For Debate rounds (PF, Congress & LD): I want to understand your speaking--don't spread--it doesn't make me think you know what you are doing, only that you can talk fast like on the TV advertisements. Also, please don't give me off-time road maps; it wastes time in a round--just have a clearly structured rebuttal and counterclaim and I'll figure it out. Don't be rude in any sort of questioning round. If you ask a question, I expect to hear an answer. Intimidation of any sort will not be rewarded, neither will ad hominem attacks. I do think competitors too often overlook the bias of sources. I'm not impressed when you challenge a source--unless you really know that the opponent has misrepresented it--but I am really dismayed that no one addresses the bias of sources as a potential to discredit a line of argument based on such evidence. And, lastly, I know you want me to vote for you; it's okay to tell me voting issues, but if you have 10 seconds left in your speech, give me info, don't ask for my vote. It sounds so polite, but evidence or reasons matter.

I am a lay judge and have been judging for two years. My personal areas of interest are politics and current events. If debaters speak so quickly that I cannot understand their arguments, that will affect the weight I give to them.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Short Version:

I debated in high school (very traditional policy) and college (parli, just one year). I teach English. While I coach LD, l prefer a good traditional-style Lincoln-Douglas debate. This is not Policy. I look for solid clash of values throughout, and would prefer that you avoid jargon as much as possible. A thoughtful and well-supported value structure is more important to me than individual cards, and everything you discuss should be related to your framework.

Full Version:

Judging Style:

I really like to see good clash. I find it easiest to vote for you if you have a thoughtful, solid framework which is well supported by all of your contentions and evidence. Impacts are extremely important to me. While I think the best debate is traditional in style, I'm open to seeing creative approaches, but only to a limited extent. I have a B.A. in Philosophy, so I'm very comfortable with any philosophical arguments you might want to run. Feel free to be complex, but I will be able to tell if you misrepresent or misunderstand the philosophy.

Speaks:

I generally stick to a range of 26-29, with 26 being average or slightly below, 27 being decent, 28 being good, and 29 being excellent. I typically reserve 30 for persuasive, perfect speech. If you are being truly unnecessarily rude, or use racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. language, then I will rank you lower than this range.

Speed:

For me, this is related to speaker points. I'm fine with speaking quickly, but believe that spreading has no place in debate and is, at its core, abusive. If you spread, I will drop you.

Flashing:

I'm fine if you want to flash your case, cards, whatever to your opponent, so long as there is mutual agreement. I'm not interested in reading your case, though. I will only evaluate you on what is spoken during the round. This is not an essay contest. The only material I will ask to see during or after the round might be specific cards, if questions about them become relevant to the debate.

Regarding time, just don't waste it. I don't typically count the time taken to flash toward prep, unless you're clearly taking advantage.

Ks

I don't generally love these, but I'm happy to entertain a really well constructed K. You'll have an uphill battle, you really need warrant, and I won't typically default away from the resolution, but you could still convince me that you deserve my vote with a good K.

DAs

I'm OK with these, but they need to be impacted. I tend to treat these as just another argument.

Theory:

I have a pretty low tolerance for these, but will accept a thoughtful theory shell, especially if there is a potentially clear instance of abuse. You need warrant, and should carefully explain interps.

Flex Prep/CX:

I will not allow the use of flex prep.

General Comments:

I've probably left out my thoughts on some aspects of debate, so please ask questions if you have them. I'll do my best to answer. What I'm really hoping to see is a sportsmanlike debate that is thoughtful. While there are some strategies that I believe are inherently abusive, I will at least hear you out if you make an earnest effort to have a good academic debate.

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

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

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

Clash is king. I am a parent judge, but open to whatever style of debate you choose to run, traditional or progressive, just communicate it clearly and connect it to your opponent's case. I can connect dots, but I might not connect them the way you think they connect, so do your best to draw the lines. Signposts and structure are helpful. Spreading is fine, but I prefer quality over quantity. may request to see your evidence, especially if you and your opponent disagree on its interpretation and implications

For LD, framework is important. If morality is on your side, use morality. If logic is on your side, use logic. If evidence is on your side, use evidence. If feasibility is on your side, use feasibility. If you have nothing else, make me laugh or tell me a story.

