TOC Digital Speech and Debate Series 1
2022 — NSDA Campus, US
Congress (Varsity) Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
As a judge, I am personally very big on delivery and the style in which the presentation is done. I am a strong believer that a passionate, engaging form of delivery is crucial for any successful speech. I like to see active participation and I also like when competitors avoid direct-reading like the plague!
I’ve been judging both speech and congress for over 5 years and can say that the experience has been great!
Policy Debate Paradigm:
The things you are probably looking for:
Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.
Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.
Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.
Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.
****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********
Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.
· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.
· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.
· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.
Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.
Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:
My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.
My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.
POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM
Name: Jamelle Brown
Current Affiliation: Sumner Academy of Arts & Science High School - Kansas City, KS
Debate Experience: 20+ years as a Head HS Coach, Debated 4 yrs in High School and 1 semester during college
List types of arguments that you prefer to listen to.
1. I appreciate real world impacts.
2. I love the kritical arguments/AFF’s with this year’s resolution. Make the debate real and connect to the real social issues in the SQ.
3. For T, neg if you want to prove that the AFF is untopical, provide valid standards and voters. AFF, then correctly answer these standards and voters. However, don't expect to win a ballot off T alone.
4. Know and understand what you are reading and debating. Be able to explain your card’s claims.
List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.
1. Every impact should not equal nuclear war. I want to hear realistic/real world impacts.
2. Generic disadvantages without clear links to the AFF.
List stylistics items you like to watch other people do.
1. I prefer medium-speed speaking. Completely not a fan of spreading.
2. Label and signpost for me. I like to keep a very organized flow!
3. Let me see your personalities in CX.
4. Impact Calc – I want to know why you want me to vote for you and weigh the round.
5. I am excited about performance teams!
List stylistics items you do not like to watch.
1. I dislike unrecognizable speed.
2. I am a Communications teacher, please allow me to see valuable communication skills. (Pre-2020 comment) For example, don’t just stare at your laptops for 8 minutes. Hello, I'm your judge – engage me!
In a short paragraph, describe the type of debate you would most like to hear debated.
Debate is a slice of life. I appreciate seeing a variety of styles and “risk takers.” Debate is also an educational venue. I enjoy K debate and appreciate high schoolers tackling K lit. There are so many important social justice issues that debaters can explore. As your judge, engage me into the round. I will not tolerate rude debaters or disrespectful personal attacks. I am a current high school Speech & Debate coach – please don’t forget about the value of communication skills! I coach all of the speech and debate events, so I love to see kids fully engaged in this activity by utilizing the real-world value it brings.
As a parent judge with two years of experience evaluating Congress, I recommend that speakers avoid speaking too quickly and strive for clear and emotionally expressive communication.
During the presentation, make sure to incorporate effective hand gestures, maintain consistent eye contact, project your voice with a commanding presence, convey passion rather than aggression, vary your vocal tones, speeds, and volumes, ensure fluency in your speech, walk purposefully on key points, maintain a conversational pace, and most importantly, conclude on time, adhering to the schedule.
Being a PO carries significant responsibilities, and I usually provide good ratings. Minor errors are acceptable, but if repeated mistakes persist, there's a possibility that your rank might be affected.
Hello! This is my first time at Nationals and I'm really looking forward to judging at the National level for the first time. I have been judging for the past 2 years and have judged both Debate and Speech events.
Please know that I am always listening, but I do look at my computer a lot or writing on my notepad during the round. I want to make sure I am giving fresh feedback, and I want to be sure that I am following the rules of your individual event if I haven’t judged your event before.
Please Do not spread. If I can’t keep up with what you are saying, I will drop you.
Additionally, please speak so that I can hear you. Enunciate and show your passion for your topic and event.
Finally, be respectful and try to have fun!
My name is Bren Hamaguchi (he/him) and I am the assistant Speech and Debate coach at Overlake HS.
I want to be clear: I have no prior experience participating in or judging Speech or Debate (this is my second season). But, as a history teacher, I am familiar with how to construct an argument, thesis, use of evidence, some philosophy, and persuasive speaking techniques.
