Pennsbury Falcon Invitational
2023 — Fairless Hills, PA/US
Novice LD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a traditional Lincoln Douglas judge. I value clear communication and voting issues. I do not prefer fast debates.
I am able to adapt to most forms of debate however, be mindful of your speed. I can manage most speed speaking but it must be clear and understandable. If you speak unintelligibly I will not be able to take note of your points and will not be able to account for them when making a decision.
My focus will be on the points brought up during the debate. Please make sure to fit your speech within the allotted time as any arguments past time will not be accounted for (Unless otherwise noted)
Although it will not be majorly accounted for, the way in which information is provided and your speaking will also count towards my decision. If some information is too technically based it should have a brief explanation accompanying it.
What I prefer to see in a debate?
- Please use sources/references for all facts that you are bringing up.
- Please don't go too fast. I don't want to miss any points.
- Please speak clearly and in a tone that I can hear well.
- Respect one another.
This is my first time judging Lincoln Douglas; I am usually an Extemp speech competitor. Things to take note of:
- It would be great if you don't debate too fast to ensure I can catch all parts of your argument
- I may not know all of the LD lingo
- Speaker points will be based on fluency, clearness, development of argument
- Signposting/road mapping is appreciated
- Dense and tricky arguments will make it difficult for me to judge
- I like strong contentions and rebuttals
Overall I hope you have a fun debate!
Former LD debater (traditional) from Ohio (traditional state). NSDA qualifier 1998. Recently returned to debate as a coach. Law prof.
I flow rounds and vote off the flow when I can. I don't like voting for bad arguments, but I can't vote on arguments that you don't make.
Keep your speeches organized, tell me where you are on the flow, and impact and weigh your arguments. Identify key arguments and give voting issues in NR and AR2.
Don't drop critical points; point out and impact your opponent's dropped points. Affirmative gets some scope to condense the round to key arguments in AR1.
If you feel you won a point in cross-x, make that argument in a speech.
No new arguments in the NR or AR2. Those speeches are for extending arguments already on the flow.
Strong factual claims should be supported with evidence. Evidence that simply asserts value or philosophical claims without argument gets limited weight. Good analysis > bad evidence.
In varsity rounds: Some speed is okay, but keep it under control and make sure you are clear. I will signal with a raised hand if I need you to slow up a bit.
In JV rounds: JV rounds are for learning. A bit faster than conversational pace is okay, but I have low tolerance for speed that might be too much for a new debater.
I've judged a lot of NLD lately but most of this holds true for VLD.
Long story short, make sure you're debating LD, not 1-on-1 policy. Don't drop your framework; it's what makes LD so special. You need a criterion; it's your measuring stick. Tell me exactly why you win under one of the frameworks; it doesn't necessarily have to be yours. I very frequently hear a familiar laundry list in rebuttals: "I win on scope, I win on magnitude, I win framework debate...". Asserting it doesn't make it true; explain your reasoning.
There is a lot of overlap between "students who want to spread" and "students whom I can't understand since they are stumbling over every other word" -- I'm around a traditional 8/circuit 4 on speed. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you. Debate should be open to everyone, not just schools with full-time prep teams.
I am a former LD assistant coach and judge with experience in LD, Parli, and BQ. Clash is critical-- don't talk past each other. If your opponent has the most ludicrous case ever known to humankind but you don't attack it, they're probably winning. Open to progressive arguments for sure but you need clash. Fairly familiar with philosophy. Respect your opponent in and after the round.
I'm from Wisconsin (Go Cheesemakers!) where I did humorous and oratory since my school didn't have a debate program. I went to Penn and did parli debate. Recently returned from South Dakota to Philadelphia.
- Please use sources/references for all facts that you are bringing up. I want to be convinced with fact, with reliable sources.
- Respect your opponent, don't show any disrespect, even he/she makes mistakes.
- don't speak too fast, you need to give the listener time to digest what you say.
