out what that means for those off you who have me as a PF judge.  I will say the following: I vote strictly off the flow, I aim not to intervene, and I will call cards in PF only if there is dispute over evidence in the round or if something seemed off to me when you read the card (i.e. if you cite the Washington Post saying 90% of Americans are Democrats or something).  Some specifics:

1--I do not care how fast you speak.

2--Turns are offense.  Implicate and use them as such.

3--The summary should respond to your opponent's rebuttal against your case and generally focus on your side of the flow (i.e. focus on your offense, not defense on their case--but remember, turns are offense).  Since it's usually impossible to respond to everything that was said in their rebuttal, be strategic about which arguments you go for and please weigh. 

4--Please crystallize the round in the final focus.  If you don't weigh arguments in the summary and final focus, it will be very hard for me not to intervene, which makes everyone sad.

5--Frameworks and observations are important and should provide me a way to weigh the round. 

6--In the absence of weighing, I tend to look for clear offense (things that were dropped and clearly extended) rather than doing weighing for you.

Feel free to email me at martin.d.k.page@gmail.com if you have questions.

I use she/her pronouns.

I have coached all forms of debate, with students as state champions, national qualifiers, and national outrounds (mainly in LD, but also CX, PFD, and congress). While I am a coach of 20+ years, I like to be treated as a lay judge. My philosophy is that regardless of the style of debate, you should never assume that your judge knows more than you and it is your responsibility to educate them on the topic. That means:

1) I prefer speech habits that emphasize persuasiveness and understanding. Don't spread, make sure to signpost, and think about how you can use your voice to emphasize key points.

2) Avoid topic-specific jargon. We are not researching this stuff to the level that you do as a competitor. Don't throw out an acronym without telling me what it stands for, unless it is a universally-known one (i.e. NATO). Sometimes even terms of art in the resolution aren't really known to the judge, so it is helpful to clarify. That also goes for complex ideas and theories.

3) Explain your arguments/contentions. Just reading card after card does not showcase your logic. Remember the warrant -- WHY does that evidence matter? And with that said, what is the impact? I love a good impact.

I am a coach-adjacent (married to one) judge, and I have been judging policy, PF and LD for 15 years. I was also a policy debater in the last century. That said, I am not necessarily dialed in to the most current strategies and shorthand, especially in policy. My overall approach is basically tabula rasa- I will consider any argument that you can explain in terms of engagement with your opponent, i.e. if you can tell me WHY what you are bringing into the round should win my vote. That could be evidence, impacts, kritiks- whatever- I just need to know that you are listening to your opponent, engaging them directly and weighing their response to you. I’m not really drawn to debates about debate (theory?) in a debate round, but I value thoughtful kritiks about the appropriateness and shortcomings of topics/resolutions in the real world. I will vote on topicality, but it needs to be rigorously adapted to the case in round by specifying exactly why something is non-topical. I’m well aware of the implications for educational purposes.

In terms of mechanics, I can flow fairly speedy rounds, but I have always been a quality over quantity judge. Debate is still about communication and persuasion, and presenting a great volume of evidence/sources accomplishes neither goal.

For Public Forum rounds, much of what I like to see in policy applies, only more so because the time to make arguments is so abbreviated. The winning team will have narrowed their best argument down to one or maybe two by final focus, and will keep it tight, clear and concise.

In LD, I am old school, and I appreciate the idea of a ponderous, reflective and challenging philosophical discourse on a contentious topic. I want to see well developed cases and arguments that explore the moral implications of respective sides of a resolution. A good LD round, in my view, is one in which both participants can speak like orators and use the power of language to bring the listeners to hear the righteousness of their position.

Welcome back and I'm glad to be back for another year.  Here is my updated paradigm.  This has general information and then items specific to LD

PERSONAL:

I have been a coach for 22 years and I have judged all forms of speech and debate.  This means I am pretty open to any time of argument. I will go with what I hear in the round and will not input myself into the debate.  I am a judge, not a competitor so I will not inject myself into the debate.  You don't need to send me your case.  I only want to judge what I hear, not what I can read.  So while I am okay with speed and I can handle spreading, only use spreading in Policy.