For PF you must have hard evidence to back up your claims, I may request to see it.

For LD debate I care about organization and argumentation: debaters should clearly state their value, criterion, contentions, sub-points etc. I expect debaters to flow their own and their opponent's arguments and to find points of clash. I will consider both the logic and evidence presented. Debaters should avoid rapid delivery or shouting in their speech: if someone is incoherent or taking deep breaths between clauses and sentences while speaking, I may not follow or miss what is said. I am generally not a fan of policy debate intruding into LD debate: I will not be amenable to Kritiks, counterplans, etc. Of course, I expect debaters to be polite to their opponents and to the judge: i.e., I'm not impressed by arrogance or rudeness. This (along with delivery, pacing) will affect speaker points. Debaters should provide voter issues in their concluding rebuttals: they should crystalize why they should win. I will decide based on who coherently provided the best arguments for supporting their value, criterion, and contentions against their opponent's.

I did Lincoln Douglas debate, DI and original oratory in high school.

I am looking for clear delivery, sound reasoning, and credible evidence.

I really don't like yelling or fast talking; to me, debating is about learning how to speak persuasively and become a leader.

Just remember: you are learning an incredible life skill and in the end, who wins doesn't matter. Really, debate tournaments just create an artificially stressful situation so you can practice speaking. It helped me tremendously and I know it will help you too!

My background: I am a registered architect and have my own firm. I have a BFA and BARCH from Rhode Island School of Design :)

Try to speak slowly and show compassion - that will reassure me that you're not a robot overlord :)

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

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

Email for email chain: gd09cms@gmail.com

Specifics-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to win with me:

Debate is best done when all parties are focused on the heart of the debate topic. The debate loses meaning when non-essential elements distract from the crux of the debate; thus, the best debates come from people who are unwavering from the essential elements of their position at the foundation of the resolution. From there a good debater will reveal inconsistencies of their opponent's contentions and weigh their position against the opposition.

Another essential element of a proper debate is clarity. If clarity is lost so is the debate. Both parties must have clear understandable and coherent arguments for the debate to grow and develop. I value students who are able to break down complicated elements into digestible pieces, point out argument fallacies, and weigh points that stand with integrity.

How to lose me:

I can not flow points I can't understand. Do not spread with the speed of an auctioneer with me and hope to win. I will not vote for abusive arguments that narrow the focus of the debate so far you can't lose and your opponents can't win. I will not vote for theory-based briefs that assume the world exists in a vacuum or promote the victim based assertion that there is something inherently wrong with the resolution. I will not read your brief as you speak it. It is your responsibility to verbally communicate to the judge and your opponents. The debate is not an essay contest. If your main points boil down to ad hominine arguments I will flow to your opponents.

Ultimately debate is dialogue between people - judge included - Facilitate dialogue and win. Breach that dialogue and lose.

I competed in high school speech and debate all four years back in the 1990s and have been judging Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for the last eight years.

Well reasoned arguments and high quality evidence are more convincing to me than twenty evidence cards- quality not quantity please! Speech and Debate is fundamentally an oral communication event and if I can't understand you your arguments can't persuade me.

Although NSDA rules allow citing sources as "Jones 2020", if I need to weigh competing evidence, knowing that "Jones 2020" is from The Washington Post instead of Wikipedia is important.

If you can't find the evidence in 30 seconds, we will move along- Organization is part of the preparation for this event.

Learning how to organize your thoughts quickly and how to stay cool under pressure/cross examination is a terrific life skill- this is an amazing activity and will help you in your later professional life no matter your high school win-loss record.

I am an LD coach in the CFL, but I have experience judging all debate events.

Value & Criterion - remember this is LD, not PF. Ultimately I am looking for you to tie all points in your case back to your value structure. Your value structure sets a standard for me to weigh the round. Be sure that your case upholds the standard established in your value structure.

Clarity, Logic, & IMPACT - Keep your arguments concise and to the point. Snowball effects and illogical conclusions will cause me to discount your arguments. I want to see impact!! Why is what you are arguing important? Why should I care? Evidence should be clear and concise, cited and applied correctly to your case.