- use you time wisely, I would rather listen to a more structured, complete rebuttal, than a rushed one with too many points stuffed in it.
- give me conclusion with your reasoning, not just the resolution.
tl;dr for the tl;dr—be clear and be nice :)
tl;dr—I prefer framework and definition debate, but I'll judge all styles and do my best not to be swayed by personal preferences. Any racist/sexist/transphobic/etc arguments won't fly with me. Speed is fine but clarity is essential, this is not just cadence but clear signposting and stuff like spelling out claim/warrant/impact. Be aggressive if you want but don't be mean. Please don't drop contentions and please please please don't attempt to bring contentions back from the dead. I don't want to see your case because I want to judge solely based on what exists in the debate itself. Overall I'm pretty lazy, so make my job as judge as easy as possible by being clear and clean in the debate. Above all, be nice, this should be fun.
Timing—This is probably one of the few things people care about so I'll put it at the top. I'll keep official time, you can time yourself. If you go over time just finish your sentence or thought quickly. I reserve the right to revoke this privilege and if you keep on speaking for a long time e.g. 30 seconds after your time has run out I'll stop flowing it.
Framework—This is the standard by which the round will be judged. If you concede a Value of preserving nature and a Value Criterion of maximizing the number of birds of paradise in the world, I will only judge arguments based on the number of birds of paradise they create/protect, regardless of any other impact. I realize this opens the door for contradictions to my earlier point about making bigoted arguments, and I will resolve that at my discretion. I'm a big fan of novel frameworks and don't believe any framework to be inherently less useful/valuable unless positing that framework causes harm outside of the debate, namely to competitors, judges, and spectators. Argue for your framework, assume you have won the framework debate, and explain why your contentions mean your side is preferred under that framework.
Definitions—Definitions have 2 main functions: to provide clarity and to strengthen your framework argument/develop covert arguments for your framework. Definitions to provide clarity are very important for resolutions that don't deal with common topic areas. They're also useful in showing me how you think of an issue. However, the other type of definition is the real reason anyone cares about giving definitions at all. Definitions quite literally define the terms under which the debate will take place. In this way they are prior to even framework and in my opinion provide the (hopefully only) link between the real world and the world of the debate. If you have done well in establishing definitions you have literally created the world in which the debate takes place and I can judge the debate based on the rules of that world. I understand not every debate will have such a robust world but the closer I am to only ever using my discretion to choose the definitions I prefer, the better. You may notice that this means my personal opinions/biases/etc come into play more with definitions than any other aspect of the debate. There's unfortunately not much I can do about this. I generally won't prefer definitions from more "prestigious" sources necessarily except in the case of particularly egregious example e.g. The Heritage Foundation. The extent to which I value the "spirit of the resolution" affects how I choose definitions depends on context; I'll judge novice LD at a local tourney far differently than a debate on a national circuit. I will attempt to choose definitions for the round based upon the best arguments given for those definitions. Failing that, I will defer to my personal bias/opinion. Failing that,I will defer to the "value" of the sources of the given definitions (you will note that a.) any argument critiquing the ways in which we evaluate the prestige of institutions from which these definitions originate will bring us back to my first criterion for evaluating definitions, and b.) this means that I will not inherently prefer more obvious/simple definitions, you just have to have a better argument for the stuff that's really out there.)
Bigoted arguments—This is really murky and hard to sort out within the context of debate as play. Any arguments directly stating that a given marginalized group is somehow lesser will cause you to be voted down. Arguments that lead to negative outcomes that disproportionately impact certain marginalized groups e.g. colonialism are a bit more complicated. However, note that I will be biased against these arguments to begin with, and my burden of proof for striking them down will be lower, whether I am consciously aware of that fact. All an opponent needs to do is establish these arguments lead to harm for marginalized groups and I'll be inclined to flow that to the opponent's side. In fact, a debater could get cute and say that a framework under which such arguments are good is in fact an invalid framework. I think that'd be pretty rad tbh. You may notice that this seems to contradict some of my earlier statements about debate being its own world and me judging solely based on framework, and yea it does to an extent; however, even though the debate exists within a separate world the border between that world and our own is porous, with ideas, assumptions, and attitudes being carried both ways. (This is essentially the concept of the magic circle as it exists in game studies, which I'm inclined to disagree with generally but I think its basic ideas have some level of applicability here.)
