Greenhill Fall Classic
2022 — NSDA Campus, TX/US
World Schools Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
BA in Philosophy, Peace Studies, & Communication Studies from Regis University
MA Communication Studies -K-State University
-Debate Coach @ Colorado Academy ('23 - present)
-College Debate Coach @ K-State for BP debate ('21-'23)
-Assistant Coach for WSD @ The Greenhill School ('20-'23)
-Curriculum Coordinator & Top Lab Leader at Global Debate Symposium for WSD ('19-present)
-Instructor at Baylor Debate Institute for LD ('22)
-Instructor at Stanford National Forensics Institute (PF & Parli) ('19-'21)
First and foremost I believe debate is about engagement and education. I highly value the role of charity in argumentation and the function of intellectual humility in debate.
NOTEs FOR ONLINE DEBATING:
1) You'll likely need to go slower
2) Be gracious to everyone, don't freak out if someone's Wi-Fi drops
3) I've reverted to flowing on paper--so signpost signpost signpost *See my sections on Cross-X & Speed*
You’ll see two distinct paradigms for WSD & LD/Policy in that order:
I love World Schools Debate! This has by far become my favorite format of debate!
Do not run from the heart of the motion--instead, engage in the most salient and fruitful clashes. Weigh very clearly and don't forget to extend the principled/framework conversation throughout the entire debate (not just in the 1!). Ensure that you have a logical structure for the progression and development of the bench, work on developing and staying true to your team line. Work to weigh the round at the end--divide the round into dissectible and engaging sections that can be understood through your given principle or framework system. You are speaking to the judge as an image of a global, informed citizen--you cannot assume that I know all of the inner workings of the topic literature, even if I do; work to sell a clear story: make the implicit, explicit. World Schools Debate takes seriously each of the following: Strategy, Style, and Content. Many neglect strategy and style--too few develop enough depth for their content. Ensure that you take each judging area seriously.
Some thoughts on WSD
1. Prop Teams really need to prioritize establishing a clear comparative and beginning the weighing conversation in the Prop 3 to overcome the time-skew in the Opp Block. This involves spelling out clearly in the prop three not only what the major clashes in the round are but also what sort of voters I should prefer and why.
2. Weighing is a big deal and needs to happen on two levels. The first level has to do with the specific content of the round and the impacts (i.e., who is factually correct about the material debated and the characterizations that are most likely). The second level has to do with the mechanics leveraged in the substantives and defensive part of the round (i.e., independent of content—who did the better debating by relying on clear incentives, layered characterizations, and mechanisms). Most debates neglect this second level of weighing; these levels work together and complement each other.
3. Opposition teams should use the block strategically. This means that the material covered in the opp reply should not be a redundant repetition of the opp 3. One of these two speeches should be more demonstrative (the 3) and the other less defensive (the 4) — we can view them as cohesive but distinct because they prioritize different issues and methods. There is a ton of room to play around here, but bottom line is that I should not hear two back to back identical speeches.
4. Big fan of principled arguments, but lately I have found that teams are not doing a fantastic job weighing these arguments against practical arguments. The framework of the case and the argument should preemptively explain to me what I should prefer this *type* of argument over or against a practical argument (an independent reason to prefer you). This usually involves rhetorically and strategically outlining the importance of this principle because of its moral/value primacy (i.e., what is the principled impact to disregarding this argument). This said, winning your principle should not depend on you winning a prior practical argument.
5. Regrets motions are some of my favorite motions, but I find that teams really struggle with these. You are debating here with the power and retrospect and hindsight. To this end, watch out for arguments that say something is bad because it “will cause X;” rather, arguments should say this thing is bad because it “already caused X.” This does not mean that we cannot access conversations about the future in regrets motions—but we need to focus the majority of our framing on actually analyzing why an *already present/happened* event or phenomena is worthy of regret.
LD & Policy Paradigm: Long story short "you do you." Details are provided. I'll listen to just about anything done well. Though I dislike tricks & am not a great judge to pref for theory debates. Some of these sections are more applicable to either LD or Policy but that should be intuitive.
General: I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not tell me and paint the story for me I will really despise doing the work for you.
Speaks: I am not afraid to give low point wins. The quality of the argument will always outway the persuasion that you use. It is ridiculous to vote for a team because they sound better. I will penalize racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist or ableist speech with low speaks. I don't disclose speaks. This seems arbitrary. I'm not confident why the practice of disclosing speaks has become a common request--but I think this is largely silly.
Speed: I am fine with speed; though I am not fine with bad clarity. More the half of the spreading debaters I listen to seriously neglect diction drills and clarity. Rapidly slurring cards together and ignoring clear sign-posting does not allow as much time as you think for the pen to put ink on the flow. I cannot tell you how many debates I have judged in the last two years where the entirety of CX time is spent by the opponent's trying to figure out what the other debater just said. I will only yell "clear" twice if you are going too fast for me--clarity has only become more important in the world of online debating. Recently, if I reach the point where I have to either say clear (or type it in the zoom chat) debaters get visibly frustrated. You have to choose between a judge who is capable of flowing your material or your desire to go so fast even when incomprehensible. In non-Zoom debates, typically nothing is too fast so long as your diction is good. If you see me stop flowing or if you notice my facial demeanor change this is a good indicator that your speed is too fast with not enough clarity. *Note my Section on Online Debating*
Value debate: I love philosophical clash! View my comments under Framework. Morality is not a value. It's just not. It is descriptive; debate requires normative frameworks.
Framework: Framework is very important to a good debate. Value clash should start here. This comes with two caveats. 1) Know what your authors are actually saying. I am a Philosophy major. I might penalize you for running content that you misconstrue. 2) Be able to explain, with your own analytics, any dense framework that you run. I will default to comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Some level of intervention is required on the part of the judge unless the framework debate is carried all the way to the 2AR--don't make me intervene. Make sure you return to the framework debate! (Especially important for me in LD)
Theory: You do you. Not a fan of frivolous theory, tbh; but you're in charge (more or less). Make the interp clear and the violation clear. I want to be clear here though: I do not enjoy theory debates, I think the proliferating practice of theory debates and competing underviews is net-bad for the activity. Additionally, if theory is a consistent leg of your strategy as a debater, that is fine, just do not pref me. I will not be a good judge for your preferred strategy. I'll also concede here that I am really poor at analyzing tricks debates and I am not a fan of the practice of lists of theory spikes--debate should be, at its core, about engagement not tricks for evasion. This is not to say that I have no understanding of how to adjudicate competing interps or theory debates, but it is not my comfort zone and I dislike the practice.
Cross-X: I flow cross-ex. I do consider it a substantive portion of the debate and cross-ex is binding. I believe that too many debaters waste their cross-ex time by desperately trying to get some understanding of their opponent's case because of the increasing absurdity of some case strategies and/or the lack of clarity that accompanies some speed. There are fundamentally three types of overarching cross-x questions: 1) Clarification, 2) Rebuttal, 3) Set-up/Concession; they rank in weakness/effectiveness from 1-3, with 1 being a non-strategic use of time.
Plans/CPs IN LD: This is fine. I will not usually listen to a theory debate on plans bad or CP bad for LD. PICs are fine. Once again, If you do it right you are fine. Again: If your strategy is to run a theory argument against a CP, a Plan, a PIC, or the like I may not necessarily be super happy about this *See my section on theory*. Debate is about engagement, not evasion--but I will listen to anything to the best of my ability.
K's: Good K debates are wonderful! Bad ones are the worst debates to watch. I love to see something Unique but relevant if you default to K. Please very clearly tell me what the Alt looks like; "vote neg" is not an alt!!! You gotta give me some function beyond “give me the ballot.” I am comfortable with most critical theory and post-modern scholarship. In particular, I have well-established academic training in phenomenology-informed critical theory, metaphysical frameworks that take strong ontological positions, and Deleuzian scholarship writ large. I can draw the links for you; Please do not make me. If you choose to run a critical theory, you should understand it well. I have experience working with critical theory and have worked alongside Dr. George Yancy firsthand on Critical Race Theory--I cannot stress this enough: good K debaters do their authors and their authors' scholarship justice by understanding the primary texts and scholarship inside and outside of the round. If your only exposure to a K author is a list of cards, you are philosophically unequipped to meaningfully engage in that author's scholarship, and unprepared for a good K debate.
This in no way means that you have to be a PhD student on Baudrillard to run a Baudrillard K, it just means you have to actually do your homework and trust your reasonable knowledge of the case-dependent scholarship because you didn't take shortcuts in understanding the K-Author, and your main textual engagement with the K-Author goes well beyond a series of cards, especially cards someone else cut.
Evidence: Be ethical with your evidence. This is serious stuff.