Structure & Narrative: I like to see a clear narrative throughout your case. Why and how does your offense outweigh your opponents? I like you to give me clear voters that link back into the narrative of your offense.

QUALITY > Quantity - Speed does not win a round with me. Logical, original, well-thought out arguments will win your round. I will flow as you debate, and if I cannot understand you I can not flow your arguments. I can handle some speed, but if you spew out as many arguments as you can or barrel through reading your case, I will likely just drop my pen. A good debater can give clear, logical arguments in the time frame allotted without needing to speed read. Again, QUALITY is better than quantity.

Maturity & Civility - I will take points for arrogance, rudeness, or immaturity. There is never cause to be nasty or unkind to your opponent. If you cannot argue your side diplomatically and respectfully, your lack of professionalism will be reflected in speaker points.

A few notes on flowing....

If you call for a card in round, and then fail to bring it back up, I assume you conceded the point to your opponent. Depending on the specifics of the round I may dock points for this.

I do not flow the author's name of a card. If you continue to reference arguments by using the author's name as a tag, I won't know to which argument you are referring, and I won't be flowing it.

I do not flow CX but I am listening closely and I appreciate when you extend arguments or points from CX into rebuttal

I will use my flow in my decision making, but it will not be the only point of reference for my decision. There is something to be said for your style of communication and delivery as well as the arguments you make.

Updated 25 August 2019

TL;DR: Parent judge (arghh/ yipeee/ whatever-you-feel). I am able to flow most common types of args (but not dense phil/Ks) delivered at normal speed. I value logical args/ rebuttals, even if purely analytical.

Spreading: I will likely miss some args but will do my best to follow along with any speech docs you share. I strongly recommend you slow down for your tags and crucial points, especially if extemporaneous. Do signpost.

Case Debate: I expect a basic level of case debate in addition to whatever else you may choose to run.

Theory: I am unlikely to view it favorably unless you can show a timely pre-round good faith effort to avoid citing the violation in question. Unless it is a completely unexpected/ egregious in-round violation, the burden is on you to have engaged in pre-round communications if it could have voided the need for a theory debate.

Warrants: Incontrovertible, objective, data based cards are more potent than opinions/ claims. If I call for a card, I am also checking the text you minimized/ did not read.

ROB/ ROJ: Unless proven otherwise, all args will be viewed as a strategy to win a HS debate round and not as an altruistic endeavor to effect societal/ policy change.

Lay parent judge with some basic experience judging traditional LD. Prefer traditional arguments. Sign post and be clear about your argumentation. Do not spread.

I am a head coach and have been coaching for thirteen years. I thoroughly enjoy all of the events that our organization sponsors and deeply appreciate the critical thinking and communication skills they promote. For debate, I can appreciate a range of styles and approaches. While I don't mind a brisk speed when it is necessary to incorporate a variety of legitimate arguments in case or rebuttal, when it is used primarily as a weapon to overwhelm an opponent with accusations of dropped cards (in particular), I admit my patience can grow thin. You also don't have to win every bit of the flow (or pretend to) to win a round for me. You may even honestly concede minor points and cards/warrants. The important thing is to win the main arguments, wherever they happen to occur in the flow. Therefore, your job is to help me weigh what the most essential arguments are towards the end of the round. That is not to say that I don't value line-by-line coverage of the flow in rebuttal, and that dropped points are of no concern. And it is possible that accidentally dropping major points (usually by poor time distribution) could result in a fairly automatic loss. It's just that all things being equal, I value winning the major points of the debate over thoroughness of coverage.

I enjoy a substantive debate that has real clash versus unwarranted ideas or ill-linked impacts.

Also, I look for a strong theoretical framework that provides warrants for deontological or consequential arguments. The framework debate should focus on who provides the best value and criterion, not who better achieves them (that should be left for the contention level arguments). Linking to an opponent's framework is completely acceptable if the debate can better achieve it at the contention level.

Strong argumentation begins with the framework but is ultimately won or lost in how strong the contentions and refutations of the opponents' contentions are. Cards/evidence/theories are crucial to developing the contentions and proving the framework true or impactful. I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that LD does not require any evidence. If a consequentialist or utilitarian claim is made, then evidence that supports the claim is crucial to winning the point.