I have no overt biases that will affect the decisions that I render.
Speed - I have a difficult time following along when people talk fast, I'll do my best, but if I don't write it down there is a good chance I'll forget and I can't judge you on information I don't have. You can send me your case if you think you speak too fast. No spreading, even with a case.
LD - Philosophy, Theory, and K's - if you're going to run theory or use a philosophical argument make it clear. If you reference something you think a Lay judge might not understand, either thoroughly explain it during your time or don't bother. Try at your own risk.
Be careful with the amount of technical LD jargon. My knowledge of technical, especially progressive debate terms, is limited.
LD/PF - ESPECIALLY PF - Be courteous! I really dislike when competitors are rude to each other.
Congress - I have my B.A. in Political Science so I am very aware of congressional procedure and how to construct arguments for and against bills. It is still up to you to follow proper procedure and structure your speeches in accordance with the rules and regulations.
Speech - Speak clearly, have a thesis, stay on time, and have fun!
Good luck everyone!
Be a kind competitor.
I don't believe low point wins or speaker points are enough to deter truly rude and disrespectful behavior. As such, I reserve the right to only flow and evaluate arguments that are made and extended while maintaining the tone of a friendly academic discussion. Passion is encouraged, but ad hominem attacks, eye rolls, derision, and various "isms" are all very much discouraged. If I'm not happy with the tone of the debate, it will likely be pretty clear that I've stopped flowing you. At the end of the round I will then evaluate all arguments made and extended respectfully and I will consider all other arguments dropped. This is a policy that has impacted my judging in rounds before.
Other than that, I think I'm a fairly standard judge. Anything you want me to understand in your round, state explicitly. Do not imply links or impacts and expect me to infer them. Please fully explain your warrants and all hows and whys if you expect me to buy an argument. Please do not leave me to my own devices with weighing impacts. Tell me why you believe you won the debate.
In LD: Your framework is meant to be the standard by which we evaluate the resolution. As such, I believe it's vitally important. Please don't leave framework off in it's own world at the top of the flow. It should be clearly linked to each of your contentions and you should be impacting through your framework. Please make those links and impacts explicit. Don't leave me to infer them. You can win the debate without winning framework, provided that you successfully prove you better uphold your opponents' framework. I enjoy hearing the philosophy so I love when students take interesting case positions that fully incorporate neat frameworks. I'm okay with a quick-ish speed assuming you are articulating things in a clear way, but I'm not a fan of spreading for spreading's sake. It's worth saying the best debaters I've seen have never been the fastest. Fast often leads to inefficient and imprecise use of language and causes me to think more to process what you've said. In general, the more processing I have to do on my own, the worse for you.
In PF: Please clash. PF can be hard to judge because often the clash is underdeveloped. Please meaningfully engage with your opponents' arguments and then weigh your impacts against theirs. If your opponent provides a framework, I expect you to address it or else I consider it dropped and acceded to, just like any other part of debate; if you drop it, you concede it. It's worth repeating, please weigh your impacts against your opponents'. I strongly dislike spreading in PF and would prefer you don't use jargon. They are not appropriate for the format.
Congress: I expect congressional debate to be reactive to what has already happened in the chamber. Except for 1st pro, I expect that all speeches contain at least one refutation at an absolute minimum. A real refutation needs to interact with what was actually said. MadLibs style refutations where you name drop another debater in a way that was clearly just a fill in the blank without engaging with or responding to them is not going to get you a good score. Extensions are encouraged, but making the same point as if it's the first time it's come up in the chamber will not get you a good score.
Please also explain all the mechanics of how and why in your speech. Clearly articulated hows, whys, and impacts, along with responsive debate, are the keys to a high score. Also make sure links to the bill are made clear. I care a lot about how clean the internals of your contentions are in their organization. Tell me a story and inspire me. Please move the debate forward and cover new ground. No one enjoys listening to rehash. Clean presentation that inspires, quality questioning, and being a kind competitor are all valued.