DEBATE:

Don't be condescending in your cross ex. Acting like you don't care about the answer the other person gave or interrupting them before they get the answer out is not okay. If you wanted a shorter answer then ask a more succinct question. All debates need to clash. I don't want to only hear prepared speeches on both sides. Show me that you are listening to what the other person/team is saying and advance the debate.

LD

I am definitely more traditional than progressive but I will listen to progressive arguments IF they still fall under the philosophical ideas of LD. I do not want to hear a plan or use the motion as the plan text. That doesn't do anything for me. Don't use a K to avoid debating. That's not what debate is about.  I WILL NOT vote on disclosure theory so don't take the time to run it.  That is not debating the topic but finding a way to not have to debate.  Otherwise, I will listen to Ks, Ts, Disads, etc if they are relevant to the debate. If you don't have a V and a VC, you won't get the win from me!  

Also, I am creating this paradigm for you so don't ask me about other items before the round. Everything else is fair game as long as it is done well! Address the resolution and give me reasons for your claims. I don't need to be on your email chain. Also, I do not disclose unless required to and it will be brief. As a coach, I want the coaching to come from me and not the judges.  As I said earlier, I am not here to relive my competitive days so I won't explain all that I am thinking.  

Good luck!

Background: I have judged at states, Harvard, Yale, Wake Forest, and many times on the local circuit. I have over 10 years of judging experience, and have been able to judge every event during that time. I am a flow judge for debate, although I do not care for the intricacies of the debate.

LD: Though I can follow and understand theory, do not run it. Stick to the topic at hand and try to be as concise as possible. I understand that you may need to spread if you have a long case or have to address card dumping, but recognize that I cannot judge what I cannot understand. Also, I expect common courtesy throughout the round and it will affect my ballot. If you need to present evidence, do so in a clear and efficient way. Stick to your framework and don't debate the philosophical side of LD. Finally, do not be overaggressive if you are going against an unexperienced opponent.

PF: You can spread if need be, but keep in mind, I cannot flow or vote off of what I cannot understand. Keep the arguments simple enough with a link-chain that isn't too complex. During rebuttal, keep eye contact and try to extend your warranting. I will pay some attention to cross-fires; but if any major concessions occur you must bring it up in a separate speech. If your opponent drops a major point, mention it during your next speech, or I will not vote off of it. Do not bring up new points during final focus or second summary, for I will not take note of them. Have a clear weighing mechanism and do not leave it up to my interpretation/give me clear reasons why to vote for you. When presenting evidence, make sure it is clear where the information actually is.

All Other Debate Events: You can spread, though keep in mind I cannot vote off of what I cannot understand. Try to keep eye contact (if possible) and hold yourself to a high standard of oral presentation.

If I am judging a speech event, ask me for my preferences in person, as they change from time to time.

Updated during Harvard Westlake 2019 because my previous paradigm was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.

TLDR because you could be reading a more interesting NYT article or somthng:

· I’m not a former debater.

· I’m not a current debater either, although I am often mistaken for one.

· I’ve been teaching high school English and coaching Speech and Debate at Quarry Lane for the past three years.

· Debate is a safe space. I won’t tolerate anyone that violates this. No exceptions.

· My former student Allen Abbott said it best: Debate is still problematic in many ways. If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand.

· Convince me why I should vote for you and you can win. It’s that simple.

· My email is eshah@quarrylane.org. Start an email chain.

· Extra kudos to those who wear Northwestern merch. Go Wildcats!

Occupation: Software Development

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: 2nd year of judging, PF, Congress, Speech

Speaker Points: Fluency, voice inflection, passion, structured speeches (easy to understand in a logical order) I start at 28 and go up. Obviously I'll drop it if you're rude, racist, sexist, etc.

- Don't spread, speak at a moderate pace, NO JARGON. If I look confused or like i'm falling behind, probably slow down and explain a bit more.

I do take notes, but I will also try to just listen as much as possible to understand your arguments to the best of my ability. Don't sacrifice content just for "lay" appeal.

