California Invitational Berkeley Debate
2023 — Berkeley, CA/US
JV LD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
updated june 2022
experience + background
University of Southern California 2022; BA Political Economy. Minor, Int'l Policy and Management
Loyola High School, Assistant Coach LD - 2 years - present.
4 year policy debater @ USC (NDT-CEDA circuit),
4 years national circuit policy @ Park City HS, Utah
Park City High School, Assistant Coach Policy, 1 year.
put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Did a decent amount of topic research for Autonomous weapons. I’ll know the acronyms etc
NSDA 2022 PF: I know the topic area well from years of college-level research on the international politics of the indo-pacific region including American and Chinese foreign policy, international trade, and domestic politics.
Go as fast as you want, please cite author names for evidence, and maintain consistent signposting and organization.
Do your impact analysis at the top of the speech. Overviews are not necessary after constructive speeches.
All other preferences in this paradigm apply equally to PF as they do for other events.
LD specific things @ bottom.
Go for what you're good at. I am well-versed in most k and policy/ir/econ literature but that doesn't mean buzzwords are a good way to debate. Good evidence matters (i'll always read it) but good explanation, organization, and presentation is what wins the debate. The biases I do have I keep isolated from how I evaluate arguments. I make my decision by comparing what was said in the final speeches with respect to what I think the core framing issue / impact is of the round, I assume offense has higher risk / more innate power than defense and is at worst defense. Shadow extensions and evidence that isn't explained doesn't count. Risk is determined (usually) by either uniqueness or evidence quality, and risk of X impact getting solved / occuring is what most debates boil down to - it's in your interest to appeal to this in your speech.
embedded clash is good and if you do it I will do my best to put things together for you without intervening. I will vote on zero risk. these need to be consistent with previous speeches (obviously.)
Yes Tech over Truth. (racial slurs, racism good, marginalized people don't care about their rights, etc. are not tech and you'll probably lose for saying these things)
Clash of civs debates: fairness is whatever you want it to be and clash isn't always good (aff should impact turn it and neg should get u.q. with a TVA), you need to explain your wishes into existence and not simply announce them. Structural vs. procedural fairness is a legitimate distinction but easily susceptible to spin and tech tricks.
Politics DA: you better have a good one - I might be skeptical, doesn't mean you shouldn't read it if you believe if its the best strategy etc
Cheating CPs: I'll vote on theory but probably with higher burden on aff to prove abuse than other situations, read them. 2nc CPs and CPs without solvency advocates don't hold up well to good aff analytics.
Theory, T, etc: i default to reasonability and no RVIs. The burden of proof is on the non-violating team (neg in T debates) to prove competing interps are good or their interp is true / better for debate. Caselists, specific applications to the topic and deep discussions of evidence are best here. I don't want to hear 2 minutes of fairness good but rather real internal link analysis about the interp's effect on the topic.
Do more case debate, don't read overviews in front of me, and extend defense when going for the squo.
Indict evidence and compare it, don't just read blocks, and if you do then don't read them full speed. rebuttals should start with decision framing overviews and then quickly go to line by line, i don't need your 2 minute kritik overview.
I am debating on zoom this season as well. It's terrible for everybody involved but luckily we are still able to debate. Make sure you have a verbal confirmation from me before you start a speech or cross ex, I may or may not have my camera on. Keep your mic muted if your not speaking. I think many debaters would benefit from going a little bit slower given the above, especially in rebuttals. I don't want to miss things and mic / internet / audio quality varies. This being said, don't slow down too much that you sacrifice tech advantages. Don't worry too much about speed, I will be fine. Finally, cross-ex: try to give a pause after the other person finished to start speaking.
Specific rona speaker notes:
Watch your judge while you speak even on zoom. I'm moderately expressive and will nod, smile, laugh etc. depending on what u say. All of this however isn't necessarily representative of my overall thoughts on the round.
I flow on the computer, and the screen i flow on is different than the zoom one so if I'm not looking at you its probably because im flowing. if you're talking and I'm not typing you're probably doing something wrong
aggro/intense cross ex is fun, BUT it's VERY EASY to mess up in zoom debates - patience is a virtue. I already watched the first presidential debate and don't need a repeat.
i like history and empirical explanations - use it in your arguments
Speaker point scale is below, but I am on the inflation bandwagon.
ld and policy: general decision-making process, preferences
I value detailed, impactful, and thought through extensions/applications/comparisons of relevant evidence and arguments over anything else when deciding rounds and close clashes. If you want to win something, spend time on it. If you want to beat something, spend time on it.
I don’t have preconditions for what type of argument you should read. I believe judges that refuse to hear/vote on arguments based on certain ideological predispositions are, frankly, weak and dogmatic. The role of the judge is to evaluate the arguments in front of them as objectively as possible. Exposure to things that challenge our worldview and make us uncomfortable is where debate derives its educational, competitive, and interpersonal value. Do what you do best. Specific tech preferences are below. This doesn't mean that I will always vote for your performance aff but it also means I will not always vote for t-fw or traditional policy approaches.
With the above in mind, I find many framework args more and more repetitive, boring, and unpersuasive. Good TVA's, novel interps and evidence, and nuanced process and mechanism analysis that relate to the impacts of the aff will solve this problem for you. If you're going to read a basic ass FW shell and then feed me DanBan clash good lines the whole time without engaging the substance of the affirmative, the round will not go well for you.
I mostly read policy arguments but end up spending a lot of time researching k lit and debating these arguments, and I have a good grasp on them but keep in mind I may not know all of your author names or niche theoretical references and terminology.
speed is fine. stop going full speed through theory blocks and k overviews. Thanks
If an argument has been largely ignored by the other team and consistently impacted and extended by other, my standard of explanation for the former is very low.
If it's in the 2nr/2ar and wasn't in the previous speech, I won't evaluate it - if you're going to extend a piece offense for 3 mins in your rebuttal that's been relatively small the entire round, it's in your best interest to make the location of the ev for the argument apparent or remind me where its been extended etc. - this may seem standard/obvious to many - but ya'll would be surprised.
This is especially true for kritiks. If you have a theory of power, a link, an alt, etc. that's been unaddressed but wins you the round, you still need to explain what it is and why it matters in rebuttals - tagline extensions will never work for me
Please avoid overviews longer than 1 minute, or tell me beforehand so I can flow them somewherew
Embedded clash is cool, I will make those connections for u if they are logical
'insert this rehighlight' doesn't count - read your recut.
buzzwords - policy, econ, and IR buzzwords (academic, not debate-based) are cool with me and make the debate more efficient. K buzzwords are a different story, I will understand your language but if you don't explain the words unique to your theory of power it won't go well for you.
Condo is good (usually)
k, t-fw things
If you read a plan, impact framing and impact/scenario analysis is important to me.
If you don't read a plan, that's fine - Be ready to explain your alt clearly, and why its strategy or mechanism substantively engages whatever you are critiquing. Against T-FW, beat the TVA and tell me why your model is better for debate.
If you read T-FW, fairness is an impact but you should explain a (carded) TVA
Death is bad
‘fiat Is illusory’ and generic state links aren’t enough to win a kritik in front of me – apply your links specifically to the aff and you will have a much easier time
Also, identity arguments are good when deployed in a manner that provides a strategy or solution (alternative) to alleviate impacts for yourself and others like you. When they are deployed for/about you alone and against your opponents positionality, I will be very easily persuaded by the other team’s indict of your method, epistemology, and discourse.
Floating PIKs are cool if the 1ar doesn't have theory. Floating piks and ‘alt solves the aff’ are two different things. The theory is also two different things. One is theoretically questionable and the other is a root cause argument.
I love the perm debate on kritiks, impact or explain the chronology and mechanisms of the perm to win – if the k is a speech act, so is the aff.
fiat is usually legit and good
policy neg things
Counterplans need solvency advocates unless aff doesn't call u out - I really enjoy techy/cheater counterplan debates - obvi if you drop / lose theory ill still vote u down but this shouldn't discourage u from going for them
Case turns are underappreciated
Politics debates are the best or the worst - I value recent ev a lot more here. These debates are when uniqueness, specifically link uniqueness, is very important. Your predictive models for political outcomes need to be detailed and well warranted – I believe impact defense and well-thought out aff analytics are usually enough to beat an obscure, weakly carded politics disad. When packaged well, intrinsic arguments have an unrecognized truth and strategic benefit.
Bad evidence really is bad and having good cards is important - I will often break ties with evidence - whoever's argument more consistently aligns with the ev usually has more truth behind their overall thesis - and the quality of that ev matters. This being said, warranted extensions and applications of your evidence need to be made throughout the round. This also means I value good explanation and knowledge of this evidence, especially in rebuttals and cross-ex. Comparative arguments are your best tool to win evidence - if you win that your ev is better than theirs, you have a much higher chance of getting my ballot.
I default to 'yes judge kick' unless there is a debate about it. 'no judge kick' in the 1ar/2ar doesn't count unless its a cross app from a condo shell from the 2ac
I use the following scale:
Below 27 – you did something unsavory that I would probably mention during the rfd – severity determines scale.
27-27.9 – within this range, you likely behaved in a perceptually bad way, spoke unclearly, or had a below-average speaking/cx performance
28-28.7 – average speaking performance: clear, organized, small errors/quirks but no big deal.