Your intro is a way to add value to your speech and enhance my understanding of the topic. I have a strong preference for intros that feel specific and unique to the particular bill at hand and your speech. If it feels generic or recycled, then I don't think it's a good use of your limited time.
In a virtual setting, I really depend on having a preview or roadmap as part of your speech. Without that, I find the structure of your speech very difficult to follow.
Authorship and sponsorship speeches are very different from 2nd or 3rd pro speeches. Since you aren't being asked to refute, the expectation is that you frame the debate: set up the problem and how this bill addresses it. Your contentions should be the most important reasons for the bill, not necessarily unique arguments that no one else thought of. 1st con should similarly help frame the debate for the neg side.
All forms: Don't be afraid to be passionate or to be yourself. You've worked hard to prepare for the tournament and you deserve to be here. If you've put in the work, you've earned the right to be confident. Be proud of yourself and have some fun :)
I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
You do you. Let it rip. Seriously. A judge does not exist without the debaters, and I view my role as a public servant necessary only to resolve arguments in a round to help empower young people to engage in meaningful discourse. I believe that it is important for me to be honest about the specific things I believe about common debate arguments, but also I find it more important to ensure I am prepared for debaters to persuade me away from those beliefs/biases. Specifically, I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.
I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:
1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate. One team probably is not most persuasive/ahead of the other team on every single argument. That needs to be viewed as a strength rather than a point of anxiety in the round. Do not be afraid to explain why you don't actually need to win certain arguments/impacts in lieu of "going for" the most persuasive arguments that resolve the most persuasive/riskiest impacts.
2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive.
3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.
Go for it. Your pathway to solving a significant harm that is inherent to the status quo with some advantageous, topical plan action is entirely up to you. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.
Go for it. Your pathway/relationship to the resolution is entirely up to you. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win framework or a methods debate. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.
This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of what is good for debate through considerations of education, fairness, and/or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. The internal link and impact are up to you. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I vote for and against framework, and I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.
Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive (beyond just specific to the overall resolution, but also specific to the affirmative and specific cites/authors/ev). In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.
Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory
• Perms: Be ready to explain how the perm works (more than repeating "it's perm do 'X'"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?
• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate. If I am in your LD pool and you read Nebel, then you're giving me time to answer my texts, update a list of luxury items I one day hope to acquire, or simply anything to remind myself that your bare plurals argument isn't 'prolific.'
• Case Debate: I am particularly persuaded by effective case debate so far this year on the redistribution topic. Case debate seems underutilized from an "find an easy way to the ballot" perspective.
• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.
• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.
• Please do not drop condo or some other well-extended/warranted theory argument on either side of the debate. Also, choosing not to engage and rely on the ethos of extending the aff is not a persuasive way to handle 2NRs all in on theory.
TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)
Be your best self. My ranks reflect who I believe did the best debating in the round (and in all prelims when I parli).
The best debaters are the ones that offer a speech that is appropriately contextualized into the debate the body is having about a motion. For sponsors/first negs, this means the introduction of framing and appropriate impacts so that the aff/neg speakers can build/extend specific impact scenarios that outweigh the opposing side's impacts. Speeches 3-10 or 3-12 (depending on the round) should be focused on introducing/weighing impacts (based on where you are in the round and where your side is on impact weighing) and refutations (with use of framing) on a warrant/impact level. I value structured refutations like turns, disadvantages, presumption, PICs (amendments), no solvency/risk, etc. The final two speeches should crystallize the round by offering a clear picture as to why the aff/neg speakers have been most persuasive and why the motion should carry or fail.
The round should feel like a debate in that each speaker shall introduce, refute, and/or weigh the core of the affirmative and negative arguments to persuade all other speakers on how they should vote on a pending motion.
Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms
Arguments are claim, warrant, impact/justification and data when necessary. Speeches with arguments lacking one or more of these will not ever be rewarded highly, no matter how eloquent the speech. It is always almost more persuasive to provide data to support a warrant.
Impacts should be specific and never implied.