How heavily do I weigh the following (1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily):

Clothing/Appearance: 1

Use of Evidence: 10

Real World Impacts: 10

Cross Ex: 5

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 5

Help me evaluate the round:

A cohesive narrative should start in Rebuttal. Explain why your impacts are really important and spend a lot of time on your warrants, convince me as to why your impacts will happen and to the extent that you claim. Don't just falsely claim DROPS or CONCESSIONS but do point them out if they actually happened, and why they mean I should vote for you. Explain your evidence well. Fluency and passion show me that you are confident in your research and argumentation.

HAVE FUN WITH THE ROUND!!!

I believe that speech and debate serves as a way to learn effective communication skills in addition to argumentation and research skills. If you are talking so fast that communication is lost then you have done the event a disservice. If I can’t hear it I can’t flow it. Just having more evidence doesn’t mean that you have won the round. Impact analysis is imperative to any case. DON'T SPREAD!!!

Being professional in the round will earn you higher speaking points. Yelling or being disrespectful will result in low speaks.

LD: I am okay with K's and counterplans.

Please make sure that all you have evidence you use in the round. If your opponent asks for it please provide it promptly. I will only ask to see it if there is an issue raised.

I am the coach for Mission San Jose. I believe that speech & debate is first and foremost an educational activity, and much of my paradigm is framed through that lens. I have a few simple rules regarding conduct and content of the debate.

Debate

1) Proper debate cannot exist without clash. If you make a contention in constructive but never mention it again I'm dropping it from my decision. I don't judge strictly on the flow (more on that in point 4), but if none of you thought the point was important enough to bring up again, it must not be important enough for me to judge on.

1a) Spreadatyourownrisk. I will be flowing the debate and will do my best to follow you, but you run the risk that I might miss something important if you do.

2) Deeply engage the topic. I'd much rather see a few well-developed points with thoughtful analysis and solid foundational evidence than a "shotgun" approach where you throw out as many loosely-articulated arguments as possible and see what sticks.

2a) I enjoy creative arguments. As a coach I hear a lot of the stock arguments over and over, so if you run something a bit more unusual you'll get my attention. I'm not going to vote for a squirrely case that redefines the motion in a really weird way, but feel free to run off-the-wall arguments in your case (just make sure you can prove they're relevant to the topic).

2b) I don't generally respond well to theory arguments and meta-gamesmanship; I'd much rather judge an actual debate on the topic at hand. This is especially true of case disclosure theory -- Aff already has a burden of presumption weighing against them (see point 4a), so if you feel like you can't prepare a decent counter argument without knowing the opponent's exact arguments ahead of time, you either need more prep or more practice. That said, I will listen to your theory case, but I probably won't vote for it unless the opponent is doing some particularly egregious.

3) I'm not going to do your work for you. My job is to judge the arguments as presented, not do my own analysis to prove you right or wrong. I will assume evidence is truthful and will not call for cards unless the opponent gives me reason to believe otherwise.

3a) If you try to make a point that is obviously factually incorrect (e.g. "Dubai is the capital of Pakistan") or wildly outlandish (e.g. "veganism will lead to nuclear war"), you will loose credibility and will cause me to view the rest of your arguments with more skepticism. And yes, those are actual statements I've heard in rounds.\

3b) I probably will not flow anything said in cross examination. I may take some notes to clarify what I've already written down, but if you want me to factor something said in cross into my decision you need to point in out in your next speech. However, I do consider how well you handle cross ex when awarding speaker points.

4) My judgement will be based on what is presented in the debate. Don't expect me to bring in other information that wasn't presented to fill in the blanks for you. While my ballot comments may mention things that weren't presented in the debate, that information is intended to help you refine your arguments and did not factor into my decision.

4a) In final focus, tell me what to weigh and why I should vote for you. By default I will judge on whether I am led to believe that the Aff case as presented accomplishes more for the greater good than the status quo. If Neg runs a counter (non-negation) case or a counter-plan (assuming it's allowed), I'm going to judge it on balance with the Aff case/plan, meaning I will decide which case I believe leads to overall better outcomes for the greater good within whatever scope/scale we spent the most time discussing during the debate. If both sides agree on a framework for deciding the winner, than that's what I'll vote on instead.