28.8 – 29.5 – above average speaking performance. Varies relative to other team’s skill but exceeds regardless in speaking style, flourish, and organization
29.6 – 30 – exceptional performance. Impressive speaker.
I make decisions off of evidence comparisons often here because there's so little time for developed clash in round. This is to say good analytics are good, but good evidence is better.
time allocations are unbalanced in LD. I give the affirmative a little more leeway in the depth of their explanations given this. This does not mean I'll vote on your 2ac one-liner.
for the love of god dontspreadfullspeedthroughyourdamnanalyticsandtheoryblocks its bad for you unless you know your'e crystal clear and trust me you aren't saving that much time.
Topicality in LD is odd in LD (my opinion). If you're going for T in front of me, make sure you can connect your interpretation to the aff (in either direction) and tell me why your interp is good for debate or why theirs is bad (or both). Topicality impacts in LD are odd bc your topic only lasts 2 months lol
Please include some decision framing in your rebuttal
A few things I stole from Ben Rosenthal that I also explain how I evaluate this debate:
1. I won't vote on an RVI
2. T- bare plurals / T subsets is hard to win in front of me, LAWs topic is one exception
3. I think asking your opponent what cards you read/didn't read counts as cross-ex or prep. you should be able to flow and listen to their speech - asking for a marked copy is what you can do without sucking prep, but if you ask about specific warrants etc. that's going to be your prep time.
4. Framing contentions don't substitute for impact explanations, and you can ditch your pre-scripted 2AC case overview
5. Theory needs to be more developed - pick and choose your arguments that you make better, because if the only word I can flow is "condo" then I won't vote for it, even if dropped.
6. if you're reading phil explain yourself - I don't know LD norms and buzzwords for these arguments
If you have more specific questions or accommodations feel free to ask
I am a college professor with two master's degrees, but I am a lay judge. I can follow arguments and warrants and impacts of them, but if you go too tech on me, it will be hard for me to follow. I have mostly taught English composition, critical thinking, argumentation and rhetoric in essays, criminal justice research and writing.
Please use off time road maps WITH in round sign posting.
Please do not spread.
Please give me clear voting issues.
I am a parent judge.
Stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon. If used, please define the technical words that you are using in your case. If I don't understand the words, I will not be able to understand your claim.
Emphasize your important contentions/points.
Use the best of your knowledge, and reasoning skills. Not intimidation or mockery.
I do not prefer spreading. Deliver an organized and clear speech.
I will not impose my personal beliefs, and/or knowledge about the debate topic on the debaters and listen to you with an open mind. Impact calculus would be very helpful.
Do include me in any email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
All the best.
Hi im a parent judge but judged at over 20 tournaments these two years. Good luck and ask questions
I debate currently at CSUF Until further notice
I debated for around 5.5 years and my background is mostly K args, but dont be afraid to run policy, I’m cool with both
Keep me on the chain por favor – email@example.com
If you have any questions for after the round or just need some help feel free to email, I’ll try to get back
- I will distribute speaker points based off the accumulated performance from y’all, I like hearing arguments more if you truly believe in what you’re saying, especially debating Kritiks, be funny tho I’ll probably laugh, try to have fun and be the chill ones, try not to be toxic and even more so do not be violent, no -isms
- I will try to keep up on the flow but do not hyper-spread through theory blocks or any block for that matter, I will most likely not catch it
- be chill with each other but you can be aggressive if thats just your style, try not to trigger anxiety though in other debaters if you’re going too far
———- some more specifics ———-
I run and prefer Kritikal arguments, I am more comfortable listening to Settler Colonialism, Afro-Pessimism and Marxist literature, but that does not mean you can just spew jargon and hope to win, explain what your theories mean and your arguments, it will go a long way for your speaker points as well
Speaking of, i will be in the range of 27.5 - 29.9 for speaker points, I will try to be objective as possible but you do you, if you can do that well the speaker awards will come too
On T/FW, please make sure that your standards are specific to the round and are clearly spoken, I am substantially less convinced if you do not argue how that specific aff loses you ground and/or justifies a bad model of debate, but I will not vote it down for no reason, argue why those skills are good to solve the aff or provide a good model that sustains KvK debate in a better way than the aff justifies. Just don’t try to read your generic 2NC blocks, it gets more obvious the longer the debate goes on, do it well.
On Counterplans, try to have a net benefit, be smart with it, try not to have a million planks, having a solvency advocate is cool too, not much here.
Disads - do your link work as usual, I will vote on who does the better impact framing, just make sure you still got that link :) p.s for affs, just dont leave it at the end of the 2AC with a 2 second “they dont link isn’t it obvious”, please explain your answers and divide up time strategically
on K’s, I love good 2NC/1NR link stories, try not to just extend some evidence and answer 2AC args, evaluate why your links implicate the aff and how their specific aff makes something problematic. I dont mind a 2NC only the K with no cards, just make sure you’re not reading prewritten blocks, please be as specific as possible
Please stick to your arguments and embody them, just tell me what to evaluate at the end of the debate, I will very much appreciate if you can tell me how that happens, be revolutionary if you want to, I would probably enjoy the debate more.
I am a parent judge. I focus on speech clarity, content, clarity of thoughts and delivery.
I don't have a preference as to philosophy or economic arguments, but I have to be able to understand them. I would prefer a slower speaking speed.
Similar preferences to those below. I still value clarity and clash. For Congress, I value presentation, delivery, and style as well. Most of all, be your authentic self. Make passionate arguments you care about. Discuss the real-world impacts. Be respectful of your opponents and have fun!
Stanford 2020 and 2021
Here are some preferences:
I prefer traditional NSDA LD debate. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. I'm getting better at it, though, so if you have more "circuit-type" argumentation, be sure to signpost and explain.
It is also my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018). And this year's NSDA National Champion competed at this same tournament a couple years ago. So there is lots of crossover.
Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.
Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.
Have fun debating the big ideas of this resolution. It matters and your opinions matter, so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.
Please put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
English teacher. Long time baseball coach; first year debate coach!
Here are some preferences:
Stay with traditional NSDA LD debate. If you are on the circuit, I respect your skill set; I’m just not ready for it yet. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. And it is my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018).
Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.
Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.
Have fun debating the big ideas of this very important resolution. I am a Marine Corps veteran and I understand the real-world impacts of foreign policy decisions. Your opinions matter so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.
Public Forum debate was designed with both the public and the lay judge in mind. For this reason, I'll judge your round based on the side that presents the clearest, best-supported, most logical argument that convinces the public and the public's policy makers to vote one way or another on a resolution.
I appreciate it when you explicitly state when you are establishing a "framework," making a "contention" or claim, providing a "warrant" or "evidence" and analyzing an "impact."
For speaker points, I value poise, eye contact, gestures, and pacing (changing your voice and speed to make effective points).
Finally, since this is JV Public Forum, we need to have a "growth mindset" and understand that this level of debating is developmental. JV Public Forum debaters are trying to improve and ultimately become varsity debaters. Winning is obviously important (I've coached sports for 20 years), but in my mind there is a clear distinction between JV and Varsity levels in any activity. JV is developmental competition. Varsity is the highest level competition.
(My email is email@example.com if you need to add me to any email chain.)
I'm a former debater that has 3 years of high school competitive experience in PF and 1 year of collegiate experience in NPDA. It's been a few years since I've done debate, but I still remember the essentials for most events.
I also believe debate should be a learning experience as well as a safe space for others. Discriminatory language and/or arguments is not very cool and will not do anyone any favors. Be friendly, respect each other, and have fun with it!
- I'm okay with speed as long as it's clear.
- I will stop flowing when the timer stops.
- Please keep your own time, including prep time.
Not a lot of specifics right now but I'll approach each round like a blank slate and do my best to give a thorough RFD!
I am a parent judge.
I like to keep arguments simple. If you are using any technical words or jargon please be sure to define the words.
Make sure that your argument flows well. Deliver a clear, organized argument, do not speak too fast.
I will keep an open mind when listening to your argument.
Have Fun! Enjoy the debate and give it your best.
Wish you all the best.
I am judging for the first time.
I expect the speech to be clear, confident, to the point and have good eye contact.
I am a LD coach who at one time was a policy debater, a public forum coach and a parli coach. My true love is oratory and extemp so I love to hear good rhetorical skills. I can follow some spreading but really prefer a debate that is at good speed with a focus on argumentation and delivery. I am (also?) old fashioned in that I flow on paper and love a nice polite round. As a history teacher whose specialty is politics and international relations, I love connections to current events and historical context. My Ph.D. is in world history and I have been living in China for the past eight years teaching and coaching there, though now live in southern California. Please wow me with your global examples! (Or at least refer to Canada since that is where I hail from originally!)
I am a parent judge and have been judging for a little less than a year. My child has been debating LD Varsity for the last year and before that she debated Novice LD and Middle School PF.
I will struggle to follow you if you speak very quickly and will ask you to slow down. I will look for well-waranted arguments and you should make sure to explain to me why you should win the debate.
I expect debaters to treat each other with courtesy and respect.
- 2x North Dakota State Champion (Speech to Entertain, Novice Extemporaneous Speaking)
- Assistant Coach -- North Dakota, California
- IE/PD/LD Judge -- North Dakota, Minnesota, California
How do I judge Speech?
- The round begins before it begins. First impressions last. Be courteous. Conduct yourselves as young adults throughout.