Weighing and Impacts: Spell out the voters for me. It's that simple. If you give me an impact calc, that is super beneficial for you.****When I give my RFD in prelims, you are more than welcome to ask questions. However, if you argue with me or begin to debate with me, I will give you a 20 on speaks--no joke Do not waste my time.
* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.
School: Grapevine HS - Interim Director of Debate and Speech
Email: email@example.com (for case/evidence sharing)
School affiliation/s – Grapevine HS
Years Judging/Coaching - 39
Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event 39
Order of Paradigms PFD, LD, World Schools, Policy (scroll down)
Public Forum Debate
I am more of a traditionalist on PFD. I don't really like fast PFD. The time constraints just don't allow it. No plans or counter plans. Disadvantages can be run but more traditionally and not calling it a disadvantage.
I have experience with every type of debate so words like link cross-apply, drop -- are ok with me.
The summary and final focus should be used to start narrowing the debate to the most important issues with a direct comparison of impacts and worldview
I flow - IF you share cases put me on the email chain but I won't look at it until the end and ONLY if evidence or arguments are challenged. Speak with the assumption that I am flowing not reading.
Lincoln Douglas Debate
A good debate is a good debate. Keep in mind that trying to be cutting-edge does NOT make for good debate by itself. While I appreciate innovation - I hate tricks for the sake of tricks and theory used as a strategy. I prefer topic-based arguments. Keep that in mind.
Standards, criteria, framework, and/or burdens serve as the same thing - these are mechanisms for how determining who wins the debate. If a value is used it needs to be defended throughout the case and not simply an afterthought. The framework of the debate should not be longer than the rest of the case. Unless it is necessary to make the framework clear, cut to the chase and tell me what is acceptable and not acceptable, but don't spend 2 1/2 minutes on something that should take just a few sentences to make clear. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic, not excessive framework or theory. Note the word excessive. I am not stupid and usually get it much quicker than you think. In the debate resolve the issue of standard and link it to the substantive issues of the round then move on.
Evidence and Basic Argumentation:
The evidence adds credibility to the arguments of the case however I don't want to just hear you cite sources without argumentation and analysis of how it applies to the clash in the debate. I don't like arguments that are meant to confuse and say absolutely nothing of substantive value. I am fine with philosophy but expect that you can explain and understand the philosophies that you are applying to your case or arguments. A Kritik is nothing new in LD. Traditional LD by nature is perfect, but I recognize the change that has occurred. I accept plans, DAs, counter plans, and theory (when there is a violation - not as the standard strategy.) Theory, plans, and counter plans must be run correctly - so make sure you know how to do it before you run it in front of me.
Flow and Voters:
I think that the AR has a very difficult job and can often save time by grouping and cross-applying arguments, please make sure you are clearly showing me the flow where you are applying your arguments. I won't cross-apply an argument to the flow if you don't tell me to. I try not to intervene in the debate and only judge based on what you are telling me and where you are telling me to apply it. Please give voters; however, don't give 5 or 6. You should be able to narrow the debate down to critical areas. If an argument is dropped, then make sure to explain the importance or relevance of that argument don't just give me the "it was dropped so I win the argument." I may not buy that it is an important argument; you have to tell me why it is important in this debate.
I can flow very well. Slow the heck down, especially in the virtual world. The virtual world is echoing and glitchy. Unless words are clear I won't flow the debate. Speed for the sake of speed is not a good idea.
I have been around long enough to have seen the genesis of Kritik's arguments. I have seen them go from bad to worse, and then good in the policy. I think that K's arguments are in a worse state in LD now. Kritik is absolutely acceptable IF it applies to the resolution and specifically the case being run in the round. I have the same expectation here as in policy the "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. Kritik must give an alternative other than "think about it." Most LD is asking me to take any action with a plan or an objective - a K needs to do the same thing. That being said, I will listen to the arguments but I have a very high threshold for the bearer to meet before I will vote on a "K" in LD.
I have a very high threshold of acceptance of theory in LD. There must be a clear abuse story. Also, coming from a policy background - it is essential to run the argument correctly. For example having a violation, interpretation, standards, and voting issues on a Topicality violation is important. Also, know the difference between topicality and extra-tropical. or knowing what non-unique really means is important. Theory for the sake of a time suck is silly and won't lead me to vote on it at the end. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic, not just a generic framework or theory. RVI's: Not a fan. Congratulations you are topical or met a minimum of your burden I guess? It's not a reason for me to vote though unless you have a compelling reason.
WORLD SCHOOL DEBATE
I have experience and success coaching American Style Debates. Worlds Schools Debate quickly has become my favorite. I have coached teams to elimination rounds at local, state, and NSDA National tournament every year that I coached WSD. I judge WSD regularly and often.
The main thing to know is I follow the norms of WSD (that you all have access). I don't want WSD Americanized.
How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?
WSD is a classic debate. The type when folks think about the debate. Much more based on logic and classic arguments with some evidence but not evidence-heavy. It is NOT an American-style debate.
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate?
I flow each speech.
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.
I look at both. Does the principle have merit and the practical is the tangible explanation? I don’t think that the practical idea has to solve but is it a good idea?
The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall scores, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?
Strategy is argument selection in speeches 2, 3, and 4. In 1st speech, it is how the case is set up and does it give a good foundation for other speeches to build.
WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?
The style mostly, but if it is really fast then maybe strategy as well.
WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?
The argument that makes the most sense, is extended throughout the debate, and does it have the basics of claim, warrant, and impact?
How do you resolve model quibbles?
Models are simply an example of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?
Models and countermodels are simply examples of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?
A good Debate is a good debate. I flow from the speech not from the document. I do want to be on the email chain though. I prefer good substantive debate on the issues. While Ks are okay if you are going to read them, make sure they are understandable from the beginning. Theory - the same. If you think you might go for it in the end, make sure they are understandable from the beginning.
Be aware, that on virtual, sometimes hard to understand rapid and unclear speech (it is magnified on virtual). Make necessary adjustments.
Links should be specific and not generic. This is everything from K to DA.
The final speech needs to tell the story and compare worlds. Yes, line by line is important but treat me like a policymaker - tell me why your policy or no policy would be best.
I have vast experience coaching and judging in the WSDC format. In 2019 I was a coach in the Mexican debate camp, in 2020 I was hired as the co-coach for the Mexican development team, in 2021 I was hired as the co-coach for the Team Mexico 2021 national team and for the 2022 edition of WSDC I am once again a co-coach for the Team Mexico 2022. In total I have judged and coached for the WSDC circuit for 3 years now. I also have diverse experience in the BP circuit in Latinamerica, I have debated, coached and judged in the circuit for 5 years now, I have coached two different universities that include the Universidad de Guadalajara and Instituto Autónomo de México.
I am currently not affiliated with any schools or institutions outside of Mexico.
I graduated in 2018 from the American School Foundation of Guadalajara, currently I study economics in Tecnológico de Monterrey.
Most of my debate experience has been developed in the spanish language Latinamerican BP circuit, but I have also participated in the Mexican WSDC english debate circuit for 3 years. My experiences include:
Debate Coaching at Universidad de Guadalajara:
-Assistant coach 2018-2019
-Part of the academic committee during 2019
Debate Coaching at ITAM:
-Academic director for the 2019 spring and autumn semesters
-Co-coach during the 2019 spring and autumn semesters
-Co-coach during the 2020 spring semester
-Head coach during the 2020 autumn semester
Coaching at Debate Camp:
-Debate Camp 2019 junior coach
Development Team Mexico Coaching:
-Hired by the Asociación Mexicana de Debate to be co-coach of the 2020 Development Team Mexico for over 150 hours
Tec de Santa Fé Debate Coaching:
-Coach of the Tec de Santa Fé school’s debate team 2020
ASDC CDMX Debate Coaching:
-Coach of the CDMX American Spaces Debate Club 2020
Team Mexico 2021 coaching:
-Co-coach of the Mexican national team for WSDC 2021
-Break 8th in Hegel Division
Team Mexico 2022 coaching:
-Co-coach of the Mexican national team for WSDC 2022
Various debate lectures regarding argumentation, rebuttal and debate strategy.