Speed, Clarity, Case Sharing—I've combined these all into one subtopic since they go together to make the same point. I'm fine with speed of basically any level, but this requires clarity of speech. The faster you speak, the clearer you will need to be and the more helpful signposting and drawing emphasis to your main points is going to be. I also do not want anyone sharing their cases with me. I don't care if competitors share cases with each other but I am purely interested in judging based on the world of the debate that both competitors create. Not only does this give me an opportunity to see arguments that the competitors may have not even said aloud, it removes a burden from the competitor to make themself understood. If sharing your case with me helps resolve an accessibility issue, however, please let me know in person or by messaging me and we can figure something out. I will always rule on the side of inclusion over competition.
Dropping Contentions, Addressing arguments, etc.—I was tempted to put this in with the above subsection because this is all related to clarity but I think there is enough here to warrant a separate topic. Please don't drop contentions. I will not flow a dropped contention. If you drop a contention and attempt to revive it through divine intervention, necromancy, etc Istillwill not flow it. If your competitor drops a contention it is your responsibility to let me know, otherwise I will drop the argument entirely and it poofs out of existence. Note that you can drop contentions and still win the round and I am not inclined to give more inherent value to a dropped contention that flows through the round; however, an uncontested argument can have ripple effects through the debate. The conclusions of dropped arguments can have implications on other points still being argued. A quick explainer of what counts as dropping an argument to me: obviously, not addressing a contention at all in your speech counts as dropping it. Saying that you will get to the rest of your opponent's arguments in your next speech still counts as dropping them. Saying "cross apply my 1st contention to all my opponent's arguments" doesn't strictly count as dropping your opponent's arguments in my book but I do find it to be weaker than saying "cross apply my C1 to opponent's C1, cross apply my C1 to opponent's C2,..., cross apply my C1 to opponent's CN." All opponent has to do is find one part of their argument where cross applying your C1 doesn't work/make sense and suddenly you're in a world of hurt. To this point, please be clear about which arguments you are addressing at all times and address arguments individually whenever possible. Make sure your arguments tie back into framework. Claim, warrant, impact structure is a great way of doing that and I greatly appreciate it.
Meanness/Rudeness—This largely goes with everything said under the bigoted arguments section, but just generally don't be a jerk. Aggression is fine and almost expected and I quite like stuff like explaining to me why exactly you won, but there's a line between playing to win and being a jerk. Remember that your actions within a debate have real world consequences. If your opponent is much newer than you and is on the verge of tears, maybe dial it back a little bit. I know that acting above it all is a power move as a debater, but a) this will not work on me and b) I expect a certain level of respect and decorum toward everyone in the room. I'm not here to power trip, but if I'm at one of these tourneys I guarantee you I'm on no more than 4 hours of sleep and just want to be treated with the basic level of politeness you'd give to anyone else. This extends to everyone else as well. I've had some competitors do this thing where they say something along the lines of "you're much nicer/better/more understanding than other other judge, they were awful." Please don't badmouth judges. It doesn't make you look good and I don't care to be flattered at the expense of someone else. Just remember this is all for fun, people are sacrificing sleep, time, etc to be here, and how well you do won't matter in a few years. I cannot remember how well I did at any given tournament but I do remember the time a debater was really nasty toward one of my newer teammates.
PF—This paradigm is designed around LD although most of the concepts still apply to public forum. Main differences for public forum are that my own understanding of the issue/personal biases toward "common sense" are ever so slightly more impactful and I really would prefer you to sneak in framework telling me how to judge the round. Again, I'm lazy. Tell me how to evaluate arguments and tell me why you won.