- Please do not get up in front of the room until you are called. Judges are often still writing on the previous speaker and do not wish to be rushed. When we're ready, we will indicate.
- It is disrespectful to enter or leave a round while someone else is speaking. If a competitor AND/OR her/his spectators break decorum, this will be reflected in scores/rankings.
- Understand your selection. How is the character's voice different from your own? Be highly specific.
- Take risks, but justified. It's never a gesture for a gesture's sake, or atypical movement to be atypical. Incredible things never happen when you play it safe.
How do I judge Debate?
- Your presentation (PATHOS) must be on par with your arguments (ETHOS, LOGOS). Persuade us.
- Debate is not about overwhelming us with information. Rapid-fire speaking and fact bombs are exhausting. If we can't understand you, how do you expect us to ascertain the unintelligible? If we don't believe your conviction, how do you expect to convince us? Say less = say more. Choose facts carefully. Flow clearly. Articulate.
- Always show respect for your opponents. Lack of civility damages credibility.
DEBATERS, PLEASE READ -- Feel free to time yourselves. But if you choose to time your opponents, 1) turn off your alarms, 2) refrain from telling your opponents "time" and 3) respect that the judge's time is the official time.
Hi, I'm Aisha (she/her). I competed in LD for four years at Milpitas High School ('22).
1. Warrant your arguments
3. Weigh impacts
4. Consistently refer back to framework and tie it in with your arguments
I did trad as well as circuit debate when I was a competitor, and am therefore familiar with most circuit arguments. I'm solid with Plans on the aff, and can really tell and appreciate when they are properly executed. Although big-stick advantages tend to be easy to follow, I mostly ran soft left affirmatives as a debater. I am completely okay with evaluating both types of affirmatives; just make sure that you have done enough research on your aff to be able to completely and accurately warrant your contentions. For neg, I ran and am more than ok to evaluate DAs and CPs. For DAs, focus on having a strong link and don't forget about uniqueness -- it's oftentimes forgotten and is important in stating why your disadvantage actually matters. Strong impact calculus is a must when it comes to DAs. It helps to chose one or two of the three mechanisms (magnitude, time frame, and probability) and really hone in how your disad outweighs on it. CPs are solid as well, just make sure to be clear why it is provides mutually exclusivity from the aff. As for Kritiks, I absolutely absolutely love the idea of them and loved running them as a debater (cap, set col, neolib, biopower). Make sure that your link is strong and specific to the aff. Framework plays a significant role for Ks, so prioritize outweighing the aff on framework when running a K. I am not super familiar with theory and T, although I do know the basics and understand their structure. If you do decide to run them, make sure to explain it well because again, I do not have the most experience with them.
I'm completely fine with spreading -- just make sure your opponent is okay with it as well
Case turns and impact calculus always go a long way in winning arguments -- utilize them to the best of your ability
Don't be racist, misogynistic, homophobic, ableist, or xenophobic or else I will give you an automatic loss and significantly tank your speaks
Hello, I am a journalism professor in the journalism dept. at Cal State Northridge. I have a Ph.D. in political sociology and mass communication so I know a few things about various subjects so don't try to talk about issues unless you truly understand inside out. I am a volunteer judge who have judged congress, LA, PF, Spar, Impromptu, etc... I teach news reporting and worked as a newspaper reporter so I favor speech with clear logic, brevity, facts, objectivity, simple common sense instead of puffery, empty promises, unauthentic pompous speeches..Explain simply so even the 4th graders can understand. I am a big fan of BlackPink., by the way.
I debated LD/Pol for Dougherty Valley grad 2021. bidround 2wice and choked 2wice. super washed. conflict for dv.
He/Him or They/Them or whatever you want to call me so long as I can tell you're talking to me.
judges/coaches need to take a step back and stop involving kids in weird debate politics; this activity should remain an educational space and adults should be there to guide students, not use them for some facebook high school ld group clout.... most of yall who do this are 30+!!!
prefer speechdrop instead of email but i dont really care that much
If you insist on an email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
If you have questions for me after round: email@example.com or message me on facebook
Disclosure is mandatory and a true argument to an extent. if your interp is annoying ill be annoyed. full osource with highlighting makes the most sense. jv/novice disclose as your coach lets you. var should disclose. var vs novice do not read disclosure
if i say i won't flow an argument, i won't flow it.
Tech > Truth with some exceptions below.
I like: Policy > Theory/T = Topic/stock Kritiks > other ks >> nonT = Phil strike me for tricks
It has been a while since I debated and I am not familiar with a lot of critical literature anymore. If you still want to go for a more "entry level" kritik such as cap or security or a topic specific one, please explain the kritik with descriptors and not buzzwords. a lot of kritiks are probably true arguments though, so if u can explain it in a way that is easy for me to understand it im very comfortable voting off of it
topical k affs are great arguments. NonT vs fwk is repetitive but fun to evaluate. KvK can get messy but if you keep it clean and explain with descriptors rather than buzzwords i can evaluate them well.
NonT affs by nature are not good arguments. Clash and fairness are probably true arguments. The only reason id have fun evaluating these debates is because of fwk, but if fwk is gone for well, i dont usually vote aff.
if memorizing/reading a pre-prepared buzzword-filled 2nr is ur method for going for the k, dont read the k. preparation is important, but u need to actually know what youre debating. if you cant explain the k without an aid, youre better off not reading it
If the 1AR reads a framework interpretation to weigh the aff against the K, I will ALWAYS weigh the aff against the kritik.
I will not flow tricks (skep, logic, truth testing, indexicals, etc). I will not flow the RVI unless the initial shell is something like Nebel or shoes theory. friv theory is a trick -- i will only vote on it if it is conceded and i will never vote on it if reasonability is won.
explicit cheating or Bigotry is a L 20 for the offender and a W 30 for the other. if ur clipping or doing some other form of cheating in round and your opp wants to challenge, i need ev in the form of recordings or whatever fits best. if i notice it, i wont need ev and ill stop the round. ill mark on my copy of the doc where you clipped. if you have ev that counters my decision, ill apologize and we will resume round with no harm done. there is no argument if i come to the decision that a debater is displaying bigotry or overstepping boundaries in any way, unless you IMMEDIATELY APOLOGIZE and CORRECT YOURSELF. stuff like misgendering can be accidental, but its really easy to tell when something is malicious vs an honest mistake that you feel bad about/will correct. immediate L 20, reported to tab, round is stopped
if u want to be funny during ur speech, be funny. your speaks will rise. just dont try too hard and know how to be funny in the first place
Favorite 2nrs are disad + case or cp + disad/nb + case.
your 1nc can be interesting without reading random skep triggers or fringe kritiks. try 1 off disad, or massive impact turns. your speaks will rise.
some other things that will increase speaks: bring me a protein shake (hard +1), make an outkast or a tribe called quest reference in ur speech/doc (+0.5 to +1), manage to 'style' on ur opp while still keeping it respectful.
I am not opposed to giving a 30 to excellent debating and adaptation. Similarly, if you fail to adapt and rebuttal speeches are messy, you will get below a 28. I will do my best to average speaks around a 28.5.
do not feel hesitant to ask me any questions at any point. i will answer it if it is appropriate.
most importantly, keep it respectful. ur opp is not your enemy. you are both trying to compete and learn. excessive disrespect will not be tolerated -- i will intervene.
Hi, my name is Kasi Krishnan. Feel free to call me judge, Mr. Krishnan, whatever works. I'm a parent judge and am looking for clear and concise argumentation.
Whichever debater that proves their advocacy- or lack thereof- to be better than their opponent's will win the round. Please don't spread; I will evaluate the round based on what I can understand.
I don't have any preferences on what kind of arguments you read as long as you explain them enough for me to understand and analyze. K's, plans, and the like are all fine as long as they are thoroughly explained and I understand the premise, your links, and the impact scenario.
I'd like to be added to the email chain since I like reading along with the speech doc. firstname.lastname@example.org
Apart from that, note that debate is supposed to be fun and I'm looking for an enjoyable round for both you and I. Have fun and keep debating!
I am a parent judge who started judging last year -- have been a judge for three LD and one Speech tournament so far. I love debate and speech and hope to help students become better debaters and speakers.
I am an attorney by trade but do not have any formal debate experience other than judging rounds at several tournaments when my daughter has competed. I will as much as possible allow the debaters to run whatever they wish to run in accordance with the tournament rules but recognize that if you spread (when not allowed) I am not going to try to follow you and likely will drop you, especially if you continue that throughout the round (again when not allowed by the rules). Even if you don't think it is technically spreading if you go faster than I can track then I will miss a lot of what you present and your brilliance will disappear into the ether.
Part of the skill developed through this activity is to know your audience.
I am not a full on flow judge but over time have gotten more used to tracking the flow but the winner isn't likely going to be the person who made 7 weaker and less connected or well structured points versus the person that better established their contentions and in LD connected this to their value and value criteria framework.
My personal opinion on spreading is that those who don't spread should have a chance to enjoy this activity and not be outcast from it or be forced to learn to spread in the same way athletes feel compelled to take steroids which ruin their body to compete at the highest level of sport. Spreading destroys the practical value of this educational experience by coverting it into more of a verbal game than a true clash of ideas. In the real world, spreading has no practical applications. I have argued cases at the trial court and appellate court levels and can assure you that the leaned judges and justices would not take too kindly to someone verbally assaulting an argument at them at 300 words per minute.