-Mexican Universities Debating Championship (MUDC) 2016
-Open break: 3rd place
-Open tournament semifinalist
-Campeonato Nacional de Debate (CND) 2017
-Open break: 6th place
-Novice break: 1st place
-Open tournament quarterfinalist
-Novice runner-up finalist
-3rd best novice speaker
-Torneo Interuniversitario Invernal de Debate (TIID) 2017
-Open break: 2nd place
-6th best speaker
-Open break: 2nd place
-Open tournament semifinalist
-4th best speaker
-Open break: 1st place
-Tournament runner-up finalist
-2nd best speaker
-Torneo Metropolitano de Debate (TMD) 2018
-Open break: 4th place
-Open tournament semifinalist
-Torneo Rosarista de Debate (TRD) 2018
-Open break: 1st place
-Open tournament runner-up finalist
-4th best speaker
-Campeonato Mundial Universitario de Debate en Español (CMUDE) Chile 2018
-Open break: 24th place
-Open tournament quarterfinalist
-Copa Leones de Debate (CLD) 2018
-Open break: 6th place
-Open tournament semifinalist
-Open break: 3rd place
-Open tournament runner-up finalist
-Open break: 6th place
-Open tournament runner-up finalist
-6th best speaker
-Open break: 30th place
-Open tournament octofinalist
-PanAms UDC 2019
-Open break: 7th place
-Open tournament runner-up finalist
-Torneo Relámpago de la Megalópolis Toluca
-Open break: 1st place
-Open tournament runner-up finalist
-2nd best speaker
-Open break: 4th place
-Open tournament runner-up finalist
-9th best speaker
-Open break: 2nd place
-Open tournament runner-up finalist
-5th best speaker
-MX Debate Virtual 2020
-Open break: 1st place
-Open tournament second place
-2nd best speaker
-Open break 5th place
-3rd best speaker
-Open tournament semifinalist
-Open break: 3rd place
-Open tournament semifinalist
-Top speaker averages in the tournament
-Open break: 1st place
-Open tournament runner-up finalist
-3rd best speaker
-Open break: 15th place
-Open tournament runner-up finalist
-Torneo Abierto de Debate Occasio 2017
-Campeonato Hispanohablante Internacional de de Debate y Oratoria 2018
-Break as adjudicator
-Three Torneo Interno de Debate UdeG
-Break as adjudicator
-Middle school semifinal chair
-High school final chair
-Debate Camp Judging
-Torneo Colegial PT Colombiano
-Break as adjudicator
-Best judge of the competition
-Torneo Internacional UNED Madrid
-Break as adjudicator
-Top 10 judges of the competition
-Semifinal and final panel judge for the novice division
-Torneo MX Debate Virtual
-Break as adjudicator
-Recognized within the top 3 adjudicators in the competition
-Quarter finals chair judge
-UPenn WSDC Tournament
I have NO experience with the following formats:
I have chaired several WS rounds before. Chairing a WS round involves the calling of speakers to present their speeches and considering all of the points that were explicitly brought out in the debate, not what I personally believe or what I think should have happened in the round. As a chair, I always make sure that every panelist votes and justifies their decision to include it as a part of the verbal feedback team receive. I also make sure that panelists send their ballots on time so as to not delay the tournament. As a panelist, I always deliver with the rest of the panel the points that I always found critical for the debate to help the creation of a strong feedback and reason for decision. As a judge I am always open for personal feedback and questions regarding the debate.
A World Schools round is made up of two teams: proposition and opposition. Proposition has to defend the motion and opposition goes against it. Both teams are built of 3 speakers from which we will listen to 8 minute speeches and a 4 minute reply. The reply speaker is either the 1st or 2nd speaker of the round, ensuring that only one speaker from each team will speak twice during the debate. Points of information are allowed between the first and seventh minute of the 8 minute speeches, however, they are not allowed during the 4 minute reply speech.
I am usually flowing the debate on my computer or my iPad, taking thorough notes on every speaker’s remarks, POIs and answers to the POIs.
Personally, I find both principle and practical arguments to be as valuable in the round as long as speakers explain the importance of these arguments and weigh them against each other. I don’t like taking arguments at face value, I like hearing constructive analysis as to why an argument is true/untrue and a proper explanation of the comparative between cases. I usually find it easier to follow a debate case when teams present metrics/burdens for the round and when their style is ordered and logical. I personally don’t mind fast speakers, I ponder strategy and content over style but the points need to be crystal clear.
In terms of strategy, I always take into consideration contradictions in the cases and the weighing that each team gives an argument. I also ponder heavily the proper development of arguments, this means that speakers should be spending a reasonable time developing arguments, not leaving a full on argument for the last minute. I find persuasiveness to be key in the presentation of the arguments, it is important to balance analysis/mechanization and rhetoric.
I do not think that evidence is necessary to prove an argument so long as it is proven through persuasive analysis and realistic characterizations. I also believe that teams should respect the fiat the motion gives each side of the house, meaning that teams can actually do or think they can do whatever the motion is asking from them. Despite this, it is important for teams to also characterize and analyse why their model is likely to happen/be accepted, why it would solve issues they are trying to fix and how they will carry this out.
I've been judging various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.
I have no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round. I do not like intervening.
Speaker points are a tie-breaker, so I am a bit more conservative with them, but that doesn't mean I'll tank your points unless you're unclear, have frequent speech errors, go over time, or if you're rude. Expect an average 27.5-29.5 range in PF/LD/CX and a range of 68-72 in Worlds and a 3-5 range in Congress. Perfect speaks reserved for those who truly exemplify great public speaking skills. Rudeness can also be a cause for a team losing.
Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever subject matter you're speaking on.
Ask before round any further questions you might have.
I will be following the conventions and norms that asks us to:
- think about these things on a more holistic approach;
- nuance our argumentation and engage on the comparative;
- think that the principle level argumentation is key and that the practical should make sense in approaching the principle;
- not engage on tricky arguments or cherry picked examples;
- debate the heart of the motion and not conditionally proposing or opposing (that we are debating the full resolution);
- reward those that lean into their arguments and side;
- preference thinking about the motions on a global scale when applicable.
Hi! My name is Anh, and I'm super excited to see y'all debate! In high school, I competed mainly in WSD and attended WSDC my junior and senior years. I now (occasionally) do BP in college.
A couple of things I look for in a round:
1. Argument Construction/extension
When I hear your arguments, I should understand why your impact occurs, the extent to which it occurs (the degree of harm/benefit), and why it is unique to your side.
2. Argument Interactions
I will feel more compelled to vote for you if you weigh both mechanisms and impacts. For ex, you could tell me why your mechanism is more likely to achieve X than the other team's mechanism. Or why, assuming both mechanisms work, X impact is more important than Y impact. This type of weighing should certainly be in the 3/4s, but I welcome weighing earlier as well.
Worlds School's Debate
This is the event I am most comfortable with, as I competed in this event for 4 years and spend a considerable amount of time judging/coaching WSD.
I will vote for the team that best proved their argument was true (whether this is in terms of proving a practical impact or establishing/fulfilling a principled argument) and weighs why the argument means that they deserve to win the round.
It is not enough to prove to me that your world is "good" or that your opponents world is "bad", you must prove to me that your world is comparatively preferable to your opponents.
I very much prioritize content over style, as far as style goes all that matters is that you're speaking at a reasonable rate, your speech is easy to follow, and that you are not just reading off the paper but rather genuinely giving a speech.
I have judged PF/LD a decent amount this year, and will vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain and most strongly weighed impact, just debate good
If you ever have any questions or would like further feedback, you can reach out to me at firstname.lastname@example.org
If you get me as your judge in any event outside of these three, I am so sorry
Would prefer not spreading, but if you do then please send me a document.
I am a LAY JUDGE, but I'm also an English teacher. Alter your speeches/rhetoric accordingly. Do not spread, you will be dropped. Racist/disrespectful rhetoric will also result in drops. Please use credible sources and offer clear weighing. Within the debate, I need to be able to clearly hear all of your contentions. I understand that you don't have much time, but please do your best to speak at a human pace. As a judge, it is my responsibility to listen as you speak, but as a speaker, it is your responsibility to make clear and concise claims. Please also signpost throughout, and know that final focus should offer very clear voters.
Best of luck, and I look forward to hearing you speak.
Hey y'all. I'm Danielle (she/her). I'm a first-year out who primarily competed/coached PF at a small public HS in NJ (Freehold Township), but I had a couple of WSD stints with my state's team from 2019-2022.
TLDR: Run whatever you want, but I shouldn't have to do mental gymnastics to vote for you. Collapse in the later speeches, be organized, weigh, have a clear narrative, and don't be insufferable in the process.
I'm willing to evaluate whatever you want me to, but I mostly have experience with trad debate.
Speed is fine as long as you slow down on the taglines and send a speech doc.
I don't tolerate toxic energy in the debate space. If you're being exclusionary or problematic, I'll drop you no matter what.
More niche preferences:
I'm not the biggest evidence ethics purist. I'm fine with paraphrasing as long as it doesn't completely deviate from the article's original intent.
I don't care too much about extending card names as much as I care about you extending the analysis. I'd much rather see a detailed, implicated, analytical response than hear "Extend the Smith'17 card."