I did LD for 4 years and I did PF for 2 years. I look at all aspects of the debate I wanna see good evidence, good arguments and good flows. If you have any questions please email me: firstname.lastname@example.org
What I Prefer to See in a Debate:
1. Please use sources/references for all facts that you are bringing up. This includes percentages, numbers, stats, and any ideas of other authors that you are paraphrasing. This is really, really important to me. I will not believe you if you don't have your facts backed up.
2. Don't eyeroll your opponent or speak in a manner that's rude, i.e., that they don't know what they're talking about. They may have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about, and you should call them out on it, but just don't be rude, dude. This is also insanely important to me.
3. Please don't go too fast. I can follow arguments faster than parents but not super, super fast.
4. Don't give me hypotheticals and try not to use just theory to support your points. Real solutions/real things get across to me much better.
5. I'll only call for cards if you and your opponent are saying opposite things about the same exact thing.
6. You can respond to any rebuttals in any of the time periods allocated for rebuttals. I see a debate as a whole thing, so the entirety of what is said is up for game in rebuttals.
7. Please do not run a topical case. Please speak to the resolution.
I'm a newer judge with only a few years experience judging LD. More comfortable with traditional LD.
Hi! I’m Maya, I debated for Princeton High School and I qualified to TOC in LD in 2022 and silver TOC in PF in 2023, but LD was my main event (just did PF for fun senior year)
You can also contact me via facebook
1 - phil, t/theory, substantive tricks
2 - ks
3 - LARP
4 - trad
Tech > Truth
I’ll evaluate anything (as long as it’s not blatantly problematic)
I don’t have a high threshold for extensions if arguments were conceded, especially for the aff under a time crunch
You should give a clear ballot story and make sure to weigh so rounds aren’t irresolvable
Speed is cool, feel free to go as fast as you can without sacrificing clarity but keep in mind that I'm not the greatest at flowing, so share speech docs whenever possible
I default to presumption and permissibility negates (you can definitely convince me otherwise)
If your opponent is a lot less experienced than you, don’t be rude. You don’t have to dumb things down for them since it’s an educational opportunity, but I will tank your speaks if you read dumb tricks or don’t explain things well.
Staking rounds on rule violations/evidence challenges is incredibly cringe. I will have a very VERY high tolerance for these and will more likely drop you unless the abuse was egregious.
Feel free be as aggressive, snarky, and confident as you are comfortable with, especially if you are a minority debater. I know how tiring it is to be dropped for being "too aggressive" (and frankly, being aggressive makes debate more fun). Just stay within reasonable limits (obviously).
Novice/Lay debate (LD)
I’m a flow judge and will evaluate any argument. Be sure to have a clear ballot story and WEIGH under the winning framework. For these debates you can disregard the rest of the paradigm, I'm fully comfortable judging anything.
Take the public OUT of public forum.
You can absolutely run progressive arguments in front of me, but don’t think that because I have an LD background you have to read theory. Do whatever you’re comfortable with and I’ll evaluate it fairly, I’ll probably cringe a bit if you try to read a literature base that you’re not familiar with. That said, I will have a lot more fun judging if you read something other than policy!
Im really bad at evidence stuff and will likely not call a card, so if you want evidence comparison you should do it in your speeches and give me judge instruction on why your evidence is better.
I’m big on weighing and honestly don’t have a super high threshold for link chains (I’m kind of an extinction hack lmao but don't neglect links).
Frontline in second rebuttal.
My favorite K's include include: Deleuze, psychoanalysis, various forms of fem, Weheliye, Baudrillard, Puar, Edelman, and cap. I'm also familiar with (but haven't read): Bataille, pess, Foucault, set col, Agamben, orientalism, anti-blackness. If your K wasn’t listed I’ll still definitely evaluate it, just explain your arguments since I haven't read the literature.