Also, I strongly prefer quality over quantity. I will appreciate novel arguments and you can run whatever you want as long as you can properly connect it to the topic and make it understandable to me. But if you run something completely off topic that doesn't even fit the topic, you will have with me a much higher burden to demonstrate how this is both appropriate, fair, just (procedurally and substantively) and you will need to give me a clear and concise road map in plain English why it links and how your impacts and evidence prevail. Also, I do weigh quality of arguments so if your answer to everything is that the world could explode if (fill in the blank topic isn't resolved or negated) you'd better have a strong compelling and supported grounds why I need to go back home and build a bunker. If the opposing side completely fails to respond I'll account for that but if you run a case on ridiculous impacts and your opponent does a reasonable job of rebutting the logical fallacies of this and then wins on the points that are sanguine to the topic they will prevail. I am not keen on arguments that are too cute by half (do not really address the topic and are either a form of gaming the topic in an unfair way or that border on abuse). That doesn't mean I won't allow whatever the rules allow but rather that you will bear the burden to SLOWLY and METHODICALLY explain what your (to me) obscure conception is with your verbal words and not just buried in a 50 page dense written text. I am not very experienced with plans but know what a plan inclusive counterplan is (so explain your plan or PIC slowly and clearly (walk me through it step by step). Do not assume I will read a 60 page 8 pica sized case during the round while you speak 300 words per minute!). I am not very familiar with theory but will follow the logical connections you make as I would a legal argument. Have fun and good luck!
sarah (she/her) - homestead '22 (cx for 3 years, ld senior year), usc '26 (not actively debating in college)
read whatever you would like - good debating supersedes any arg preferences. i am probably not the best if you read phil/trix. you'll have to do more explaining for what you're talking about.
yes email chain: email@example.com, speechdrop is also great
please do something different. i've been judging the same debates in a cycle.
things that make me happy:
- comparison: of evidence, of voting issues, of warrants, of literally everything - the more the merrier
- warrant extension (please)
- pointing out mistagged cards + explaining what it actually says > "this card is mistagged" with no further explanation > letting them get away with murder
- ballot painting
things that make me sad:
- doc blotted 2nrs that don't interact with the aff at all
- blind extension of arguments without interacting with opponent's args (no clash)
- spreading through theory shells/answers like your life depends on it
- stealing prep
misc. thoughts below
the cheatier the cp, the lower the threshold i have on aff theory (ie delay cps, should/ought pics). smart cheaty cps are cool. i default to judge kick if neither debater contest it.
impact turns and case turns are fun and underutilized.
specific aff implementation/enforcement > "it just happens"
do impact calc pls.
vs ks: i really enjoy these debates when done well. don’t be afraid of the k mumbo jumbo and defend your reps, extinction ows, etc. use cx to clarify the things you don’t understand. losing the fw debate makes winning the debate really difficult. link defense is good. pls answer ontology.
spark/cap good/heg good: yes.
v. familiar (read it as a debater) - security, cap, set col, harney and moten, beller
familiar (have read some lit, debated against it) - fem, afropess, agamben, baudrillard, bataille
mehhh? - any other pess, ableism, lacan, deleuze, IR
??? - debaters inventing ks by mish mashing authors who don’t agree w/ each other together
specific > generic links. if you go for a generic link, contextualize it in the 2nr.
good explanation > buzzwords that don’t mean anything, don't presume i know what your jargon means - err on the side of a clear explanation.
k affs are cool. i prefer if i understand what it is they're doing at the end of the round.
kvk debate: very cool.
i’m somewhat familiar with the generic kant fw, but everything else i’m much less familiar with. well-developed phil syllogism > blippy independent reasons to prefer.
if you're not clear, i will not have it on my flow = we are all sad. please don't full send spread through your shells.
3+ new shells in the 1ar and kicking the 1ac - D:
2NR should always overcompensate on theory, a 30sec pre-written block will usually lose to 2AR extrapolation of the 1AR shell.
defaults: DTD, C/I, no RVIs, T comes before 1ar theory
if you’re debating someone significantly less knowledgeable than you, pls be nice. don’t spread against novices.
good cx =/= overly aggressive cx
if it’s an online debate, pls record your speeches when you give them (especially the rebuttals) in case of tech glitches.
speaks usually hover around 28.5, increases and decreases based on how well you debate
unclear spreading = lower speaks
in a competitive round, if you close your laptop and give your 2nr/2ar off the flow, i'll give you a 29.5+ (do not do this if it's an online tournament for obvious reasons)
Parent parent judge, I do try to flow. No Spreading, reading faster is ok.
Please be clear and explain your arguments and importance in each round.
Feel free to explain why I have to vote for you. But repetition is not necessary.
Be respectful towards your opponent and follow the rules.
First of all, thank you for all the hard work behind this.
Enjoy and learn from the process.
Respect your opponents.
I expect you are very familiar with the material instead of just reading the doc.
I value comparison. So clearly tell me why your evidences outweigh the opponent's! Write my RFD in your last speech.
I like well structured arguments with coherent and thorough arguments.
I am not a fan of spreading and will take off points if this is done after I request it explicitly.
I am looking for traditional LD values. I did debate for 4 years and I always worked based on moral values connecting to your framework. If you start to use policy methods you will lose points with me. I want this to be a discussion of morals and pragmatic ethics, not a fistfight of evidence.
Debate coach. 3 year state qualifier with a focus in congress/extemp/public forum. I tend to focus on logic and argumentation first and foremost. While I appreciate good delivery, it won't overshadow analysis. I will be flowing the debate, so framework debate and dropped arguments will be noted. Try not to speak too fast, I can't give you what I can't flow.
Please give special attention to your closing speeches. Crystallize/summarize the discussion so that I can make sense of what is on my flow. I will not penalize you for every little dropped argument if they are ultimately extraneous to the debate, so please try to prioritize what is most important in the round.
Win the argument, win the round :)
Elise Matton, Director of Speech & Debate at Albuquerque Academy (2022–present)
EMAIL CHAIN: firstname.lastname@example.org
· B.A. History, Tulane University (Ancient & Early Modern Europe)
· M.A. History, University of New Mexico (U.S. & Latin America)
· CX debate in NM local circuit, 2010 State Champion (2005-2010)
· IPDA/NPDA debate in college, 2012 LSU Mardi Gras Classic Champion (2011-2014)
· Team Assistant, Isidore Newman (primarily judging/trip chaperoning — 2012-2016)
· Assistant Coach, Albuquerque Academy (LD & CX emphasis — 2017–2022)
· I judge a mix of local circuit and national circuit tournaments (traditional & progressive) primarily in CX and LD, but occasionally PF or other Speech events.
Note Pre-Jack Howe:
· Jack Howe is my 1st national circuit tournament in policy this season — I haven't seen or judged many rounds at all yet this year and definitely not too many fast/technical/progressive rounds on the topic. Do not assume I know Aff topic areas, core neg ground, abstract topic-specific acronyms, etc. Adjust accordingly!
General Notes (this is catered for policy and national circuit LD. PF notes are at the bottom).
· Speed is fine generally so long as it's not used to excessively prohibit interaction with your arguments. I do think there is a way to spread and still demonstrate strong speaking ability (varying volume, pacing, tone etc) and will probably reward you for it if you're doing both well. Go slower/clearer/or otherwise give vocal emphasis on taglines and key issues such as plan text or aff advocacy, CP texts, alts, ROB/ROJ, counter-interps, etc. Don't start at your max speed but build up to it instead. If you are one of the particularly fast teams in the circuit, I recommend you slow down SLIGHTLY in front of me. I haven't been judging many fast rounds lately, so I'm slightly rusty. I'm happy to call out "clear" and/or "slow" to help you find that my upper brightline so you can adjust accordingly as needed.
· Put me on the email chain (email@example.com) but know I don't like rounds that REQUIRE me to read the doc while you're speaking (or ideally at all). I tend to have the speech doc up, but I am annoyed by rounds where debaters ASSUME that everyone is reading along with them. I flow off what I hear, not what I read, and I believe that your delivery and performance are important aspects of this activity and you have the burden of clearly articulating your points well enough that I theoretically shouldn't need to look at the docs at all for anything other than ev checking when it's requested. If someone who wasn't looking at your speech doc would not be able to tell the difference between the end of one card/warrant and the beginning of a new tagline, you need better vocal variety and clarity (louder, intonation change, inserting "and" or "next" between cards etc, etc.
· The most impressive debaters to me are ones who can handle intense high-level technical debates, but who can make it accessible to a wide variety of audiences. This means that I look for good use of tech and strategy, but ALSO for the ability to "boil it down" in clearly worded extensions, underviews, overviews, and explanations of your paths to the ballot. I strongly value debaters who can summarize the main thesis of each piece of offense in their own words. It shows you have a strong command of the material and that you are highly involved in your own debate prep.
· I believe that Tech>truth GENERALLY, BUT- Just because an argument is dropped doesn't necessarily mean I'll give you 100% weight on it if the warrants aren't there or it is absurdly blippy. I also have and will vote for teams that may be less technically proficient but still make valid warranted claims even if they aren't done formatted in a "Technical" manner. Ex: if you run some a theory argument against a less technical team who doesn't know how to line-by-line respond to it, but they make general arguments about why this strategy is harmful to debaters and the debate community and argue that you should lose for it, I would treat that like an RVI even if they don't call it an RVI. Etc.