If you're mavving, I'll give you 5 mins of prep.
Shadow Extensions aren't real
I don't care what happens in cross. If you want it to impact my ballot, extend it into a real speech.
Best of luck! I know these tournaments can be super stressful, but please remember to drink water, eat, and have fun. :)
I have been a coach and consultant for the past 24 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at UTNIF and also at Stanford. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.
If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.
In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.
In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.
I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.
I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!
I competed in World Schools Debate and Public Forum for 3 years with Kingwood High School and competed for the USA Debate team my junior and senior years. I coached British Parliamentary debate at Pepperdine University while I was a student there.
I debated for 4 years (PF and LD) in Alabama. You can pretty much do whatever you want as long as it's not unethical, but here are a few specific things I like:
If you want me to vote on it, it needs to appear in the summary and the Final Focus (PF)
Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis of what it says is appreciated.
- Make sure to bring up concessions made during cross in speeches
- Theory is a tool used to ensure fairness in debate so please don't try to use it in the forms of abusive argumentation to win debates.
A little about me:
Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2021-Present
Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020
I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.
I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.
I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.
Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.
Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.
For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.
Truth > tech.
*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*
In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.
WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.
I am a College Debater at Regis University in Denver, Colorado. I currently compete in British Parliamentary Debate and I have 8 years of collective experience in High School Policy, WSD, LD, PF, and BQ.
Stay true to the heart of Worlds. Jargon, strategy, and arguments unique to other debate formats do not play well in WSD. Understand the value of WSD as its own event. Off cases and excessive speed have no place here.
Do not run from the heart of the motion and engage in the most salient and fruitful clashes and you'll do great.
This means that Opp really shouldn’t run a counter-model unless it is highly strategic, well articulated, mutually exclusive from Props advocacy, and does not contradict your principled argument.
Examples and case studies can be very helpful when trying to illustrate a pattern or universal truths. If you want to prove that human nature is inherently violent, for example, I need more than various examples of violence throughout history. I need you to tie the examples back to the thesis - dissect the example and tell me which parts tell us something about human nature.
Engage on a comparative level throughout the debate - especially towards the end. I need to understand what the trade-offs are and why we ought to prefer a prop/opp world. Also recognize that you don't have to win every argument. In fact, it is incredibly persuasive to say "Even if we lose this point..." and tell me why its not fatal.
You are speaking to the judge as an image of a global, informed citizen--you cannot assume that I know all of the inner workings of the topic literature. If I am exceptionally informed on the subject, I won't let that knowledge spill into the round either. For these reasons, it is super important that you stay away from the minutiae and specialized aspects of the topic and remain focused on the big picture!
3rd Speakers: Reorganize the debate into 2 or 3 clashes. After the second speeches, I'm usually left with a lot of moving parts on my flow. If the third speeches don't synthesize the debate by focusing on the key voting issues then it just becomes more complicated. The third speeches should basically start to look like my RFD.
World Schools Debate takes each of the following seriously: Strategy, Style, and Content. Many speakers neglect strategy and style - here is a concrete breakdown of how I will evaluate these areas.
Team cohesion on rhetorical characterization of themes, stakeholders, and parties
If the motion is about Kurdistan, have a clear and consistent (even if implicit) characterization of the main actors (Russia, US, Erdogan, Iran, various Syrian factions.)
Composure during POIs *including after rejection*
Speed, tone, persuasion
Timing & level of engagement with POIs
Offering of POIs
3rd substantive argument - does it take the debate in the right direction? Does it distract from the core clash? Does it add something totally new and necessary to the discussion?
Coherent narratives - does this team tell a clear story down the bench?
3rd speaker’s main voters
Any traps and burdens placed on the next speaker - take 20-30 seconds to place expectations on the next speaker. It helps you control the conversation past your speech - it's also helpful in understanding how you are thinking about the round.
Email Cayman1@gmail.com if you have questions. If the questions are about a specific flow, please mention the round/flight/tournament. Please don't try to reach me via any social media you find me on; I'm not likely to check them in a time-sensitive situation at a tournament.
Unless tournament rules say otherwise or both teams are sending actual speech docs over SpeechDrop, everyone needs to be on the Email chain. I'll still read evidence sparingly unless asked to, but it's important that everyone is on the chain to verify what evidence gets sent when (and that it was sent to all participants instead of accidentally choosing 'reply' vs 'reply all'.) Because these rules and norms are relatively new and still in flux, I'm inclined by default to drop the card and not the team if one side can't fully/correctly comply with an evidence request.
I probably won't be looking at Campus/Cloud/Zoom very much during speeches. My ballot/comments, timer, flow, and any relevant evidence are already competing for screen space.
Since automated flips are time-sensitive and inflexible, if you have any questions for me that may influence how you flip, I'll try to get into the virtual competition room early with time to spare. If you're in the room and don't see me there, Email me. Normally, I try to avoid answering questions about specific hypotheticals where one team can hear me and the other can't, but I'll make an exception under this ruleset if one team needs to know before their coin flip timer expires and then I'll make an effort to fill the other team in as similarly as I can before the round starts. Also before the round starts, I'll verbally confirm who won the flip and which choice each side made, in case it becomes relevant to mid-round arguments.
However fast y'all think you can go without sacrificing clarity is modified by both your microphone and your opponents' speakers. I'll let you know if you're unclear to me; if your opponents are unclear to you, either clarify in cross or err on the side of asking for more evidence from the last speech.
If you're waiting for a card to start prep, please don't mute yourselves until prep starts. Prep starts when the requested cards (if any) arrive in the Email chain (or when debaters are obviously prepping) and stops when someone from the prepping team un-mutes and says to stop prep. If your opponents gave you the wrong card, I'll reset prep to where it was when you started, but if you just want to ask for more cards, please do so all at once rather than constantly trying to pause and un-pause prep.
Should you feel compelled to run a theory argument, please make sure that the interpretation and standards take the current online format into account.
If y'all want to ask your opponents clarifying questions during your own prep time, you're welcome to do so, but it's up to them whether to answer.
Cross can get especially messy when feedback and dueling microphones are involved. Please be mindful of the technical issues that talking over each other can cause and interrupt sparingly.
- Policy and LD since 1998
- Parli and PF since 2002
- WSDC and WUDC since 2009
- Big Questions since it became a non-meme event*
- Coach for Howard County, MD teams (Atholton, Centennial, Marriotts Ridge, Mt Hebron, Oakland Mills, River Hill, etc.) 2007-2020
- Capitol Debate camps & travel team from 2008-2013
- James Logan Forensics Institute from 2012-2013
- SNFI Public Forum 2010-2019
- Bethesda Chevy Chase 2019-2022
J-V, NCFLs, NJFL, Round Robins, etc.:
- If I'm judging you in a format where you don't get prefs or strikes and judge assignments are random, it's more my job to adapt to you than your job to adapt to me. Issues with stylistic choices or execution are more likely to find their way into the ballot comments than into the speaker points.
- Do what you do best; don't second-guess yourselves and do what you think I want to hear if it's not what you're good at.
- Don't take your norms for granted. If you and your opponent have different ideas of what debate should be or how it should be evaluated, tell me why the way that you do it is superior, the same way you would with any other argument.
- If you have a panel, do what you have to do to win the panel. If the easiest way to win is to pick up the two lay parent-judges sitting on either side of me and doodling on their ballots while trying to look attentive, so be it. I won't hold panel adaptation against teams. Making me feel engaged and useful is not why you're here.
- Some leagues ban disclosure. Some leagues ban verbal feedback. Those rules are bad for education and bad for debate. If you have questions about your round, find me after the round and we'll talk about what happened.
- I don't like calling for cards. If I do, it's either because of a factual/ethical dispute between teams about what the author actually says, because the round had a total absence of weighing outside of the quoted impact cards, or for educational reasons that aren't going to affect my RFD. How teams spin the cards matters, as does how well teams seem to know their cards.
- I assume ignorance over malfeasance. If you think the other team is being unethical, be able to prove it. Otherwise, correct/educate them by going after the evidence or citation instead of the people.
- Smart analytics beat un-smart cards every time.
- If you haven't read the article or chapter or study that your evidence is quoting, you probably shouldn't be using that evidence yet. When I'm evaluating impacts, it does you no favors to add a second sub-level of probability where I have to wonder "But do they know that the evidence actually says that? If so, did they make X argument on purpose?"
- Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. Repetition is not argumentation.
- If you're using digital evidence, it's your responsibility to be able to show the other team. It is not your opponents' responsibility to own laptops or to bring you a flash drive. I'm fine with teams using Email to share evidence - with the notable caveat that if I catch you using internet access to do anything outside tournament rules, your coach and the tab room are both going to hear about it. "Can I Email this so I don't risk getting viruses on my USB?" is a reasonable question most of the time. "Can I get on Messenger so my assistant coaches can type up theory extensions for me?" is NOT an acceptable interpretation of that question.