I'm all good with non-T and K tricks. The more creatively you utilize your theory of power warrants the higher your speaks will be. I prefer philosophically justified warrants and in-depth debate about the literature over just inclusion pre-reqs.
This is my favorite type of debate. I'm very familiar with Kant, Hobbes, Levinas, existentialism, skep, alienation, contractualism, virtue, determinism, nietzsche etc. You can read anything and I'll probably have at least a basic level of understanding of it even if I haven't read it myself.
Totally fine with triggering skep, indexicals, implicit standards, etc. Tricky phil debate is awesome
I'm very comfortable evaluating theory, and I'll vote for any shell.
Meta theory, 1ar theory, paragraph theory, and out of round violations are all legit (but you can convince me otherwise)
If there are multiple shells in the round, weighing is super important
The less substantial the trick, the lower my threshold is for an adequate response, but I’ll vote on anything if it goes conceded and is extended/implicated.
I actually really like good substantive tricks, but if you’re winning the round off a stupid semantic a priori I’ll probably give you low speaks. Also, make sure to link your trick to a framing mechanism if applicable.
High speaks for funny/creative substantive tricks.
This is definitely the style I'm the worst at judging at a progressive level, but I did become more familiar with debating policy from my brief time in PF. Slow down a bit for judge instruction and weigh to help me out.
Also, don’t skimp out on util/ROB justifications, and don’t rely too heavily on extinction outweighs. That was my biggest pet peeve as a debater
Hello, I am a parent judge; as a judge, I am looking for:
speak clearly, not too fast, so I can understand you.
speak to the point, be respectful and have fun!
LD and PF: Although I list myself as "Traditional," I am open to different arguments as long as they are explained well and related to the resolution. I believe that we are debating the resolution, not fixing society's ills. Yes debate will enable us to fix society's ills but a competition round is not where that will occur. Debate theory can be interesting to judge, but again, needs to still be connected to the resolution. Also, be sure that the theory you're arguing is correct and logical. In terms of speed, to me it's not speed it's clarity. If you are going 97 miles per hour and have to constantly repeat yourself because you trip over words, maybe going 60 is better.
Congress: As a scorer or Parli, I look for good speeches with good evidence and analysis, but also continuous participation. I believe Congress is an overall package, including activity with questioning, motions and amendments. PO's should be able to move the chamber along smoothly, and fairly. However, they must also recognize that sometimes this may be a new experience for someone in the chamber, and be sure that everyone understands how the PO is maneuvering the chambers, not just assume that it's just standard operating procedure for everyone. Be good to each other and you will often stand out from the competition.
my name is anuka and I did debate for a couple years in high school. I did policy my freshman yr of high school and then switched over to ld my sophomore year. I debated a bit my sophomore year but debated like once or twice my junior year and then not at all senior year.
currently I am a freshman in college and am "part of" Columbia's debate team (aka I wanted the free sweatshirt)
im not very experienced in tech but will evaluate any arguments as long as they are well warranted and explained. take that as u will and plz dont read anything too crazy
email chain: email@example.com
hello! this is my fourth year in speech but i am well versed in all speech and debate formats. i know all the ncfl and nsda rules for all formats but feel free to advise me prior to the round start!
What I prefer to see in a debate:
1 - Please use sources or references for all facts that you are bringing up. An opinion is not a fact unless backed up by references & sources. This includes percentages, statistics, or any ideas of authors, published articles, etc that you are paraphrasing as a support to your argument. Statements without significant fact-based content and historical context are not fact. They are opinion.
2 - Please speak clearly and consisely.
3 - Please have respect for your opponent. You are debating an opinion, not attacking character of an opponent. We must have respect in discourse and this is very important to me. This includes non-verbal reactions such as eye-rolling, sighing, shifting in your stance or chair to make an obvious point of disagreement. Your position must stand solely on your own research and merit. Even if your opponent is ill-prepared or has no clue what they're talking about, you can point that out without being rude or condescending. This is HUGE for me as it demonstrates focus and maturity.