5) This is a debate, not a sound bite contest. That said, if you want maximum speaker points, vary your vocal dynamics to help emphasize your speech, employ some clever rhetoric (alliteration, allegory, etc.), and/or incorporate some classic rock or science fiction references. I'll usually award speaker points in the 27-28.9 range, with 29-30 reserved for speakers that I found particularly engaging and those who make especially good use of cross ex.

6) Respect your opponent and your fellow humans. Academic debate is no place for sexism, racism, religism, or any other prejudicial and marginalizing -isms. Use your CX time wiseley to clarify the opponent's argument and find holes to exploit later in argumentation, or to perhaps plug up a hole you didn't realized you'd missed, not show off how much you can talk over the other person. And if you feel a need to resort to ad hominem attacks, you've lost me and we're done.

Ryan Hennessey is a GOD.

I was a head coach for 11 years (6 in OR; 5 in UT).

Overall, I want to see true clash and I usually judge on the flow. Strong, crystallized voters can win me over though. I am fine with progressive cases (and sometimes prefer them if they are creative while maintaining logical appeal), as long as you are able to defend them aptly and you still truly attack your opponent's case and contentions. And don't lose enunciation.

LD:

I have judged LD at Nationals and have coached National competitors. I prefer traditional, but can roll with progressive.

I will judge on true clash, the least dropped arguments, and strong voters. I like civil sass and speaking styles that engage and entertain as long as it's not at the expense of argumentation and substance. I try to be tabula rasa. Don't just tell me you uphold your value criterion or that your opponent does not; explain why (links).

I prefer to not have card battles. If I want to see a card, I'll ask for it at the end. Don't waste too much of your time on it. Yes, specific and credible evidence is needed but I look more holistically at the logic.

PF:

I like true clash, but don't want a debate that turns into hyper-focus on a definition or card battle. Note the disagreement, concisely state why your side is better then move on.

My vote goes to whoever has the most sound logic holistically, with strong voters and impacts. I also like strong links between each contention and framework and being able to point out flaws in your opponent's logic. Consideration of and insight into your and your opponents' warrants will go far. Being respectful will go far. Being disrespectful will lose you speaker points and will make me less forgiving of smaller flaws in your case.

Congress:

I have judged Congress at Nationals and have coached National competitors. Do not deliver a pre-written Oratory (unless you are giving the author/sponsorship speech). Synthesize previous points made and refer to them. If you are not bringing anything new to the discourse, do not try to get a speech just for the sake of giving a speech. Vote to PQ and move on. I like an engaging speaker who can balance pathos, ethos, and logos. Volunteering for chair and presiding adequately or better will go far for my ballot.

Policy:

I am least experienced in this event but enjoy it. I will stick to traditional stock issues and true clash. Can roll with speed as long as you keep enunciation.

Speech Events:

What are your stylistic preferences for extemp? How much evidence do you prefer? Any preference for virtual delivery?: properly structure your speech, quality over quantity for evidence (6 is a good number for me, but of course more is ok), no preference for virtual delivery - speaker's choice

What are your stylistic preferences for Oratory/Info? How much evidence do you prefer? Any preference for virtual delivery? - just persuade me and leave me with some realistic solutions. solutions that are not even possible for me to enact will be considered less than ones that I can actually do something about. I don't have the ability to change the entire educational system, so please don't tell me to.

Any unique thoughts on teasers/introductions for Interpretation events? intros are important

Any preferences with respect to blocking, movement, etc. in a virtual world? speaker's choice

What are your thoughts on character work? need to be realistic, I want to hear their story, not you pretending to, make it real

How do you feel about author's intent and appropriateness of a piece? For example: an HI of Miracle Worker (author's intent) or a student performing mature material or using curse words (appropriateness)? High school tournament = high school appropriateness. This isn't college yet.