- Prep stops when you stop working with the evidence: either when the flash drive leaves the computer or when you send the Email and stop typing or when you stand up with the evidence in hand.
- I care more about clarity than speed. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know.
- If you can't understand your opponents, let them know in CX/CF/Prep. Deliberately maintaining an incomprehensible speed to stop your opponents from refuting arguments they can't comprehend is probably not a winning strategy especially in Parli and PF, where speech documents and wikis don't check.
- Quality > quantity. "Spreading" isn't some arbitrary brightline of WPM; it's when you're talking faster than you can think. Doesn't matter which event. Don't get discouraged just because your opponents are faster than you.
- Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
- If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
- I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
- With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
- Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.
- The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
- I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
- In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
- I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.
- I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their initial speech and frontline in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's 2SM any favors.
- Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
- Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
- Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
- CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters. If you think something in CF matters, mention it in your team's next speech. If you or your partner have no intention of referencing something in your next speech,
- SM cannot go line-by-line in most rounds. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture. My standards for SM coverage (especially 2SM) have increased since the speech length increased 50%, so spending the extra time on comparing warrants and weighing is probably better than re-ligitating the rebuttal
- GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
- FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.
- Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
- My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
- "but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
- Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
- Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
- I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.
- I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.
- If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.
- Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
- Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.
- How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.
Hey! I hope you are doing well, here are some things about me -
I debated World Schools at Greenhill for three years and graduated from there in 2022. I’m currently in my first year at Brown University where I debate Parli. In Worlds I was ranked 7th in the country, am a TFA State Champion (and previous Finalist), NDCA National Champion, and NDCA National Champion Top Speaker, among other tournament championships in World Schools. I really love Worlds and I’m super excited to be judging it :)
Four things for the round:
- Speak at a good pace. Talking too fast is bad stylistically and strategically. I won’t hear your argument and you’ll sound rushed and panicked.
- you need warrants!!! Why is an argument true, why does it have X impact, why does it weigh more? Don’t restate the same argument over and over, develop it in the round. I won’t do the work for you.
- don’t be offensive. Be mindful of the arguments you run and the presence you have in the room. I will not want to vote for someone that yells at their opponents, yells at me about their opponents, says something rude or overly aggressive, or runs an argument that is offensive or discriminatory.
- Also don't say your speech time starts on your first word because we all know that and its annoying (at least to me). just say how you want POIs and start your speech lol. If you still say this I will know you did not read my paradigm and that will make me sad :(
I am former Policy turned LD debater from 24 years ago. Since debating in high school I have spent a lot of time judging a variety of events here and there. I am currently a high school speech and debate coach. I like to keep things pretty simple - LD is ultimately a debate of values. Convince me that your approach to the resolution best upholds a value that you have defended as a value worth obtaining and you are likely to win.
Some things worth knowing - I do flow debates and get really annoyed by dropped arguments. I don't mind speed if I can understand you. I do place a large value on confident politeness. It helps you look in control and right. Rudeness or overly emotional debating implies you are losing control which shows you fear you are losing. If you think you are losing then chances are I might think so too.
I like well organized cases and responses with signposting to cue the organization and help me make sense of everything. I also really like explanations of evidence. If you tell me something will lead to more of something but don't say how or why that is a good or bad thing then it's a waste of evidence.
I will try to give thorough feedback to help you understand why I made the decision I made.
I have worked in World Schools for two years. I like to see clash and will use the ballot as instructed.
I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).
I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.
Speed: I’m worried about judging online, so please slow down a little bit to avoid any issues. Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down.
Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.
PSA --- My debater Ausha is my favorite fave : ) but I probably shouldn't given her my tabroom info
I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of positions that serve no point.
I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks though.)
Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.
Do like and will vote on:
T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.
Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.
Don’t like but will vote on if won:
“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.
LD - Skep, permissibility, etc.
Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, congratulations and welcome to my worst nightmare.
Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.
Don’t like and won’t vote on:
I'm here for clear and logical arguments. I don't like spreading and I don't like cases lacking in commentary. In other words, do not just come up and read card after card to me. I'm open to almost any argument if you can explain your reasoning well enough to me.
In general, if you don't say it, I won't flow it. Don't assume something is so obvious that it can go unspoken. On the other hand, I won't give illogical arguments a win just because they go uncontested. You have to persuade me to take into account whatever you are saying.
I am one of the most naturally neutral individuals I know. I will NOT favor a side because I SHOULD. I will favor a side because you convinced me to... hence the purpose of effective argumentation. Don't assume -- just explain.
Be understood. Be clear. If I don't flow it... IT NEVER HAPPENED. Remember this during warrants / impacts / extensions. I rarely call for cards, so if I need to hear it, make sure you set the scene for optimal results.
Debating about debate is fun and engaging -- if it makes sense. Silly theories are just silly, but go back to my section on presumption - I will favor a side because you convinced me to... hence the purpose of effective argumentation. If you convince me that the theory is valid, then it is for the round. I will not assume how it functions or the reasonability of it. Prove that it does or doesn't. A good K with clear explinations, links and impacts are refreshing to me. Neg must explain why aff can't perm the day away -- why is the alt superior? Aff, why is the perm better than the alt and case solo? This is where speed choices are important.
Here are a few questions you should ask yourself: Do you understand the card? Does it link to the argumentation presented? Is it topical to the context you're using it in? Do the warrants exist in the text? Is it qualified? Is it dated? ....is clipping truly worth it?
T's, DA's, CPs
Policy was my niche back in the day. That being said -- I'll buy it if its clear, all conditions are met, it makes sense, and if it actually does something / proves a point. I will follow the flow, and the flow alone. Keep it clean!
Finally... most importantly... tell me WHY I should be voting for you. Yes. I want voters. Explain why a drop is catastrophic. Tell me why case outweighs. You know what happens when you assume... don't assume that I'm rolling with you. Explain why I should be.
Spkr Point Breakdown
30 Likely to take the tournament
29.5 Contender to the crown
29 Excited to see how deep you go!
28.5 Highly likely to clear
28 Clearing is possible
27.5 On the bubble, keep pushing
27 Congrats on earning entry into the tournament!!
*email chain: - use file sharing software if available instead of email chain pls
School affiliation/s - please indicate all - None
Hired - yes
If HIRED - what schools/programs in Texas do you work with if any: none
High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years - n/a
Please list ANY schools that you would need to be coded/conflicted against - none
Currently enrolled in college? grad school University of Texas at Dallas
College Speech and Debate Experience - parliamentary debate
Years Judging/Coaching - 4
Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event - 25
Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year - lots
Check all that apply
_XX___I judge WS regularly on the local level
_XX__I judge WS at national level tournaments
Rounds judged in other events this year
Have you chaired a WS round before? yes
What does chairing a round involve? facilitating between speeches
How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? equal burdens
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? flow
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. I think there needs to be a balance of both.
The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? for strategy it's a matter of addressing the arguments in the round and how well they adhere to the norms of their speech order.
WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? style
WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? which side presents more compelling logical warrants as to why something is true.
How do you resolve model quibbles? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs
Hi, welcome to my 30 second tutorial called, 'Answering Arguments Wins Debates.' Notice I didn't say 'repeating arguments wins debates,' because it doesn't. You have to listen to your opponent's argument, and then craft a response that shows why your side of the resolution is comparatively better regarding this issue. Telling me their argument isn't well-warranted isn't enough. You have to provide me with a warrant for why your side of the debate wins that point.
Now onto the stuff about me...
NO SPEED IN DEBATE. If it's faster than you would talk to a parent or teacher, don't do it. I will say clear once, then I will take off speaker points if I have to say clear again. I find speed problematic for two reasons. 1) it does not promote an inclusive debate space, because participants who are new or rarely compete cannot truly participate. 2) it is completely ableist to assume all of your competitors and judges will be able to meaningfully understand your speech. A decade ago I experienced a bipolar break, and since then my brain doesn't work as fast, and my ear-to-brain interaction isn't what it used to be. That doesn't mean I am stupid. It just means that I need to hear things at a normal, conversational speed.
***Whether it's prelims or elims of LD, PF, or worlds, at the point that you disregard my ability to participate in the round, you will not win my ballot. You might think you can win the other two ballots in an elim round, but it's not a great idea to have a 50% chance of winning/50% chance of winning/0% chance of winning when you could go slower and have 50% chance of winning each judge.*** Please note that I rarely am put in policy rounds, but sometimes I am needed. In prelims I expect a slower round. In elims, I will not be offended if you go your regular speed, but you have a greater chance of winning my ballot by going slower, as pointed out above. If you are in LD, PF, or worlds I WILL be offended if you go faster than my preference, and offending judges is not a great look.