I like meta-ethical debates that ask us to question the nature of morality as it pertains to a resolution and kritiks, but I am not a fan of subtextual, existential arguments that ask us to question our existence or reality in general. I believe there must be some basic assumptions about why we are sitting in a round.

Also, I am not a fan of agenda cases with the warrant that this provides the only forum to advocate for a particular cause such as feminism, racism, etc. I find counterplans, disads, overviews, etc. that are topical to be perfectly legitimate. I am not opposed to nontraditional cases as long as they are substantive and offer a clear weighing mechanism.

I believe that debate is a competitive event, and having its own specialized jargon does not necessarily hurt the event so long as using the jargon does not become the event. I do not mind the use of the terms such as "drop," "extend," "turn," "flow," or "cross-apply," but they should not replace the substance and do not automatically add impacts. I am not big on technical wins, so your opponent dropping a contention or card does not automatically win you the round. I will not intervene: You must impact. You have to do the work: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round.

If the case is truth-testing, you may only need to prove the resolution true or false to win; however, most rounds are won by not only refuting opponents' points, but extending your own points or turning your opponents' points into offense for your side of the debate.

Although I do not mind a brisk pace, I have a low appreciation for policy-style spewing. Moreover, I shouldn't have to read your cards to understand what you are running. I am familiar with many philosophers, but my ballot is contingent on how well you use, analyze, extend, link, and weigh evidence and theory (not on how well I read it).

Lastly, I do not value a policy theory shell. If your opponent is being abusive, please just explain why the burden, observation, or framework is abusive. There is no need to give interpretation, standards, violations, and voters, etc. I definitely will not entertain theory shells on time skews, so don't waste your time.

I love LD: A fast-paced round with lots of clash, impacting, turns, and clear voters is exhilirating!! Have fun in the round!!

I am a Coach, and I have been judging for close to a decade now. I am a teacher certified in English & Theatre, so my notes can get a bit technical, and come specifically from those perspectives. I tend to make notes and comments as I view, so they follow my flow of thought, and how I understand your developing argument, as your piece/debate progresses.

I have judged almost every event, including judging both speech and debate events at Nationals.

In true teacher and coach fashion, I WANT you to do well. So prove me right!

Paradigm for Congress

How I Rank: While the ballot on Tabroom only has a place to score speeches, it is not unlikely that room is full of great speakers. To fairly rank the room, I have a personal spreadsheet where I score individual speeches, as well as the categories below, to help separate the "great speakers" from the "great congresspersons". Think of it like a rubric for your English class project. Speeches are the biggest category, but not the only one.

Speeches: Do you provide a unique perspective on the bill, and not simply rehashing what has been said in the round already? Do you back up your reasoning with logos, ethos, AND pathos? Is your speech deep, instead of wide (more detail on one specific aspect of the bill, rather than trying to cover all angles of the bill)? Do you write with a clarity of style and purpose, with a good turn of phrase? Do you engage your listeners? Do you respond well to questions?

Questioning: Are your questions thoughtful and based on listening closely to the speaker, and what they actually said? Are your questions brief and to the point? Do you avoid simple yes or no, gotcha style questions? Does your questioning have a clear line of thinking? Do you connect questioning to previous speeches? Do you avoid prefacing?

Decorum: Do you follow the rules of the chamber? Do you follow speaking times? Do you speak calmly and collectedly? Do you ask or answer questions assertively, without being aggressive? Do you respect your fellow speakers?

Roleplay: Do your speeches reflect that you are a congressperson, and not a high school teenager? Do you think of your constituents? Do you consider yourself a representative of your state or District? Do you allow your RP perspective to make your speeches better, and not become a distraction? Do you participate in motions, seconding, etc?

Knowledge of Rules: Do you have an obvious and clear understanding of the rules? Do you follow them closely? Are there any egregious breaking of the rules?

Special Consideration for the Presiding Officer: The Presiding Officer is marked for one "speech" per hour. This score is a reflection of how well they perform the specific duties of PO. It concerns knowledge of the rules (at a higher expectation than the average congress competitor), the efficiency of the room, the fairness of the PO, and the demeanor of the PO (should be calming and welcoming). I also look at them for decorum and RP.