· Use my occasional facial expression as cues. You’ll probably notice me either nodding occasionally or looking quizzically from time to time- if something sounds confusing or I’m not following you’ll be able to tell and can and should probably spend a few more seconds re-explaining that argument in another way (don't dwell on this if it happens — if it's an important enough point that you think you need to win, use the cue to help you and try explaining it again!) Note the nodding doesn't mean I necessarily agree with a point, just following it and think you're explaining it well. If you find this distracting please say so pre-round and I’ll make an effort not to do so.
· Use Content warnings if discussing anything that could make the space less safe for anyone within it and be willing to adapt for opponents or judges in the room.
Role as a Judge
Debate is incredible because it is student-driven, but I don't think that means I abandon my role as an educator or an adult in the space when I am in the back of the room making my decision. I believe that good debaters should be able to adapt to multiple audiences. Does this mean completely altering EVERYTHING you do to adapt to a certain judge (traditional judge, K judge, anti-spreading judge, lay judge, etc etc)? No, but it does mean thinking concretely about how you can filter your strategy/argument/approach through a specific lens for that person.
HOW I MAKE MY RFD: At the end of the last negative speech I usually mark the key areas I could see myself voting and then weigh that against what happens in the 2AR to make my decision. My favorite 2NR/2AR’s are ones that directly lay out and tell me the possible places in the round I could vote for them and how/why. 2NR/2AR’s that are essentially a list of possible RFDs/paths to the ballot for me are my favorite because not only do they make my work easier, but it clearly shows me how well you understood and interpreted the round.
Part of me really loves the meta aspect of T and theory, and part of me loathes the semantics and lack of substance it can produce. I see T and Theory as a needing to exist to help set some limits and boundaries, but I also have a fairly high threshold. Teams can and do continue to convince me of appropriate broadenings of those boundaries. Reasonability tends to ring true to me for the Aff on T, but don’t be afraid to force them to prove or meet that interpretation, especially if it is a stretch, and I can be easily persuaded into competing interps. For theory, I don’t have a problem with conditional arguments but do when a neg strat is almost entirely dependent on running an absurd amount of offcase arguments as a time skew that prevents any substantive discussion of arguments. This kind of strat also assumes I’ll vote on something simply because it was “flowed through”, when really I still have to examine the weight of that argument, which in many cases is insubstantial. At the end of the day, don’t be afraid to use theory- it’s there as a strategy if you think it makes sense for the round context, but if you’re going to run it, please spend time in the standards and voters debate so I can weigh it effectively.
I love a really good disad, especially with extensive impact comparisons. Specific disads with contextualized links to the aff are some of my all-time favorite arguments, simple as they may seem in construct. The cost/benefit aspect of the case/DA debate is particularly appealing to me. I don’t think generic disads are necessarily bad but good links and/or analytics are key. Be sure your impact scenario is fully developed with terminal impacts. Multiple impact scenarios are good when you can. I'm not anti nuke war scenarios (especially when there is a really specific and good internal link chain and it is contextually related to the topic) but there are tons more systemic level impacts too many debaters neglect.
I used to hate PICs but have seen a few really smart ones in the past few years that are making me challenge that notion. That being said I am not a fan of process CPs, but go for it if it’s key to your strat.
Love them, with some caveats. Overviews/underviews, or really clearly worded taglines are key here. I want to see *your* engagement with the literature. HIGH theory K's with absurdly complicated taglines that use methods of obfuscation are not really my jam. The literature might be complex, and that's fine, but your explanations and taglines to USE those arguments should be vastly more clear and communicable if you want to run it in round! I have a high threshold for teams being able to explain their positions well rather than just card-dump. I ran some kritiks in high school (mostly very traditional cap/biopower) but had a pretty low understanding of the best way to use them and how they engaged with other layers of offense in the round. They weren’t as common in my circuit so I didn’t have a ton of exposure to them. However, they’ve really grown on me and I’ve learned a lot while judging them- they’re probably some of my favorite kind of debate to watch these days. (hint: I truly believe in education as a voter, in part because of my own biases of how much this activity has taught me both in and out of round, but this can work in aff’s favor when terrible K debates happen that take away from topic education as well). Being willing to adapt your K to those unfamiliar with it, whether opponents or judge, not only helps you in terms of potential to win the ballot, but, depending on the kind of kritik you're running or pre-fiat claims, also vastly increases likelihood for real world solvency (that is if your K is one that posits real world solvency- I'm down for more discussion-based rounds as theoretical educational exercises as well). I say this because the direction in which I decided to take my graduate school coursework was directly because of good K debaters who have been willing to go the extra step in truly explaining these positions, regardless of the fact I wasn’t perceived as a “K judge”. I think that concept is bogus and demonstrates some of the elitism still sadly present in our activity. If you love the K, run it- however you will need to remember that I myself wasn’t a K debater and am probably not as well versed in the topic/background/author. As neg you will need to spend specific time really explaining to me the alt/role of the ballot/answers to any commodification type arguments. Despite my openness to critical argumentation, I’m also open to lots of general aff answers here as well including framework arguments focused on policymaking good, state inevitable, perms, etc. Like all arguments, it ultimately boils down to how you warrant and substantiate your claims.
Flash time/emailing the doc out isn’t prep time (don’t take advantage of this though). Debaters should keep track of their own time, but I also tend to time as well in case of the rare timer failure. If we are evidence sharing, know that I still think you have the burden as debaters to clearly explain your arguments, (aka don’t assume that I'll constantly use the doc or default to it- what counts is still ultimately what comes out of you mouth).
I will yell “clear” if the spread is too incoherent for me to flow, or if I need you to slow down slightly but not if otherwise. If I have to say it more than twice you should probably slow down significantly. My preference while spreading is to go significantly slower/louder/clearer on the tagline and author. Don’t spread out teams that are clearly much slower than you- you don’t have to feel like you have to completely alter your presentation and style, but you should adapt somewhat to make the round educational for everyone. I think spreading is a debate skill you should employ at your discretion, bearing in mind what that means for your opponents and the judge in that round. Be smart about it, but also be inclusive for whoever else is in that round with you.
I don't judge PF nearly as frequently as I do CX/LD, so I'm not as up to date on norms and trends.
Mostly when judging PF I default to util/cost-benefit analysis framing and then I evaluate clash and impacts, though the burden is on you to effectively weigh that clash and the impacts.
Final Focus should really focus on the ballot story and impact calc. Explain all the possible paths to the ballot and how you access them.
Compared to LD and CX, I find that clash gets developed much later in the round because the 2nd constructive doesn't (typically?) involve any refutations (which I find bizarre from a speech structure standpoint). For this reason, I appreciate utilizing frontlining as much as possible and extending defense into summary.
Impressive speaking style = extra brownie points for PFers given the nature of the event. Ultimately I'm still going to make a decision based on the flow, but this matters more to me when evaluating PF debaters. Utilize vocal intonation, eye contact, gestures, and variance in vocal pacing.
Grand Crossfire can be fun when done right but horribly chaotic when done wrong. Make an effort to not have both partners trying to answer/ask questions simultaneously or I'll have a really hard time making out what's going on. Tag-team it. If Grand Crossfire ends early, I will not convert the time remaining into additional prep. It simply moves us into Final Focus early.
I have a much lower threshold for spreading in PF than I do for CX/LD. I can certainly follow it given my focus on LD and CX, but my philosophy is that PF is stylistically meant to be more accessible and open. I don't mind a rapid delivery, but I will be much less tolerant of teams that spread out opponents, especially given email chains/evidence sharing before the round is not as much of a norm (as far as I've seen).
I am often confused by progressive PF as the structure of the event seems to limit certain things that are otherwise facilitated by CX/LD. Trying to make some of the same nuanced Theory and K debates are incredibly difficult in a debate event structured by 2-3 mins speeches. Please don't ask me to weigh in on or use my ballot to help set a precedent about things like theory, disclosure, or other CX/LD arguments that seem to be spilling into PF. I am not an involved enough member of the PF community to feel comfortable using my ballot to such ends. If any of these things appear in round, I'm happy to evaluate them, but I guess be cautious in this area.
Please feel free to ask any further questions or clarifications before/after the round!- my email is firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any specific questions or need to run something by me. Competitors: if communicating with me by email, please CC your coach or adult chaperone. Thank you!
I competed in both LD and Policy while I was in high school; two years of both at open level. Ever since then, I've been judging both formats when available for quite a while, and as of late have begun picking up Policy, LD, and Public Forum ballots.
Due to my history, my judging style is still heavily based upon how I acted in round as a competitor. I rely predominantly on the flow, but I still strongly look to any well-constructed policy/case arguments in round.
Philosophy-wise, I am first and foremost a Tabula Rasa judge. Playing against a clean slate with your opponent (and with your partners) creates the most pure form of debate; it is in my mind that entering the round attempting to meta-game the debate by over-analyzing what your judge is biased towards butchers the debate itself. I will try my hardest in round to be as impartial and accepting as possible to begin with; however, I am human, and all humans have biases. If you can glean these (hopefully small) edges in round, then all the better for you!