In terms of argumentation, I will consider anything that isn't offensive. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.
I vote more on the big picture - overall impacts, overall strategy. I want to see you show why your side of the resolution is comparatively better than your opponent's. I do not like overwrought impacts. I am going to buy the impact about a million people that has a high probability of happening and a strong link chain over an existential impact that has a shady link story. If you think your opponent's impact is ridiculous, I probably do, too. Point that out to me so I can vote on yours instead. Every time a debater makes an argument that extinction level impacts have a zero percent probability, an angel gets its wings and Tinkerbell can fly again. You want to save flying paranormal creatures, don't you? Then be the person who isn't impacting to extinction.
Lastly, be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.
Claire Park (she/they)
- Read whatever you want
- tech = truth
- I like good evidence, I like spins more
- "status quo is always an option" means judge kick
- Judge direction is always good
I prefer to evaluate the debate on what is said in the debate, and I can vote for any argument. I think slight judge intervention is inevitable, but l do my very best to limit it as much as I can.
- If I can't hear you or if my wifi is bad, I'll verbally let you know
- My camera will be on, if it is off I am not ready
- Georgetown '25: not debating
- Major: Science, Technology, and International Affairs concentrating in Security, especially with AI.
- Notre Dame ‘21: 2N/1A
Please use your 1AC
Turns case is good
Impact calculus is close to essential
Case lists and TVAs are really persuasive to me
Usually, competing interpretations > reasonability
As a 2N, I love a good cheaty and tricky counterplan, so I'll consider it more than the average judge.
Honestly, you can read any K in front of me
Specific links can only help you
- I'm fine with them - the closer you are to the topic the better
- I'm more inclined to say that you get a perm
the neg [overview]
- Same thing as topicality portion
- I've voted for framework and I've voted against framework - as long as you debate it well I'm all for it
K v K
- My favorite debates to judge when done well, and my least favorite when done messily
- Similar to the topicality paradigm
- I don't really have a strong opinion on condo
- I'm inclined to think that perf con isn't a voting issue
*I'm fine with tag-team cross-x, as long as you give the person who's supposed to question and/or answer the chance to do so
*Also if an argument is dropped, I won't give it weight unless you extend the argument. Don't just point out it's dropped
- I don't really have that many strong opinions on debate that'll affect the decision. I prefer to be convinced of your argument despite my opinion.
wsd & extemp
I've judged only some wsd & speech, BUT I have done some debates in wsd and know a bit about speech and understand the structure. Honestly, just debate, argue, and convince well and I will judge to the best of my abilities.
I competed in World Schools Debate in Mexico City for 3 years, currently I coach BP for my university Instituto Autónomo de México (ITAM) and I am co-coach of Team Mexico for WSDC 2021, alongside Ilhui Bravo Rosas.
I am currently not affiliated with any schools or institutions outside of Mexico.
I am a hired judge for this tournament. I graduated in 2017 from The Churchill College in Mexico City. Currently I am enrolled at the Instituto Autónomo de México in Mexico City, I study economics :)
College debate experience:
I participate mostly in the spanish language BP circuit, events competed in include:
TMD 2018 Open Broke 9th (Quarterfinals)
Libre Open 208 Open Broke 3rd (Finalist)
5th Best Speaker
Copa UNAM 2019 Open Broke 3rd (Finalist)
7th Best Speaker
Relámpago 2019 Open Broke to Final
Panam UDC 2019 Open Broke 9th (Semifinalist)
7th Best Speaker
CLD 2019 Open Broke 7th (Finalist)
9th Best Speaker
CND 2019 Open Broke 17th (Semifinalist)
9th Best Speaker
CMUDE 2019 Open Broke 7th (Octos)
5th best Speaker
Libre Open 2019 Open Broke 2nd (Finalist)
TIID 2019 Open Broke as a judge (Quarters)
ADMM 2020 Open Broke 8th (Semifinalist)
4th Best Speaker
Round Robin 2020 -
Torneo INE 2020 Open Broke 1st (Finalist)
2nd Best Speaker
UNED 2020 Open Broke 16th
Torre 2020 Open Broke 4th (Finalist)
TMD 2020 Open Broke 3rd (Quarterfinals)
E-CND Open Broke 1st (Finalist)
Tournaments as Adj Team in BP tournaments:
Torneo INE Categoría menor 2020
CMUDE trailer 2020
CNDI Perú 2021
World Schools debate coaching experience:
- Team Mexico WSDC 2021 co-coach.
- Team Mexico’s Development Team Coach 2020
- Mexican Debate Summer Camp from 2017-2019
I have judged World Schools debate for 4 years now. TFA state will be the first World Schools tournament of 2021 that I judge. I judge regularly for the Mexican World Schools circuit, since 2020 I have judged on two occasions on USA tournaments and at the Winter Holiday Open tournament as a hired judge.
I have NO experience in the following formats:
- I have chaired a WS round before. Chairing a WS round involves calling on speakers to present their speeches, considering each and every speaker's remark, judging based on what happened during the round , not what could've happened, or what I personally would have liked to hear, pondering each argument made by each speaker, and making sure the panelists fill their ballot and send them on time.
A WS debate is made up of two teams, proposition and opposition, proposition is for the motion of the debate, opposition is against. Both teams are made up of three speakers that participate in a particular role, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and the reply speeches. The first three speeches are sustantive speeches, the last speech is the reply speech, which will be delivered by the first speaker or the second speaker of the round. This means a single speaker from both teams will do two speeches. Sustantive speeches are 8 minutes long, reply speeches are 4 minutes long. Points of information are allowed between the first and the seventh minute of the sustantive speeches, POI's may not be given during the reply speech.
I take thorough notes with many colour pens and markers :) every speaker's speech is noted, along with POI's and each speaker's response,
I believe practical and principled are equally valuable in a round, I don't prefer one over another. I evaluate the analysis delivered in order for the argument to be proven true, I evaluate the impact of each argument and the construction and justification for the given impact. I also refer back to the metrics or burden of proof presented at the beginning of the debate to evaluate the arguments.
I evaluate strategy through the POI's given in a round, through the congruency of a team (for example if there is a clear contradiction between speakers, that tells me there's a lack of strategy), and sometimes time management of a speaker in their speech (if the second argument in a 1st speech is given past 7 minutes, for example, that's a lack of strategy).
if a speaker is going too fast I would deduct points from the style section of their speech. I do want to clarify, I speak English fluently and there is no need to speak extra slowly for me, please speak as you would normally.
Evidence isn't necessary in order for an argument to be true, an argument without evidence should be sustained through analysis and mechanization of that argument. Models can be criticized, however, proposition can claim fiat in carrying out what the motion is asking them to do. Models and countermodels should respond to; who is going to carry out the model (what institution for example), how are they going to carry it out? When... etc.
I'm not impressed by sophistry.
Table of Contents
World Schools Paradigm
Started Judging: 2008
Started Coaching: 2010
Events Coached: LD, PF, Policy, Extemp, World Schools
Delivery: I don't want emails, flash drives, or printed copies. This is a speaking event and I plan to judge your argument based on your delivery of your case and rebuttals. I can handle fast talking, but no longer try to keep up with spreading. There is no educational merit, and many downsides, to encouraging students to speak at vastly accelerated paces.
Cross (excluding World Schools): I expect debaters to be polite during cross, but do not consider interruptions to be impolite. I understand cross time is limited and if you have the information you want and wish to move on to another question I understand.
RFD - If the tournament allows it, I will be happy to give my decision and discuss as long as competitors want/tournament time allows. If the tournament doesn't allow it, I will not disclose. If you try to get me to disclose at a tournament that doesn't allow disclosure I will take points away from you.
Overview: LD is a moral debate that is meant to look at the underlying value of an issue. I favor a broad based approach that looks at the totality of the resolution vs. cases that over-focus on single examples or instances.
Values: I expect both debaters to have a value/standard/etc that clarifies the moral principle they are pushing for. Broadly speaking, I recognize values as automatic principles that don't need additional defense. If you tell me the most important moral issue is ensuring liberty/equality/artistic expression/self-actualization, I'll accept it as good. Having a sentence or two to explain the value/why you think it is important can be very helpful, but I don't need a long defense of the concept.
It is very hard, though not impossible, to disprove a value during a debate. Generally I expect to see the debate be about whether each side actually accomplishes the value they have outlined, not whether the value is morally good (the latter question becomes very hard for any person to judge without bringing their personal feelings into the debate).
Burden: Each side in LD has an equal burden. There is no Aff presumption that they get to set the terms, nor is there any Aff burden that they have to prove more than the Neg.