4 - Hypothesis to attempt to support your opinion appear weak. Facts that are clear are much easier for me to understand & follow when judging
5 - Passion & energy are good
6 - You can respond to any rebuttles in the any of the time periods allocated for rebuttals. A debate is the whole timeframe inclusive of all arguments and rebuttles.
My Pronouns are She / Her
Put me on the email chain: Mmesoma.firstname.lastname@example.org
If there is no road map, why would I flow.
Hi, I am Mmesoma. I was a JV Policy Debater on the Regional and National level but I am now a regular judge for regional tournaments. I would consider myself a traditional judge with small exceptions of how you should debate.
Just a Disclaimer, my face moves a lot without my intention. Please do not think I am bored, not paying attention, confused or upset. Just know that I am very much paying attention. If you see me giggle, you said something funny.
Spreading is NOT appreciated but I will still carefully listen to spreading cases and judge based on my flow. I believe that speaking CLEARLY is always the pre-requisite for speaking FAST! You do not need to impress me.
I appreciate respectful and peaceful cross examination. I do not flow cross unless it clarifies an argument I am confused about but flowing cross is unusual for me. Yelling and abusive behavior will lead to speaker points deduction (you would probably see it on my face) but rudeness/attitude would not be a major RFD on my ballot.
Tricks are NOT appreciated at all. Tricks make me uncomfortable as it is an unfair advantage. Instead of tricking your opponent, I feel as though you are tricking me as the judge.
End of Round
I will most likely give a critique once the round is done as well as the vote, if it is okay with both teams. I determine my vote based solely on what is on my flow and full understanding of both arguments. I am not a super super experienced debater, I may miss things, that it is why its so important to articulate and extent your argument as clearly as possible.
If I deem an argument racist, I am not voting for it.
Thank you so much! See y'all in the round.
I was a Lincoln Douglas debater as a student, and have about ten years of experience judging. I prefer traditional Lincoln Douglas debate, however, I can follow spreading and have become fairly familiar with progressive LD. I tend to vote on framework.
I debate at La Salle in PA and I'm a junior right now
tech>truth but both are important
trad, Ks (but err on the side of over-explanation) - 1
larp - 2
super basic theory/T - 3
everything else I'll probably be pretty horrible at evaluating
I'm not good at flowing speedy spreading but you can still speak fast or do like a slow spread
- Please provide evidence for your claims (statistics, sources, numbers, percentages)
- Please behave in a courteous and respectful manner with your opponent
- Remember to act professionally.
- Please speak at a consistent pace and do not speak too fast.
- Let your opponent finish their argument without interrupting.
It is the responsibility of the debater to look at the paradigm before the start of each round and ask any clarifying questions. I will evaluate the round under the assumption it has been read regardless if you did it or not. I will not check to see if you read my paradigm, nor will I give warnings of any kind on anything related to my paradigm. If you don't abide by it you will reap what you sow I am tired of debaters ignoring it, and myself in a debate round my patience has officially run out.
1. I hate spreading slow down if you want me to flow your arguments if it is not on my flow, it is not a part of the round. It doesn't matter how well it is explained or extended. At best, depending on the speech, it will be a new argument or analytical argument and will be evaluated from then forth as such. I do want to be part of the email chain, my email is email@example.com, note that just because I am part of the email chain does not mean I flow everything I read. I only flow what I hear so make sure I can hear your arguments. Beware I will be following along to make sure no one is cutting cards and I will call out teams for cutting cards so be sure to do things correctly. I will drop cards before the team and continued cutting will result in me stopping the round and contacting tab. Additionally, I will not yell clear, and I will not give time signals except to inform you your time is up. I find doing this splits my attention in a way that is unfair to the debater and often distracts debaters when called out. You will have my undivided attention.