The only other major factor of debate that I feel necessary highlighting is my perspective on K's/ Theory arguments. To put it bluntly, I will be having a much harder time accepting these arguments as compared to my judging peers. I've seen K's used almost exclusively as a method to steer the round toward a certain argument, regardless of resolution, as a form which are designed to be a lot less preparable than anything actually topical. I've had far too many negative experiences as a judge to accept any of these as a strategical decision; Anything short of a K being used for in-round insults is strongly discouraged.
1Ac K's are right out.
As far as speed is concerned... It probably won't be much of an issue? I wasn't the fastest debater in the world, and I am a touch rusty, but I should be able to keep up with the speed of just about every debater that I'm working with. What may be an issue, however, is clarity. I will try my best to warn any and all debaters who are not speaking clearly in round, and if said warnings are ignored, your speeches will simply not be flowed.
One final note - I'm a judge, and judges like things easy for them. Concise, clear, and signposted speeches (especially towards the end of a round!) make it a lot easier for me to follow arguments without having to apply too much mental horsepower after the round, and it makes my life easier to make yours better. Please don't just blindly signpost covered arguments as dropped, however - I'm not quite that lazy!
Updated for Glenbrooks
Jack Howe was my first TOC tournament since 2020. I am a bit rusty, but should be able to keep up decently well speedwise (I'd rate myself a 7.5), try to keep this in mind. For more advanced arguments, please do your best to make everything clear and layout how it interacts with the round as I get back into the scene.
Slightly tech over truth
I've been a part of forensics for almost 10 years, competed in multiple IE's and both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate. Qualified and broke at nationals. Coached state and national finalists.
All forms of debate:
Make sure you signpost effectively and clearly convey your arguments. Also clearly illustrate any links and impacts you have.
I have a fair understanding of the active topics (and am always interested to learn more in these rounds) but it is against my principles to make arguments for you. I won't connect your links/impacts to something you haven't said in round, so don't assume that I will.
I'm fine with speed to the extent your opponent is comfortable with. Debate is educational, nobody wants to be in a round where they are just being yelled at incomprehensibly.
I have a more traditional background; if your impacts are extinction, make sure the link chain in getting there is clear. I strongly prefer impacts grounded in reality that cleanly flow through vs a shoddy push at 5 different extinction scenarios.
My most important personal preference: Manners
This event is very competitive and confrontational. I understand that sometimes it can get heated. But at any point if anything offensive is done to the other team, I will immediately drop speaker points (and potentially the round based on the severity.) It's important to engage in discourse respectfully.
Make sure to clash and subsequently defend your framework. This is the crux of your case, you shouldn't be moving over it.
Be organized, and clearly lay out how your arguments interact with your opponents.
Fairly open to progressive argumentation. I enjoy Kritiks and Plans. I'm not a big fan of theory but respect meaningful shells (
frivolous theory). Respect the rules of the tournament as well. I really don't want to have to run to tab to figure out if your arguments are legal or not.
I want clear links and impacts from both sides. Anything you think is important, emphasize. Make sure to be organized and professional.
I accept the use of Kritiks when permissible.
I pay attention during cross but won't judge on it. Make sure anything you want to be flowed is said in round.
Signpost Signpost Signpost
Signposting is more important here than in any other event. Make sure you are organized, and you are consistently signposting throughout your speeches. If I get lost, there's a good chance a main argument will be missed.
Make your links clear and stay relevant to the resolution for your arguments to flow through.
Argument wise, basically anything goes (
In regards to spreading in Parli, I personally am not a fan considering most people can barely cohesively spread with speech docs in front of them. Respect "clears" and "slows" from anyone involved in the round.
I have judged debate before but I am not an experienced policy judge so speak slow and show me clear arguments. I have background knowledge about policy but in order for me to vote into things like topicality. Terms like Perm, mutually exclusive or conditionality or condo (any theory terms ect) will need to be explained (very well) in round. I wouldn't run theory/topicality arguments unless you this it is very likely you will go for them in the final speech. Whoever proves their point best wins. Case debate is good.
Roy Highschool '19
I did PF and Policy debate in high school, each for one year.
Flows the doc --------X----------------------------------It's on you to be comprehensible
Spin > Cards ----------X--------------------------------Cards > Spin
Poker face-------------X-----------------------------You'll know my thoughts on everything
Not ideological in clash debates -----------------------------X--------------No plan no ballot
Pomo/high theory expert -----------------------------------------X-Whatever the opposite of that is
Fairness/clash/research impacts on T --------------X----------------------------Delib k2 solve warming/Movements
Counter-defining and offense/defense on T --------------X----------------------------Impact turning everything
2NR needs TVA to win-----------------------------------X------Overrated/unnecessary most of the time
K links to the plan -------------------------------------X-------Unnecessary if you win framework
Extinction outweighs/impact turn vs K ---------------------------------X----------Perm/no link
Conditionality bad -------------------------------------X--------Infinite and good
1NCs that proliferate incomplete arguments-----------------------------------X-----Aff gets new answers
Bad for process/"cheating" CPs ------------------------------X--------------Being neg's hard
"We're topical but don't defend implementation"-------------------------------------X------Makes literally 0 sense
Theory debates hinge on ideology -------------------------------X-------------Execution is everything
Aff-leaning on T vs Policy Affs ----------------------------X--------------Neg-leaning on T vs Policy Affs
Intrinsicness bad -----------------------X---------------------Better for it than most
Logical internal link presses/recutting their ev --------------X----------------------------Impact D to everything
"Insert this reHLing" --------------------------------------X-----Gotta read it
Bathroom breaks and small talk ---------------------------------------X---Decision time is short
Having to read an essay with my thoughts on debate ---------------------------------X-----Short judge philosophies
A little background on me, I debated for 3 years in high school and 3 years in college. I believe the round is your own. If spreading is reasonably accessible for both you and your opponent then I am totally fine with that. That being said, spreading someone out of the round is fun for no one and doesn't make either of you better debaters. Whichever framework is defended best is the one I will use to evaluate the round. All I ask is that you be respectful and kind to your opponents. :)
Yes chain: email@example.com
College: University of Southern California
ALL: Probably don't care what you read. I read Ks in college on the aff and neg. I tend to default to an offense defense paradigm and section off my flow in big picture ideas
I ultimately evaluate truth over tech. With that being said if you are substantially ahead in the tech debate I have a significantly lower threshold for your truth claims.
Presumption on these debates is much easier to win and is a smart arg. If the aff wants presumption to flip you need to tell me that - otherwise presumption is always a valid 2NR option separate advocacy or not.
KvK / Method v Method debates - the K needs to be competitive.
Framework - Go for it but debate the impact turns please with that being said I will default to a competitive activity so there has to be some sort of role for the aff and negative in your model of debate.
Theory - Go for it - diversify yours standards for speaker points here. I won more rounds than I should have on ASPEC, so your theory arg is probably fine w/ me.
Public Forum Debate
Editing this based on what I saw at last weeks tournament - internal link chains MUST be in the final focus. If the final focus is JUST impacts there is ZERO chance you will get my ballot.
Fast is fine and can be strategic given the short amount of time allocated to speeches.
Off time roadmaps should only consist of the words 'pro case' 'con case' and 'framing'. I start the time if the roadmap > 10 seconds.
ONLINE DEBATE: I expect both pro and con teams to have their evidence readily available and share with teams and judge before round. This helps minimize the extend internet speed/connectivity has as well as cuts down/eliminates awkward "I didn't hear you" can you re-state moments.
Top 5 things I look for in round
1. VALUES-Tie everything back to your values!
2. Voter Issues-Tell me exactly why you know you have won this round
3. It is more important to me that you fully understand what you are talking about instead of using terms or concepts you would not be able to describe in your own words
4. A respectful, yet productive cross x
5. Organization and sign posting
Good luck, and I am excited to hear your debates! Remember, the most important thing about debate is the knowledge, experience, and confidence you gain from the activity, not necessarily the win :)
I am available from 8 am to 12 pm.
I am a new judge.
I am a lay parent judge. Please add me to email chain: Email: firstname.lastname@example.org These are my preferences:
K Debaters: I am fine with Kritiks as long as they are topical to the resolution. Make sure to be very clear on your links and explain as to why it should be extended. If I am not clear on how you solve for your K, I will drop it.
Theory Debates: I don’t prefer theory debates. If you’re reading high theory, make sure to explain it as low theory so I can understand properly.
Speed: Go a little bit slower than you would usually just to make sure I get everything on the flow. Make the argument, cite examples (warrants) and persuade me why your argument is superior to your opponents.
Signpost & crystallize. This is very important. I will be flowing with you, but be sure that you signpost elements that you want me to pay attention to. Please crystalize effectively. Please sum up your debate by addressing the most important arguments in a simple and clear manner.
Links & extensions: The link between each contention and its value/impact must be clear. Don't just cite cards, explain how the card is important and relevant in this round and to your value premise and towards the end towards addressing voting issues.
In general, focus more on why your arguments are more superior beyond just using the technicalities of dropped arguments, etc.
Finally, keeping up with the spirit of debate, be polite, courteous and follow the rules.
Email - email@example.com - include on all chains
Affiliation - USC
Read what you want. I don't understand the separation between teams calling themselves "policy debaters" or "K debaters." Debate is a process that is performed through close readings.
I think that dropped arguments are mostly true and conceded arguments are 100% true.
I am growing increasingly concerned with highlighting and evidence tagging, word salad highlighting and "the aff causes extinction" are not acceptable.
I think of debate as a competing research activity.