Flow: While I expect debaters to argue on the flow structure, I'm more looking to the upholding of the central principle (value) then whether debaters covered every contention.
Plans: I don't want to hear a plan and they usually don't make sense within the context of LD. That said, there are two very different types of plans that come up.
Broad explanations: Presume the motion: 'The US should end fossil fuel subsidies.' If the plan was that that US would end all payments to fossil fuel companies over the next five years, that would be fine. That's a common sense interpretation of what the motion is asking. I consider that more of an observation on the burdens of the resolution.
Narrow Plans: Taking the above motion, if the plan was 'the US will end payments to coal companies', to me that would be a bad plan. The Aff in this instance is trying to unfairly narrow the debate. The resolution's burden was end fossil fuel subsidies, not to end one type of fossil fuel subsidies. In such an example if the Neg said the Aff hadn't upheld the resolution, I'd almost certainly agree.
Both sides in a debate have an obligation to argue the entirety of the motion. Single, narrow examples on either side that don't relate to a broader principle are not enough to prove your side correct or the opponent's side incorrect.
PF is meant to be delivered to a general audience, not to people experienced with debate. Thus I will judge it as who did better communicating to a general audience. Please keep debate jargon to a minimum.
Final Focus is meant to narrow down the debate and explain the most important issues. It should be between 1 and 3 points. A final focus should not try to explain every single contention.
Scoring - My ultimate decision will be based on the final score. Even if I feel like a certain team won, if the points say otherwise, I decide on the points. Unless I hear differently at judge instructions my scoring standard is -
68 - 70: A fine speech. This was either a performance that was neither particularly good nor bad, or had some really good moments mixed with some really bad moments.
64 - 67: A speech below standard. This range doesn't say that a speaker gave a bad speech, just that the speech was either underwhelming or had some problems.
71 - 75: A great speech. The speaker hit good points, spoke well, used their time well, etc.
Above a 75 is reserved for truly amazing speeches. On a level of "I ran out of the room to tell other people how amazing it was".
Below 64 is reserved for a speech with serious mistakes. The most likely is a speech that is off topic/framework and thus suffers on the content and strategy score.
What I'm looking for in each area:
Content - Logic, analysis, explanation, and evidence. Good content should be backed up by logic and explanation, but also thoroughly explained for how it helps your side. Just stating an opinion, even of an expert, on an issue isn't enough; it needs to be explained and tied to the overall argument.
Style - This is scored just like an oratory. I look for things like eye contact, understandable speed, clarity, emphasis through tone/volume changes or pauses to call emphasis to key points, and emotion and interest. Humor and/or emotional intensity may gain points if appropriate for the motion.
Strategy - Was the speech well put together? Was time well spent on the key issue, or where minor portions of the debate given too much attention? Did the speaker belabor arguments he/she had already won?
POIs - I expect a speaker to take between two and three POIs during his/her speech. These should be spread throughout the speech. If the first two are taken, and all others ignored, I will not count that as taking a good number of POIs.
If only one POI is taken I will give a slight penalty. If zero POIs are taken that will get a major penalty.
Taking excessive POIs will hurt the strategy score. The only exception to this is if the speaker is winning (improving their side) when taking POIs - in that case continuing to take POIs is acceptable.
If a team is not trying to ask their opponent POIs, or asking very infrequently, then obviously the requirement to take two to three disappears.
POIs should be no longer than 15 seconds. That is the absolute max amount of time I think you have a right to take from an opponent. The speaker has the right to cut the POI off at any point and answer/continue.
Barraging - I think it is reasonable to stand 12 to 15 times during an opponent's speech (this is for the entire opposing team). Even going up to 20 could be acceptable. More than that though and you are taking away from the opponent's right to give a speech. For online WSD this should be cut in half.
I will take away/reward to 2 points per speaker based on quality of POIs. A bad POI is one that the opponent is able to use to strengthen their own case or just a waste of time. A good POI strengthens the case of the deliverer or points to a weakness in the opponent's argument.
Framework/Terms of Debate - The prop has the right to set the framework for the debate. I define framework as an explanation of what the motion means, what, if any, specific burdens exist, what, if any, things are trying to be achieved, and what, if any, mechanism is being used (if any of those are not being done, because they don't need to be, you don't need to tell me, I'll understand). This framework should be fair and reasonable.
Fair - Does it give both teams an equal chance to win. If you try to define the debate in a way that substantially benefits your team, even if all your definitions are correct/unchallenged, you will lose.
Reasonable - Was this framework something that a person would consider the motion to mean upon hearing it? This framework should be based more on a common understanding of the words, not strict dictionary definitions.
Example - If the motion was 'THBT the death penalty is a just punishment for heinous crimes' and the prop tried to argue that they only had to show a single example, that would be a bad framework. It's not fair to the opposition and no person who was asked that motion would think they were being asked about a single hypothetical instance. If the proposition defined it as 'only in cases of premeditated murder' or 'for war crimes or crimes against humanity', either of those would most likely be fair.
Challenging Framework - If you believe the framework is unfair/abusive/unreasonable, you may challenge it. If you want to make a slight adjustment/clarification/addition you may also do that, but here I am focusing on a challenge to the entire framework proposed.
Alternative - You must offer an alternative framework. This must conform to the above standards of fair and reasonable.
First Thing - The challenge to the framework must be the first thing in the speech. If the prop disagrees with the opposition framework, it must be the first thing in their speech (and so on until there is an agreement on framework or we're out of debate).
Debate under that Framework - You must debate under the framework proposed at the beginning of the speech. You may not debate under both frameworks. If you believe you can debate under the proposition framework then that is what you should have been doing.
I don't like framework debate. If the proposition framework is fair and reasonable and the opposition challenges it, the opposition will probably lose. Likewise if the proposition proposes an unfair framework, they will likely lose.
When a speaker finishes, the next speaker should promptly proceed to wherever speeches are being given. There is no prep time. You may organize your materials, but you should not be having a conversation with your teammates. Once you get to the speaking position please confirm that I am ready for you to begin.
General Dislikes (All Debates)
If a team falsifies their evidence I will always vote them down. I do not care about the level of impact it had on the debate or whether the mistake was done via maliciousness or negligence. I see falsification as any of the following:
-Creating a piece of evidence
-Changing the wording of the evidence to alter meaning
-Cutting the evidence in a way to leave out arguments that might hurt your case.
I will also punish misinterpretations of the evidence, though the degree of penalty is determined by the level of misinterpretation. I see this as situations where the speaker makes substantial errors about the quality of the source, who paraphrases the evidence in a manner that is not accurate, or misunderstands the point the author was making.
Things I commonly see that I dislike
"My opponent did not attack X contention, therefore they must agree." This isn't true. If an opponent hasn't gotten to an argument in the time allowed for them to make their initial arguments, they can not offer any new evidence, but that doesn't mean they agree. The fact that they have their own case means they have principles that disagree with you and they can always argue why their side is more important. Also, many times people will claim their opponent hasn't attacked a certain contention when I have on my flow that they have.
"If I can prove just a 1% chance of this impact, I should win this debate." This is a profoundly silly line of argument.
"My evidence says I'm right" "Well, my evidence says I'm right", "What my opponent is forgetting is that my evidence says I'm right". I commonly see debates that just become a circle of the debaters going back to the evidence they read that backed their side and inherently presuming their evidence is superior to their opponents. During evidence clashes someone has to explain why their evidence is superior: more topical, better source, more logical, etc.
If you have an important piece of evidence, please explain the validity of the source if the name doesn't explain it (major news organizations, magazines, politicians, college institutions, could have an explanation, but don't need one per se). If I just hear 'According to Williams in 2017', I have no idea who Williams is. I'll evaluate whatever you say as if you'd delivered it without a source if you don't explain why the source matters.
"My evidence is more recent so you must prefer it." In certain cases recency is important, but it has to be explained why.
Theory issues are a check for fairness. Ideally, theory should never come up in a "good" debate, but they do need to exist.
I define theory as arguments that in some way deal with your opponent(s) having violated the structure of what a "good" debate should be. Examples: they are off topic, their delivery is inappropriate, they aren't providing their evidence, etc. Issues that don't have anything to do with the core resolution/motion, but based off how they are dealing with it.
To me, if you run theory you are basically accusing your opponents of cheating/being abusive. This is the most important issue in debate, but one that should only be run if you believe it to be true. If you run a theory argument that is itself abusive (ex: topicality against an obvious topical argument), I will hold it against you.
Hi! I competed mainly in WSD in high school and attended WSDC my junior and senior years of high school. I also competed regularly in PF and Congress so am familiar with those two formats as well.