Paradigm for PFD

Construction of Message: Is your argument sound? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logically sound way, that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading? Are you avoiding logical fallacies?

Delivery of Message: Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing?

Evidence of Engagement: Are you actually listening to you fellow competitors? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing? Are you cooperating with your teammate?

Construction of Rebuttal: Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on your team-mate, your coach, your school, and the District?

Paradigm for LD

Construction of Message: Is your argument sound? Is your value interesting? Is your value criterion an adequate measure of your value? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logically sound way, that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading? Are you avoiding logical fallacies?

Delivery of Message: Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing?

Evidence of Engagement: Are you actually listening to you fellow competitor? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing?

Construction of Rebuttal: Are you able to use their Value and/or Value Criterion to support your own argument? Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on yourself, your coach, your school, and the District?

Hi all,

My judge paradigm is nothing special. I am a very experienced debater who traveled nationally with considerable success in both Public Forum and Congressional debate formats. As such, I simply like to see that ideas are conveyed thoroughly and clearly. If in a "classic" debate format (PF, LD, etc.) I will be judging the round entirely off of the flow. In Congress, there must be more of a balance between content and rhetoric, though I do still weigh HEAVILY on content. Please make my job easy and allocate a lot of time to weighing arguments.

In my career, I loved and still love to see refutation, as that is the true epitome of debate. I hate to see two ships passing in the night, or a Congressional "debater" that simply gives first affirmative/negative speeches without engaging the room at all. This is debate, not performance. That being said, while refutation is pretty much required in PF and LD, I find a lot of congressional debaters shying away refutation. I do not find this trend conducive to debate, and will likely rank those who do not engage others in actual debate lower than other competitors in the room, even if the content is logical.

My particular tastes are few and common:

1) In PF, please give brief synopses of cards whenever used rather than simply calling them by name. I feel this adds to the educational quality and clarity of debate.

2) In PF, anything that is not carried into summary CAN NOT be carried into final focus.

3) Please be respectful and take turns during crossfire. No one likes a messy crossfire.

4) Though evidence is absolutely necessary, I value logical reasoning over piles of research. Be sure to really talk out WHY evidence is correct, and then go on to say why it matters in the grand scope of the debate (impact and weighing).

5) This is cheesy and typical, but take risks. When I was in high school, both PF and Congress could become VERY formulaic, leading to many rounds feeling the same and sucking the fun out of debate. New ideas and experimentation in debate will be rewarded.

Thank you for reading my super basic paradigm, and let's have a fun round!

I am a parent judge and have been participating in local and national high school LD debates since 2018. I prefer sound evidence, compelling arguments and solid voter issues. I enjoy LD debates and hope we all have fun!

I have a fairly straightforward perspective on my judging preferences. I am very much a traditional flow judge. I do not prefer progressive styles. I don't prefer spreading, and if a debater speaks so quickly that I have trouble understanding them, I will not be able to prefer their arguments.

Backing up your arguments with convincing evidence and telling me specifically why I should prefer your evidence over your opponent's will help you win the round. Extending your arguments throughout the flow and pointing out to me any concessions your opponent made in cross-ex or any arguments dropped by your opponent will greatly strengthen your case. Voter issues are helpful. Explain to me the reasons for why you believe you won the round. Clarity of thought and logic for me will trump fast speech every time.

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

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

KAVITA PERSAUD
Judge Paradigm TRADITIONAL JUDGE

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

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

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

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

Please ask additional questions before the round.

Background

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

General Preferences

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

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

Speed

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

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

Theory

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

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

Kritiks

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

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

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

Bonus

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

Parent judge of former and current PF debaters. Judged mostly PF and some LD debates over past 4.5 years. I have a financial background so emotional arguments backed up by facts are very convincing where as emotional arguments without support are not. I generally have a hard time following arguments based on what is or isn't covered by the semantics of the resolution wording. Keep pace as slow as you can (and conversational if you can) so it is easy to follow arguments...sometimes less is more. Be respectful to opponents during crossfires, acknowledge or rephrase their arguments then rebut. "I understand your point but if you consider X,Y,Z then it does not hold up, etc. Avoid saying "makes no sense" etc... if it really makes no sense say something like we are not following your logic. Leave enough time at the end each speech strong and not rushed for your last impression. I wouldnt say "must" vote... urging or should vote are ok.