Presiding officers should ensure as many speeches as possible. The best presiding officers are direct, succinct, courteous, organized, and transparent. Presiding officers shall always be considered for ranks, but ineffective presiding is the quickest way to a rank 9 (or lower).
More floor debaters are experimenting with parliamentary procedure. Love it, but debaters will be penalized for misapplications of the tournament's bylaws and whichever parliamentary guide is the back up.
Nothing is worse in floor debate than repetition, which is different than extending/weighing.
- Decorum should reflect effective communication. Effective communication in debate often includes an assertive tone, but read: folx should always treat each other with dignity and respect.
Woo Pig. I am not here to force you to capitulate a paradigm that you find in someway oppressive to what your coach is teaching you to do. I will drop you for clipping/cheating, and I do not reward (and will rank low in congress) bad/no arguments even if they sound as rhetorically smooth as Terry Rose and Gary Klaff singing "Oh, Arkansas."
Hi! My name is Kate. I'm a former debater myself; I competed extensively on the NJ and national circuits in Congressional debate from 2012-2016. When I was on the circuit I championed a number of tournaments including Yale, the TOC, NJ states, the NYC invitational, GMU Patriot Games, and more. I also gained some experience in Extemp and PF, but my main focus competitively was definitively in Congress, so I come from a background where speaking style and argumentation are both important (although, depending upon the event, this will not always impact the way that I judge.)
Regardless of the event that I'm judging, I really prioritize good, clean competition. It is extremely important to me that competitors display respect for their opponents at all times. This means using legitimate evidence, refraining from laughing or eye-rolling, listening to and engaging with your opponents' arguments, and carrying yourself with dignity. Be respectful, and be kind!!!!
-My goal in judging a PF round is to intervene as little as possible in order to let you speak uninterrupted. I will involve myself only if a rule is obviously broken or if a piece of evidence seems so obviously out of line that I feel it warrants card-calling, and other than that, I will be flowing the round and focusing on your argumentation.
-Frameworks are important. Don't skip them!
-Evidence matters. Make evidence challenges if something seems off, and perform evidence comparisons whenever and wherever they are relevant.
-Throughout the round, clash is good and weighing is your friend. Remind me of why your arguments have been the most important ones raised, and specifically outline why they should win you the debate.
-Use the summary to respond to your opponent's rebuttal, but remember to focus on the strengths of your own arguments as well. Bring your strongest arguments back into play here, and make sure that you prove why they are stronger or more relevant than whatever your opponent has brought to the table.
-In the final focus, it is incredibly important to crystallize. Crystallization provides an opportunity to remind us of what's happened in the round, weigh your arguments against your opponent's, and clearly illustrate why yours come out on top.
I have about 12 years of experience in competing, coaching & judging both speech and debate. I competed on the collegiate level and tend to go for strong topical arguments and clear, persuasive, and passionate speakers. I’ll keep detailed notes and normally vote on impacts, magnitude & topicality. Feel free to ask anything else before and/or after the round.
Hello, welcome to my paradigm! I debated PF for 4 years in high school in the National, TOC and State level. I also participated in a lot of speech events (extemp, impromptu, oratory).
Things I appreciate:
A. Current evidence along with an explanation of the argument in the debaters own words along with a crisp impact.
B. Good manners!
C. Turn on your camera on if it is an online tournament. Sit straight or stand up straight and make eye contact with the camera as you would if you were in person.
D. Roadmap before your speech (except for the first and last speeches)
E. Don’t forget to weigh your final arguments against your opponents in the final speech.
Things I don't appreciate
A. No counter plans. Not enough time in PF to debate that properly.
B. Have evidence available to provide to the other team quickly. Don’t explain it as you are handing it over. Have your partner give the evidence if you are about to speak.
C. Don’t be rude :)
CONGRESS PARADIGM I am a parent judge who has been judging congress at a local, state, and national level for 2 years. I hope this paradigm tells you a bit more about what I'm looking for.