2. I hate theory and have only voted on it once (current as of 4/12/22). In particular, I do not like disclosure theory and think it's a bogus argument, as I come from a time when there was no debate wiki; as a result, I am highly biased against this argument and don't advise running it in my round. Also, regardless of the argument, I prefer they be related to the topic. I am just as interested in the topic as I expect debaters to be. On that note, I am willing to listen to just about anything as long as they are well articulated and explained(See 3). I have heard some pretty wild arguments so anything new will be fun to hear. Know in order for me to vote on an argument, there needs to be an impact on it, and I need to know how we arrive at the impact. But I want to know more than A + B = C, I need to know the story of how we arrive at your impact and why they matter. I will not simply vote on a dropped argument unless there is no other way to vote and I need to make a decision, I consider this Judge intervention, and I hate doing this. You, as a debater, should be telling me how to vote I will have to deduct speaker points if I have to do any work for you. Keep this in mind during your rebuttals.
3. At the beginning of each round, I am a blank slate; think of me like a 6 or 7-year-old. Explain arguments to me as such. I only evaluate things said in a round; my own personal knowledge and opinion will not affect me. For example, if someone in a round says the sky is purple, reads evidence the sky is purple, and it goes uncontested, then the sky is purple. I believe this is important because I consider anything else judge's intervention which I am highly opposed to and, again, will result in a speaker point deduction. That being said, I default to a standard policy-making framework at the beginning of each round unless I am told otherwise. This also applies in the context of evidence, your interpretation of the evidence is law unless challenged. Once challenged, I will read the evidence and make a decision based on my understanding of the evidence and how it was challenged, this may result in my decision on an argument flipping, the evidence being disregarded, and/or the ballot being flipped.
4. Be aware I do keep track of Speech times, and Prep, and go solely by my timer. My timer counts down and will only stop when you say stop prep. Once you say "Stop prep" I expect you to be ready to send the file. I do not want to hear I need to copy arguments to a file to send as a part of an email chain. I will run prep for that. It should not take long to send a prepared file through the email chain, and I will wait until all participants receive the file before allowing the following speech to start but do not think you can abuse this I will restart prep if it takes an abnormal amount of time. Also extremely important to note I will not stop my timer for any reason once speech has started for any reason outside of extreme circumstances, and technical difficulties do not count. If you choose to stop your timer to resolve your issue before resuming, know that my time has not stopped and your speech time is being consumed. Also, aside from using your phone as a timer, I expect all debaters to not be on their phones during the round (this includes in between speeches and during prep). I think it is disrespectful to debate as an activity and to your opponent(s), and will deduct speaker points for it. Keeping that in mind, I will not evaluate any argument read off a phone, especially if you have a laptop in the round.
5. In JV and VCX, Cross-X is closed, period. NCX, I will only allow it if you ask. If you don't, it is closed. If you decide to have an open CX anyway, I will deduct speaker points.
6. Last but not least, be respectful to me and to each other, and I would appreciate a good show of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of each round. Any disrespect will result in a speaker point deduction on a per-incident basis. Continued disrespect will result in notifying tournament staff and lower-than-average speaker points. Although I do not expect it will go that far.
A. Cameras must be on at all times. I will not flow teams with cameras off. Do not be surprised if you lose because I did not flow it you have been warned. I will not be lenient with this as I have been in the past.
B. Prep time will be run until speeches are received in the email chain. DO NOT assume you control the time as mentioned above. I am keeping time and will go by my timer. I WILL start the speech timer if you end prep AND THEN send the speech. I have zero tolerance for this, as teams consistently abuse this to steal prep. You should know how to send an email; it should not take long. If you are having genuine technical issues, let me know as the tournament has Tech Time, I can run that timer instead, otherwise, I will run speech time. DO NOT make light of this I am tired of being ignored as if I am not a part of a debate round.
C. Make sure I'm ready this should be common sense, but for some reason, I have to mention it. If you start a speech before I am ready, I will miss some arguments on my flow, and I will be highly annoyed. Your speaker points will reflect this, and you may lose the round as a result if it was a key argument that I did not flow.