I am a Parent Judge from North Carolina, this is my 3rd year judging LD. I have judged quite a few local tournaments, States last year and at Durham Academy tournament

Although I've been judging for quite a while now, I began as a lay judge, with no background in debate. After 3 years of judging and parenting a varsity LD debater, my technical knowledge has expanded tremendously, but still has limits. Know that I will judge you technically to the best of my ability. But ultimately, as judges, we are to award the round to the most convincing debater(s). You might have a technically perfect case, but you also have to convince me that your argument is the RIGHT one on a macro level.

I have a low toleration for speed; however, this does not mean one should speak at an exponentially slow rate and insult my intelligence. In addition to speed, I detest people who mumble or speak softly or otherwise lack clarity to their speech. I will simply stop flowing your speech.

Paradigm:

I am a Traditional Flow Judge. Please give me a clear way to vote for you. I will not intervene in the round unless you give me a reason to. Other than that remember to have fun and ENJOY the experience!

Demonstrating respectful behavior is huge for me. Sighing/eye-rolling behaviors are rude and disrespectful to your opponent. Be very cognizant about coming across as verbally abusive or condescending. Simply having the courage to come into the room and participate in the challenge of debate makes you worthy of MY respect, and your opponent's.

Typically I won't disclose at the end of the round, but will enter RFDs and speaker notes in Tabroom where I can better organize my though.

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

Charlotte Latin School (2022-), formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that sometimes and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I can't do all that work for you.

GENERAL:

COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key!

If you present a framework/ROB, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).

I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.

I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.

Not a fan of tricks.

LD:

Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is, and give me clear judge instruction in the round (the trad rounds I judge have much fewer win conditions, so explain to me why your arguments should trigger my ballot. If I can't understand what exactly your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.)

PF:

Please collapse the round!

I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.

CONGRESS:

Argument quality and evidence are more important to me than pure speaking skills & polish.

Show me that you're multifaceted -- quality over quantity. I'll always rank someone who can pull off an early speech and mid-cycle ref or late-cycle crystal over someone who gives three first negations in a row.

I reward flexibility/leadership in chamber: be willing to preside, switch sides on an uneven bill, etc.

WORLDS:

Generally looking for you to follow the norms of the event: prop sets the framework for the round (unless abusive), clear intros in every speech, take 1-2 points each, keep content and rhetoric balanced.

House prop should be attentive to motion types -- offer clear framing on value/fact motions, and a clear model on policy motions.

On argument strategy: I'm looking for the classic principled & practical layers of analysis. I place more value on global evidence & examples.

Debates should be about content knowledge and persuasion, however almost all competitors use a brief of some sort, have common or exact constructions, or are just using someone on their team’s research. Because of this, I feel that what separates one debater, or team, from another is how well they can rebut, explain, and persuade the main points of the round. Just because your opponent didn’t refute a subpoint, or even a contention, doesn’t mean you’ll win a round, unless you bring the point up yourself during cross and rebuttal. Because of this, I usually make my decision almost entirely based on rebuttals and cross, unless your constructive is a hot mess. Additionally, it’s hard to persuade any audience if you talk like an auctioneer, or don’t do a good job of tying your case to your values and cards.

I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.

I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.

I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.

I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.

Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.

As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.

Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for 2 years. I judge based on what I can understand, so I prefer a slower debate... a clear and understandable speech is essential to win. I like the structural debate with framework, and strong evidence to address arguments. I like strategic cross examination and voting issues. Your behavior and language have to be appropriate...being confident and courteous is important.

This is my second year judging Lincoln-Douglas. I am an analytical thinker - clarity and straightforwardness tends to work best for me. I evaluate the debate as a whole and am very detail oriented.

I understand the need to talk fast to get the information into your case. However, I strongly encourage slowing down and clearly speaking your value and value criterion for me to hear it. Finally, if something is important to your case once again, speak clearly to make I hear it.