If you deliver a speech I already heard a different competitor give before, I will give you a lower rank. There is no good reason to copy your teammate's speeches, especially at prestigious bid tournaments. This goes for authorships/sponsorships, too.
PRESENTATION Congress is partially a speech event. Your presentation and delivery will factor into my judging. I love when people take more interesting, performative approaches that break up the monotony of a congress round. Please don't speak too quickly. I will hold it against you if you are reading too much from your pad and have poor eye contact. You should be familiar enough with the content of your speech to not be completely dependent on your pad. I have nothing against electronics. An iPad instead of a legal pad is perfectly fine as long as you don't let it hamper your performance.
CONTENT If you are making claims, make sure they are substantiated with evidence, especially if they are provocative or important new claims in the round. Round adaptation is extremely important. If you're just saying the same things as the previous five speakers before you, I have no reason to give you a good rank. Debaters have an obligation to engage with, build on, and refute what has been said by others in the round.
Always 1. link to the bill and 2. terminalize your impacts. Every speech needs to explain how passing this bill specifically causes a distinct harm or benefit. I don't have strict requirements for how you structure your speeches because I think that stifles innovation in this event, as long as it's a clear, understandable, effective speech.
RHETORIC I love an interesting rhetorical narrative. I think cookie cutter intros are boring. In the best case, each speech has an introduction relevant to the bill or even what has been previously said in the round. Rhetoric is not a substitute for substance. I've heard many brilliant rhetorical performances with very little content, and as much as I enjoy them, I can't rank them very high in the context of a congress round.
I always rank competent POs well. A congress round can't run without a PO, and I will never punish someone who knows what they're doing for stepping up to perform this vital function. Please don't PO if you don't know what you're doing. Yes, everyone has to PO for the first time at some point, but you should still be coming prepared and as someone who is already familiar with how congress works. POing should not be a cop-out for being underprepared.
Some notes for novices/people who are new to congress:
- Memorize parts of your speech
- If you're speaking later in the round, don't just deliver the speech you came prepared with - adapt!
- Be prepared to switch sides on a one-sided bill: you're doing the chamber and your judges a favor
- Be courteous: don't use parliamentary procedure as a tool to exclude or disadvantage others
- Enjoy yourself! Winning 1st place doesn't mean much if you didn't have fun
Hello! I am a parent lay judge, please do not spread. I don't super love nuclear extinction arguments unless you have a very very very clear reason why it imminent.
Use speechdrop.net for sharing speech documents. No more email or flashdrive problems. The affirmative should have this ready to go before the round starts.
(Copy and paste Erick Berdugos paradigm ) but to summarize my general beliefs .....
1) The affirmative probably should be topical. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must be able to engage. Being independently right isn't enough.
2) Personal Narratives - not a fan of these arguments. The main reason, is that there is no way real way to test the validity of the personal narrative as evidence. Thus, if you introduce a personal narrative, I think it completely legit that the personal narrative validity be questioned like any other piece of evidence. If you would be offended or bothered about questions about its truth, don't run them.
3) K -Aff : Great ,love them but be able to win why either talking about the topic is bad, your approach to talking about the topic is better,why your method or approach is good etc, and most importantly what happens when I vote aff on the ballot.
4) Performance : Ehh- I’m not the judge to run a good perf bu but I am willing to listen to the arguments if you can’t rightfully warrant them .
Perf cons ARE an issue and can cost you the ballot . Be consistent!
5) EXTEND ! EXTEND! EXTEND! “Extensions of the aff are overviews to the 1 ar” .... no they are not . I want to flow them separately not in some clump . It gets messy.
1) Kritiks : I am not familiar with a large range of lit but I know plenty how to judge a good kritik and I enjoy it. Do not feel you need to run a K to win any sort of leverage in the debate ... you’re better off reading something you are comfortable defending than a crappy K you have no knowledge of . You need to be able to articulate and explain your position well don’t just assume I am familiar with your authors work. Alts need to tell me cause and impact aka what will the after look like ?? K MUST have a specific link. K arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of a generic Kritik that questions if we exist or not and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate at hand. Kritiks must give an alternative other than "think about it." Have good blocks to perms !!! Especially if you have no links to the advocacy .