- If I can't tell a coherent narrative about your side in the RFD I'm probably not going to vote for you.
- My favorite speech is CX, but this is not a speech for you to get more arguments in. I prefer when the Cx'er listens to their opponent and asks strategic follow-up questions.
- All debates ARE ABOUT LISTENING, if you show me you are actively engaged in your opponent’s arguments your speaker points will increase, if you are not listening I will be super upset.
FW: I think the best FW debating answers the question of why FW is important for the thing that the aff is trying to solve for. This can include the necessity of having a fair game and a ballot that reflects the desirability of fairness. However, if you go for FW as some abstract Willy Wonka thing, chances are you are going to lose on the impact turn.
- Not a fan of the approach of listing a bunch of bad/good debaters. None of us know these people and you can be a bad person and debate either style of argumentation. Same goes for aff solvency, not sure how 5 debaters doing x good thing after debate is evidence of reading the aff being good.
- Not a fan of reading the advocacy statement with US should in front of it and calling it a TVA
- Affs should defend "some-thing" that I can endorse.
- Not a fan of "debate is a game" "no it's not, debate is my life" - obviously debate is both, make me understand why a limited/predictable game O/W their offense and vise-versa.
Theory - Will vote on any theory although the vast majority are not reasons to reject the team. Often times two teams read debate buzzwords and expect me to weigh debatbility vs. real world neg flex - hard to resolve.
I'm comfortable voting on presumption if your K aff isn't explained or I couldn't explain the central goal of the 1AC EVEN IF presumption is not an argument in the 2NR.
There are some arguments that in order to win in front of me will need quality evidence to back it up. Debating about the "earth being flat" or "climate change is good for x because island populations will survive and repopulate - only 4 billion oppressed people will die" are such examples. I don't think anyone's livelihood is improved in relation to the time we would spend making these arguments. BUT if the evidence shows a dedication to the subject in order to actually make us better able to combat the position "in the real-world" I will consider much less of my own ethical concerns in making the decision. There is a difference in playing devils advocate and just being ignorant.
I will tell you "clearer" twice - If I have to tell you once assume I am following along with the whole doc. I won't take initiative in stopping the round based on clipping, but if the other team issues a challenge and stakes the round on it chances are I will have made up my mind. Absent this challenge card clipping and unclarity will just be reflected in your speaker points.
Furthermore, an ethics violation is only an ethics violation if the team stakes the round on it. If a position is introduced and debated through the round it is just a procedural. If the other team truly violated the rules either end the round and I will decide or make actual impact claims as to why rule violations are bad and I will vote on the substance of the argument.
Update Berkeley LD 2023 - I am open to your wacky tricks, moral debates, or whatever I may be forgetting, but it is hard to believe "you skewed my time" *mic drop* is a reason to vote on some random theory.
I see that third level clash is difficult in LD which reveals to me that contextualization will literally win you the TOC.
good 1NCs will be small and have a ton of preempts.
I am a parent Judge and been judging for 3 years now. I appreciate the opportunity to help and support this as a parent judge. I am however well informed of different topics, should be able to judge topics and will apply my knowledge impartially. I will try my best to flow the debate, please talk at a reasonable pace for me to judge. I will do my best to choose the right winner. Good luck to all participants.
A new parent judge that hopes to entertain civil debates.
I initially use a scaling system of 1-10 judging the attributes of voice, body motion, eye contact, framing clarity, logic chaining, and rhetorical device usage. I may give additional bonus points in increments of 5 per section if I am particularly impressed by a performance. At the end of the round, I simply add up the points to each side to determine winner.
***PLEASE, I BEG YOU, if nothing else, read my note about speed/clarity!!! This issue is paramount in online debate!***
"Accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace - and maybe even glory." - Tom Robbins
Hello! I'm Skye. I graduated from Concordia College where I debated on their policy team for 4 years. I am a CEDA scholar and 2019 NDT participant. In high school, I moved around a lot and have, at some point, participated in every debate format. I have a degree in English Literature and Global Studies with a minor in Women and Gender Studies.
I have experience reading, coaching, & judging both trad policy arguments and Ks.
I have been coaching going on 3 years and judging for 6. I am currently the head policy coach at Wayzata HS in Wayzata, MN. I occasionally help out the Harker School in San Jose, CA and UMN debate in Minneapolis, MN. My full time job is at the Minnesota Urban Debate League, where I am serving my second Americorps VISTA service year as the Community Debate Liaison.
I love debate and I have loved taking on an educator role in the community. I take education very seriously, but I try to approach debates with compassion and mirth, because I think everyone benefits from it. I try to be as engaged and helpful as I can while judging, and I am excited and grateful to be part of your day!
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :)
Top 3 Notes!
1. I FLOW ON PAPER AND HAVE POOR HEARING. I am OK with spreading, I think speed makes for much more in depth and rigorous debates, but with great speed comes great responsibility…
- please use a microphone in a headset/headphones if you have the tech, the laptop mics also pick up echoes and it makes it way harder than it needs to be for my ears
- please send out analytics if you are at all willing
- please send out marked docs at the end of your speech
- please SIGN POST & give me 1 second to move onto the next flow
- please use different intonation and sign posting to indicate you are going onto the next argument on the flow to give me the cue to finish up and move along with you so I can keep an organized flow. Not all speeches will be organized the same way, but if I know where to put things so they line up, then we are all in a better place.
- In the 2A/NC & rebuttals, spreading your way through analytics at MAX SPEED will not help you, because I won't be able to write it all down, or even really process the very dense argumentation and smart things you are saying.
If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because you did not accommodate me, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it. I am not afraid to tell you I did not get everything or missed something. To me, that is on the debater, not the judge. There are way too many people in this activity that like to pretend they can hear every word no matter what. I am not one of those people. This is still a communication activity, and I earnestly believe the debaters should keep that in mind.
2. When it is time for the RFD, I go to framework first. If any framework arguments were extended in the rebuttals, I will reach a conclusion about who wins what and use that to dictate my decision making. I will always do this, without fail, I promise you. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.
3. I default to evaluating debates from the point of tech/line by line, but arguments that were articulated with a warrant, a reason you are winning them/comparison to your opponents’ answers, and why they matter for the debate will significantly outweigh those that don’t.
"tag teaming cross ex": sure, just know that if you don't answer any CX questions OR cut your partner off, it will likely affect your speaks.
Clash debates, K aff: Fairness is probably not your best option for terminal impact, but just fine if articulated as an internal link to education. Education is very significant to me, that is why I am here. I think limits are generally good. I think the best K affs debate from the “core” or “center” of the topic, and have a clear model of debate to answer framework with. So the side that best illustrates their model of debate and its educational value while disproving the merits of their opponents’ is the side that wins to me.
Clash debates, K on the neg: As I’ve mentioned previously,framework will really guide my decision, so I encourage debaters to invest time there. The links are really important to me, especially giving an impact to that link. I think case debate is slept on by K debaters. I have recently started thinking of K strat on the negative as determined by what generates uniqueness in any given debate: the links? The alt? Framework? Both/all?
K v. K: Framework, friends, framework. Without framework we are but scurvy-ridden sailors in a sea of K goo. It may be helpful to know that I think of perms as a test of the links/competition, and not so much as an advocacy.
Ks, general:I feel that it can be easy for debaters to lose their K and by the end of the debate, I’m not sure what critical analysis actually happened in the round.No alt needed if you're worried about that, as long as there is framework/framing that supports it. I also think situating your K in/to the context of debate clarifies things for me quite a bit.
Condo/Theory: I am not opposed to voting on condo bad, but please read it as a PROCEDURAL, with an interp, violation, and standards. Anything else just becomes a mess. The same applies to any theory argument. I approach it all thinking, “What do we want debates to be like? What norms do we want to set?”
T: Will vote on T, please see theory and clash v. K aff sections for more insight, I think of these things in much the same way.
Plans/policy v K: Although I am personally ideologically predisposed to critical arguments in the ~real world~, I increasingly do not feel this is the case in debate. I also think there is an artificial polarization of k vs. Policy ideologies in debate; these things are not so incompatible as we seem to believe. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.; these worlds are not so polarized to me. I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.
policy, general:I am a simple soul here. I like refutation, LBL, evidence analysis, and collapsing down in rebuttals. You know, good debate.
LD, random arguments about wearing shoes or whatever: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.
Read no cards-----------x------------------------Read all the cards
Conditionality good---------------x---------------Conditionality bad
States CP good-------------------------x---------States CP bad
Federalism DA good---------------------------x--Federalism DA bad
Politics DA good for education --------------------------x---Politics DA not good for education
Fairness is a thing----------------------------x--Delgado 92
Try or die------------------------------------x-----What's the opposite of try or die
Clarityxxx--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity
Presumption----------x----------------------------Never votes on presumption
Resting grumpy face-------------------------x----Grumpy face is your fault
CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency
AT: ------------------------------------------------------x-- A2:
I have judged public forum for two years (parent judge). Please send your speech docs/cases to me at email@example.com so I can follow your speeches easier.
I require judge instruction, so please include things like voter issues in your speeches. Act as if you're writing the ballot for me.
Do a good job responding to arguments. I look at arguments that are dropped, and how much of your opponent's arguments you could properly respond to.
I take cross into account. Please take into account the quality of your questions and answers.
Delivery is very important, act confident.
Speed: My preferred rate of delivery is conversational speed.