D. Also, spreading on camera is a terrible idea, and I highly advise against it from a technical perspective and my general disdain for spreading. E-Debates are tricky enough with varying devices, internet speeds, and audio equipment affecting the quality of the stream, spreading in my experience is exceptionally disadvantageous, do so at your own risk.
E. REMINDER, I Control speech and prep timers, and speeches DO NOT stop because you are reading the wrong speech or can't find where you are at on a document; once the timer has started, it stays running until speech time is over. I do not know why I have to mention this, but recent judging experiences have told me it must be mentioned.
I am very new to judging Lincoln-Douglas Debates. As such, I am relying on the debater to frame the debate for me, particularly in the rebuttal. Arguments should always be responsive to what your opponent is saying if you wish to win them. Explain how your arguments interact, and your line of argumentation means that line of argumentation weighs in your favor. In general, I think all arguments should be filtered through the lens of your values and criterion. That work must be done by the debater, not the judge. Additionally if what you say matches what is on my flow the chances of you winning are high.
I want to be on an email change, I ike to follow along as evidence is being read. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Particularly in rebuttals make sure you are filtering aregumens through Value, Criterion and FW.
Please maintain a steady pace of delivery - do not spread; to ensure I can keep pace and understand the context.For arguments, please cite the evidence so that we are clear the background information is based on facts.Be respectful of everyone - opponents, other participants, judges
- First of all, I take judging with a great sense of responsibility and consider it a privilege.
- Your presentation should be made in such a way that an informed citizen should be able to follow and comprehend your flow.
- I've only judged NLD, so not much experience about theory, critiques, spreading. Please no spreading! If I can not comprehend you, then I can not judge you.
- I prefer quality evidence and clarity on arguments + balance of pragmatism and philosophical ideas.
- I do NOT like off-topic tangential arguments and especially mischaracterization of the other debater's arguments. [Many times I hear 'accusation' that the other debater conceded or dropped a contention, when they did not.]
- I prefer substance over technicalities. Make your contentions and relevant arguments, but don't stretch and give me an irrelevant PhD thesis on a subtopic. SHOW ME THE LINKS in your arguments. I'll make my best effort to flow!
- "It ain't over till it's over". Many times, the debate is very dynamic till the end, so give it your best shot.
- Be assertive, but not aggressive. Be vocal, but not loud.
- I admire all the students who participate and give it their best shot.
I am a dad to 2 kids. My daughter debates in "Lincoln Douglas Debate", so I am no stranger to debate arguments and frameworks. Additionally, I have often judged Speech.
I like civility in the room. Be respectful and gain respect.
You do not need to change your style of speaking for me, but I request you do not speak too fast. I will ask for cards if I need clarification, but I like to be able to follow the flow of debate as it happens.
Don't use too many technical terms. If you do, please explain it or the argument may be lost on me.
I give a lit of weight to impacts and mostly award points based on that. However, I do take weighing into account, so please take the time to weigh in your final speech.
Do not bring in a controversial topic in the debate unless it is absolutely necessary.
I like an off-time road map. Helps me be more organized.
I award points based on how you speak and how you conduct yourself. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc, you will be marked down.
Let your opponent complete their though in cross before interuppting. I am not a fan of cutting people off.
Please speak to the resolution.
I ask that you please no do use spreading, I find it harder to judge those who do.
This is my first time judging Parliamentary debate.
New to judging
I'm a senior w/ 3 years varsity PF. I flow and I judge off of it.
1) Speak loud and clear. If you spread, share your doc.
2) Don't be rude in cross.
3) Don't extend through the round = drop.
4) Don't ask for evidence unless you actually need to see it, and be ready to share evidence yourself.
I expect all competitors to be respectful, know the rules of their format and follow the needed order of the debate. I would categorize myself as more of a traditionalist versus progressive. I would appreciate all competitors speak slowly, loud and clear AND clearly state their contentions.