2) DA : Go for it ! I lean towards topical / substantive larpy rounds so I will definitely vote on a good DA . Make sure your impact calculus is outweighing and tell me how ! Internal links should be clear . If the impacts are linear that needs to be articulated as well . Pretty simple but feel free to ask me for clarifications !
3) CP/ PIC : Strategic if done correctly ! For the CP there needs to be net benefits and they should be extended throughout the round . Please don’t read generic cards you stole off a case file ( I can tell and it makes for a redundant debate ) I won’t vote against you for it but .. don’t plz . Theory against abusive CPs is completely legitimate. For the PIC - keep it clean ! *paradigm under construction *
I am a parent/lay judge.
Please speak SLOWLY, I will not understand quick speeds.
I will try to vote off of argumentation so please make the argument you are going for very clear by Final Focus.
Parent volunteer judge with 3+ years. Primarily PF but have judged LD too. Speed is not an issue but if you spread, you are taking a risk.
Treating all debaters with respect is critical to me. Any demeaning behavior towards opponent will have a very negative impact on speaker points.
Stacking too many questions and not letting opponent respond will backfire you. What good is a cross-fire question if it does not expose opponent's weakness for the judge to observe ?
I like strong arguments - pro or con does not matter. I will never have an opinion about the topic - my judging record will speak for itself.... Good arguments will always get the win.
I prefer not to disclose results unless I have to. In ballots (both e-ballot and paper) my observations/thoughts/notes will have "**". When a sentence does not start with "**", that is the feedback.
Hey, I'm Caroline, but you can call me Cara (Care-uh). I debated for New Trier High School for three and a half years, where I read mostly disability-themed stuff on the national LD circuit to varying degrees of success. I go to American University now (go Eagles!) but I still coach and judge occasionally for various events because 1) my dream job is 'poet' and I'd like to be able to eat occasionally, and 2) I enjoy shaping young minds and imparting wisdom and all that good jazz.
I'll try to keep this as user-friendly as possible. Stuff that I think is really important has been bolded. There's a Congress and an LD section in here--feel free to ctrl+f to your heart's content.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org (for email chains, questions, anything of that variety.)
Top-Shelf Stuff (for everyone)
Be excellent to each other.I get that debate can be very stressful and nerve-wracking--trust me! It's an activity that requires you to be 'on' a lot, and that can take its toll. But I ask that, whenever possible, you refrain from taking that out on me/your opponent.
My only real hard-and-fast rule is no ics/isms/antis.Basically: if your argument relies on stereotyping marginalized people/Ben Shapiro's brand of 'facts and logic'/impact-turning some objectively horrible thing, I cannot be persuaded to vote for it.
Please give pronouns/TWs when applicable.It's very easy to do and it makes debate a safer, more accessible place.My TWs are any mentions of ableist violence/narratives of mental illness.If your case contains any of those things please just shoot me a quick email like 15-30 minutes before the round so that I have a minute to prep.
Don't be afraid to inject a little bit of personality into the debate!Make me laugh. (It's really not a hard thing to do--ask anyone from the 2019-2020 New Trier LD team.) Explain things using pop culture references. Put a meme in the doc if you've got a really good one. I want you to learn, but I also want you to have some fun and feel like you can be yourself.
Please start your first constructive speech with I affirm/I negate [resolution]. (Or, if this is LD and you're being non-topical, read the tagline of your first card a little bit slower than normal.) This helps send the message to my brain that it's time to do debate stuff, and makes it easier for me to keep up with what you're saying.
Contextualize your evidence! When you read a card or cite some data or whatever, you've got to make sure to connect it back to your original claim and the round writ large. I don't like feeling like I'm a toddler making a penne pasta necklace. To give a real-life example of what I mean: say that you're arguing that we should abolish credit scores and you read a piece of evidence about the history of racist lending practices. You need to then explain why it is that the abolition of credit scores would solve for that racism.