Things that I like in rounds:
1) Signposting: please signpost throughout your speech. If I can follow your arguments, it will be easier for me to vote for you. Also, please give me a brief order before your speech (ie my case, their case, weighing) and please stick to that order.
2) Numbering your arguments: another thing that makes it easier for me to follow your speech.
Yoo what's Gucci?! Or whatever it is the kids are saying these days. My name is Asia, I debated LD all four years of high school for The Meadows School so I'm familiar with how this shindig goes down. I've read through a basic aff/neg case but that's about the extent of my knowledge on the topic so don't assume I'm well versed and be sure to explain any complex concepts well.
Note that I've been out of practice as a judge so please, for the love of our lord and savior Nicki Minaj, SLOW DOWN and ease into speed. If I have to remind you more than a few times to slow down or to be clear, I'll drop speaks and stop writing. I want to actually pay attention and understand your arguments so please do yourself the favor and be clear.
I'm a stickler about stealing prep so don't think you're being slick by "forgetting to start your timer". I will be flashing prep and my time is the only time that matters so no funny business and I do count flashing as prep!
Cross ex is your time to shine and probably my favorite part of the round. Use this time wisely and I will without a doubt reward you with extra speaker points. However, DO NOT BE RUDE OR BULLY YOUR OPPONENT! This is a given for the entire round. Don't get me wrong, I love a spicy aggressive cross ex (especially from my ladies) but if you cross the line into being rude I will drop you to the lowest speaks possible. I thoroughly believe this is your time to make your case stand out and to make your opponent sound like a moron, just do it tastefully.
I was more of a K debater back in the day and am well versed on the literature. I tend to prefer K's, case/CPs/Disads, and T and am NOT THE BIGGEST FAN OF THEORY. I am not the judge to be running frivolous theory shells in front of!!! I will in fact hate you, and I want you to know you are making me very sad. This does not mean don't run theory in front of me. Good theory is appreciated as I believe there is a time and space for it, but don't be that person running theory just to run theory. Not a fan of performance either.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask before the round. I'm happy to answer questions after, but you will not argue with me. If you have a problem with me or my decision, I really don't care. You can complain to your coach and if they come up to talk to me I'll tell them the same thing I'll tell you -- I will not argue with you and my decision is final, so kick rocks. It is not my fault that you did not perform well, so learn and do better next time.
To end this on a positive note -- I love debate and am not as scary as I look (unless it's an early round and I haven't had my coffee). I want you both to enjoy the round, make smart arguments, and kick butt. May the best debater win!
I am a parent judge. I expect you to demonstrate your knowledge and depth of the content as well as the ability to make a confident argument towards your stance.
I cannot judge what I cannot understand so clear and logical communication is key.
Also, keep track of your own and other team's speech/prep times.
Basically just be nice and enjoy your passion towards debate.
I'm a parent judge. Please articulate/speak slower and state your contentions clearly to make it easier for me to follow. I will award my ballot to the debater who expresses a strong foundation in their case and has concise (to-the-point) rebuttals.
I look forward to judging!
Very experienced judge and coach for Saint Francis high school. I will consider pretty much any arguments that are not blatantly sexist, racist or crudely discriminatory (blatant is the key word here, much of this stuff is debatable and I will try not to punish you for my general feelings about your arguments).
It is important to me that debaters be respectful and polite to each other, this puts the spotlight on the arguments themselves and I am not a fan of extra drama.
I try hard to be fair and the following things help me do that:
- I rarely call cards. I like to focus the debate on the analysis given by the debaters (of course I will usually give more weight to analysis that is taken from qualified sources). I do not like to decide debates on random parts of a card that neither debater really focused on. I will call cards if I forget what they said, if there is a conflict about what they say and I can not remember, or if I am personally interested in the card.
- I try to judge on the flow in the sense that I evaluate the debate on the arguments presented, explained and extended into the rebuttals. I will occasionally do the work to weigh impacts or decide framing if the debaters are not doing that for me.
- I will not yell "clear", so mumble and slur at your own risk (I don't yell clear because I don't want a team to find that sweet spot where I can understand them but their opponents can not). I will also not evaluate arguments that I can not hear. I do not read speech documents during the debate rounds, sometimes I will look at them after the round (see calling cards stuff above).
I am cool with critiques on the aff and neg.
I am cool with framework (I like the debaters to work this out and I am pretty neutral on this question).
I like clarity (both in speech and arguments). I am not impressed by things that are "too complex" for me to understand but I will do my best to try to make sense of it. I am confident enough to not pretend I know your position and I will not fill in the blanks for you.
I am cool with policy arguments.
I have a wide breadth of knowledge but little depth on certain positions, don't assume I know your literature.
I give high speaks for clarity, efficiency, a pace that I can flow, respectfulness and occasionally speaking style.
I feel like the speaker point range I give is pretty close to average (I am not a reliable source of high speaks for everyone, but I will reward excellent debate with high speaks).
mail all speech documents to: firstname.lastname@example.org
anything else (if you want me to read the e-mail or respond): email@example.com
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it
My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...
for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later
1. yes, i flow
2. yes, speed is fine
3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )
4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running
5. ask questions
Add me to the chain, (firstname.lastname@example.org), or use SpeechDrop.
1. Background: Three or so years between Policy and Lincoln Douglas (LD) debate in high school, three years on the NFA LD circuit in college (UT 22'), a little bit of coaching here and there (CCHS and Harker), and am currently a (1L) law student at Duq Kline Schol of Law (Duq Law 26').
2. At a high level: I generally view myself as prioritizing technical concessions over truth. At the same time, for me to vote on an argument, the Toulmin model must be present. Claim, grounds, and warrant. The fewer implicit assumptions I have to make, the better odds you have of winning.
3. My position on "unconventional cases": Arguments are arguments ... performance, advocacy, non-traditional, soft left, etc. are all arguments. Questions such as "Does policymaking outweigh individual resistance?" or "Does activism come before ground?" are questions that are usually answered on a round-to-round basis.
1. Extending arguments: I will not extend a conceded argument for you if you do not extend and explain its importance in the latter part of the debate. I will presume you do not want that particular argument evaluated.
2. New arguments: I am willing to reject new arguments. I probably won't reject the debater but I will disregard the argument. I only will do so if a team brings up the specific argument that was new and why that new argument is bad/should be disregarded
3. When the timer goes off: I stop listening, flowing, and evaluating any argument made the moment the timer goes off.
4. Typing during cross-examination: If you see me typing during cross-examination I am probably tidying up my flow or typing out feedback.
1. Topicality, theory, and abuse: Ever since I entered law school, I've warmed up to T debates. An a prior issue for me is you actually have to prove abuse. For example, when you say negative ground, the negative team must actually be suffering from a lack of readiness, and explicitly explain why that is. Or, if you say fairness, why is it unfair and why should I be willing to vote a team down for being unfair? With that said, I will tend to apply either 1) the most widely accepted reasonable interpretation of the word in question (community reasons) or 2) the most legally and academically sound definition.
2. Kritiks: I enjoy the K. When judging the K, I view the debate through the lens of the framework. You have to have offensive reasons why your viewpoint and framing of the world come first. This includes going for policymaking good in answering the K, epistemology first in running the K, or anything in between. I also find I place more emphasis than some judges on "why my ballot matters", perhaps I've enjoyed the normativity K too much, but, I digress.
3. Permutations: They are a right the affirmative has as advocacy to check negative abuse. I defer to perms being an advocacy over a test of competition. In general, conditionality is good up to two advocacies, after that theory could start becoming a VI/cross applicable piece of the offense. Like T however, I need you to prove abuse.
4. DAs/CPs: I tend to avoid voting on a 1% risk of the disadvantage means a neg ballot argument. I find that debaters generally lack the warrant development and explanation as to why their disadvantage matters and I won't do the work for them. If you're going for a disadvantage, timeframe and likelihood matter. Actor, consult, etc. CPs are fair game. Well-developed net-benefit debates are always a great strategy.
LD & PF - my take on speed:
1. LD Speed: The inclusivity of LD debate means that speed must be agreed upon between debaters. If you ignore the accessible standard of speed that your opponent has set up for you, I have no problem dropping you off of a ten-second speed theory shell.
2. PF Speed: PF calls for an accessible and public-based style of communication. This means eloquence, persuasion, and easy-to-flow argumentation will be rewarded far more than tech and speed. Of course, this does not mean discounting the role of warrants in your argumentation.
I am a Debate coach at Loyola High School. I primarily coach LD debate.
I see debate as a game of strategy. The debaters are responsible to define the rules of the game during the debate.
This means that debaters can run any argument (i.e. frameworks, theory, kritiks, disadvantages). I will assess how well the debaters frame the arguments, weigh the impacts, and compare the worlds of the Aff and Neg.
However, I am not a blank slate judge. I do come into the round with the assumption of weighing the offense and defense and determining which world had the more comparatively better way of looking at the round.
As for Speakers' points, I assess those issues based upon:
1. How well the speakers spoke to the room including vocal intonation, eye contact, posture.
2. I also look for the creativity of the argument and strategy.
High Speaker Points will be awarded to students who excel in both of these areas.
Debaters are always welcome to ask me more questions about my paradigm before a round begins. The purpose of debate is educational as well as competition. So, debaters should feel comfortable to interact with me before and after the round about how to do well in the round and after.