Postrounding is cool. Haranguing me is not. I tend to think that-post rounding hits a point of diminishing returns around the 10-15 minute mark, so barring some extenuating circumstance/particular concept you'd like me to explain, I'd ask that we keep things around that length. I would prefer that you not contact me after the round unless: 1) I give you express permission to do so (just ask!), or 2) some kind of significant harm occurred in the round (harassment, intimidation, etc.) that you want to let me know about. Please make sure to cc your coach on all communication.
Give me something to vote for!'I am the lesser of two evils' works in a pinch, but those debates are never fun to adjudicate and honestly make me sort of sad. It's not really enough to prove that you're notas bad--demonstrate to me that you aregood. Debate is supposed to be about testing ideas--so show me your best ones! Be creative. Try stuff out.
I'm probably not the judge to break out your top-speed spreading with. Yes, you can talk fast. No, I won't drop you if you spread. But I will say this: it's more difficult for me to process information at super high speeds, plus it kinda makes me feel like I'm being yelled at, which stresses me out and further increases the risk that I might miss something. You will be doing us both a favor if you slow down.
Disclosure is good! It's an apriori accessibility issue: This is a position impacted by my own experience as a disabled person on the circuit, you almost certainly not going to get me to drop it. That said, I really don't like disclosure theory and don't want to vote on it, so my threshold for what constitutes disclosure is pretty low--like, 'tags and plan text meet' fairly low.
Please don't read K stuff just because you think that I'll vote for you if you read K stuff. I love it when knowledgable K debaters break out cool strategies that they've obviously put a ton of time and thought into. I do not love it when debaters pull out some random ancient Campbell K that they found in a college policy backfile ten minutes before the round. You will get further faster with me if you read something that you're obviously passionate about.
Extensions and weighing >>>>: It is my deepest hope that you will spend your final rebuttal making the round so crystal-clear to me that I can pretty much just transcribe what you say onto your ballot. This is especially true if you're reading some super frou-frou pomo thing like Deleuze or Baudrillard--I need to understand what exactly it is that you do and why it's better than what your opponent is advocating for. I won't vote for what I don't understand, so it's in your best interest to explain any and all of the jargon that you use (whether it be topic-or-lit-specific) as thoroughly as you can.
neg gets presumption, disclosure good, aff affirms the resolution and neg disproves the aff, condo fine, PICs fine, Ks fine, 6-3-7-3-4-6-3, theory is the highest layer in the debate, evaluate the debate after the 2ar
(The only ones that are really set in stone are speech times. All of the others are pretty negotiable, but it's probably gonna be easier to convince me that the K comes before theory than to disregard an entire speech of the debate.)
1: Performance affs, idpol Ks, soft left affs
2: LARP and traditional
4 and below: tricks, high theory
After the first aff, It's important to refute speakers that have spoken before, contextualize the debate, and weigh. All speakers should question as much as possible and questioning is almost as important as speeches for me.
Call out bad arguments, if an argument does not have strong logical reasoning behind it or you don’t explain the argument or an argument that doesn't make sense will get dropped. Substance trumps style flourish for me.
I believe debate is about reasoning and convincing others and therefore constructing your case logically and then articulating it well is what I expect to see.
If you contact me for feedback, please CC your coach in the email or I will not respond.
Glenbrook North, 18-23
Blue Valley Southwest, 10-18
Blue Valley North, 04-10
–I did not work a camp this summer and thus have little familiarity with topic specific terminology, mechanisms, or the basic t arguments. Please take that into account.
-I spent the past 2-3 years working with students in congressional debate and novice policy.
-Don't assume I know as much as you do about how the economy works.
–Slow down, care about clarity, and have speech docs in a usable format that both teams can use. Manage your own prep and start the debate on time.
–I don’t know anything about non-policy arguments. I err neg on the importance of being topical.
–I am not qualified to judge a debate based on things taking place outside of the round.
–On a scale of evidence versus in round performance, I slightly learn towards the performance.