A couple of specific things:
Please make sure that your arguments contain both warrants and impacts. This may seem obvious, but as a judge I need to be clear on why the argument you are making is A) actually true on your side (and more importantly, HOW it comes to be true) and B) indicates a unique advantage to your side that cannot easily be co-opted by the other side. I also need to understand why this argument is important (i.e. its impact). It is difficult for me to evaluate an argument if you skip either of these two components (e.g. repeating the tag of an argument does not mean you get to claim its impact).
On that note, back half must must must weigh. Neither team needs to win all its arguments but I do want to know why the arguments that you can reasonably claim to win are more important than the arguments the other side can reasonably claim to win.
Both your demeanor and your arguments should indicate to me that you are being reasonable and taking your opponents seriously. You should ideally attempt to engage with the “best case” of your opponents’ arguments, and avoid being dismissive of the other side’s case. This goes without being said, but you should also treat your opponents with the highest level of respect.
I look forward to hearing the debates!
Very excited to judge world schools. I've judged it a few times over the past couple of years (because I'm usually in LD and Policy land). I did it in high school as well.
The biggest thing I want to see in rounds is impacting and weighing. Don't just recap the argument for me, tell me what happens and why it is important. Otherwise, you should be just fine!
I've been mostly judging/working with WSD this year so my ability to flow spreading is honestly terrible. I can handle above conversation speed but past that you run the risk of me missing things. All my preferences on arguments are the same but the way you deliver has to change.
I'd love to be on the email chain. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm the current assistant coach at Coppell High School where I also have the lovely opportunity to teach Speech & Debate to great students. I did LD, Policy, and Worlds in High School (Newark Science '15) and a bit of Policy while I was in college (Stanford '19). I'm by no means "old" but I've been around long enough to appreciate different types of debate arguments at this point. As long as you're having fun, I can feel it and will probably have fun listening to you, too!
Pref shortcut for those of you who like those:
Theory (if it's your PRIMARY strat - otherwise I can be preffed higher): 3
Credentials that people seem to care about: senior (BA + MA candidate) at Stanford, Director of LD at the Victory Briefs Institute, did LD, policy, and worlds schools debate in high school, won/got to late elims in all of those events, double qualled to TOC in LD and Policy. Did well my freshman year in college in CX but didn't pursue it much after that. Now I coach and judge a bunch.
LD + Policy
Literally read whatever you want. If I don't like what you've read, I'll dock your speaks but I won't really intervene in the debate. Don't be sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, or a classist jerk in the round. Don't make arguments that can translate to marginalized folks not mattering (this will cloud my judgement and make me upset). Otherwise have fun and enjoy the activity for the 45 or 90 mins we're spending together! More info on specific things below:
I get this. The role of the ballots/framing is really helpful for me and usually where I look first.
I understand this. If reading against a K team I'd encourage you to make argument about how fairness/education relates to the theory of power/epistemology of the K. Would make all of our lives better and more interesting.
I also understand this. But don't abuse the privilege. I am not a friv theory fan so don't read it if you can (or else I might miss things as you blip through things).
I understand this too. Slow down when the cards are shorter so I catch the tags.
I don't default to anything necessarily however I do know my experiences and understandings of debate were shaped by me coming from a low income school that specialized in traditional and critical debate. I've been around as a student and a coach (I think) long enough to know my defaults are subject to change and its the debaters' job to make it clear why theory comes first or case can be weighed against the K or RVIs are good or the K can be leveraged against theory. I learn so much from you all every time I judge. Teach me. Lead me to the ballot. This is a collaborative space so even if I have the power of the ballot, I still need you to tell me things. Otherwise, you might get a decision that was outside of your control and that's never fun.
On that note, let it be known that if you're white and/or a non-black POC reading afropessimism or black nihilism, you won't get higher than a 28.5 from me. The more it sounds like you did this specifically for me and don't know the literature, the lower your speaks will go. If you win the argument, I will give you the round though so either a) go for it if this is something you actually care about and know you know it well or b) let it go and surprise me in other ways. If you have a problem with this, I'd love to hear your reasons why but it probably won't change my mind. I can also refer other authors you can read to the best of my ability if I'm up to it that day.
Last thing, please make sure I can understand you! I understand spreading but some of y'all think judges are robots. I don't look at speech docs during the round (and try not to after the round unless I really need to) so keep that in mind when you spread. Pay attention to see if I'm flowing. I'll make sure to say clear if I can't understand you. I'll appreciate it a lot if you keep this in mind and boost your speaks!
I have limited experience in LD though i've competed in traditional formats of it. Throughout High School my main event was Worlds School Debate, so do with that what you will.
I enjoy clash more than anything. Clearly outline to me the arguments you are winning and the arguments that it engages with. I don't like doing the guesswork for competitors, leave nothing up to interpretation! I am not much of an 'intervention' judge so I will judge solely based on what happens in the round and which arguments are dropped/extended UNLESS both sides don't provide a clear path to ballot, then ill intervene ;)
Be nice to each other. dont be racist, or homophobic, or transphobic. that would suck and i'll def dock you for that. also, i am not super great at flowing spreading, so maybe keep it a bit slow for me. also, i value logic and analysis over random cards.
have fun, my pronouns are they/them :)
add me to the email chain - email@example.com
Notre Dame high school - 2018
more school - 2022
Clear, both argumentatively and speaking wise, debates are good. Unclear and not ideologically consistent arguments are not as good. Teams that tell good stories, see how arguments interact with each other and contextualize warrants to the round are winning more debates. These are largely macro level skills built by being in lots of debates and thinking about how arguments work outside of debates. Debaters that are having fun are also probably happier and gaining more from the activity.
There is an inherent risk in presenting arguments, that is a good thing. Taking these types of intellectual risks helps you grow both in what you know, how you have come to know it, and in presenting knowledge into a community. Leaving your argumentative comfort zone is the only way to improve these skills, wether you are reading the new argument or a new argument is presented to you in round.
debate is an intellectual free for all, debate however you feel the most confident and comfortable.
I am not a stone tablet, i have my preconceptions on how the world works and arguments that surround the nature of our reality formulated by experiences both in and out of debate. I do think the threshold for proving subject formation through debate is maybe lower for me, but I find teams saying alt causes "school, family, work etc." are not giving warrants as to why those are larger internal links than debate to formulating world views.
I think framework is a question of competing visions/models of debate and how to operate within intellectual spaces/what types of scholarship is produced. Usually procedural fairness is an internal link that needs to be impacted - on its own saying "but fairness" is not responsive to teams who are going for subject/clash/in round impacts. I do think that the impact turn debate on fw is good and usually better than the counter interp and redefining words. Same with material alt action vs just 'scholarship' debates.
I find the internal link debate to be the most important in most of these rounds, the aff normally is better at identifying the application and relevancy of these in roads to education impacts. Not enough negative teams are defending why their model of debate is good, actually good, not just being the norm -- why are debates good under a resolutional question if the ground you claim to lose in cross ex is the process counterplan and politics disad? Why is that ground better than the education produced by the aff's ground/theory? I do think framework is a good argument and that policy debate has solid merits, but it is important to actually defend those skills.
The best arguments and debates I hear are happen when all parties are familiar with the ideas being discussed, that creates a depth based environment which is both more interesting to judge and more stimulating for debaters. Metabolization of information takes time and energy, probably why people learn so much from this activity. I think debates in which debaters have not read/understood the context in which their cards have been written, create much worse speeches and cross ex's than they realize.
If your opponents don't know why they are losing the round you aren't debating well. If you're well read on the lit base you are debating you should be able to explain it to them during your speech while still making convincing arguments that i could vote on. I would rather hear less arguments when they are explained, contextualized into some type of narrative or string of thoughts, than droning on in an overview about a theory of power with an omission link.
I do not care which team has flipped neg stop asking this question in cx, your examples and cx matter so much more than you think it does. I witness ethos fall apart so quickly through many things, not limited too: pepsi challenges, "look me in my eyes and tell me you voted on [x]", poor examples, wearing headphones during the debate, going on your phone, not flowing. All are horrible for your ethos, detrimental to your speaks, and make me SAD.
I think debate is fun, people do silly things, people make even sillier arguments. It is good to laugh about these things.
If I have judged you before the odds I remember who you are high and remember the RFD's I've given so making the same repeated errors is saddening. On the flipside seeing debaters improve across the season and years is awesome. I am rooting for you to get smarter, stronger and faster.
impact turns, evidence call outs, author quals, re-highlights, authors calling out other authors, all good things
multi plank counter plans are as many conditional worlds as there are planks unless you group them all together and say no plank kicking.
Judge kick: advocate for your position or don't. Every time i hear "judge kick the CP if we aren't winning it." I hear scared. I'll do it, but I will be unhappy.
not a fan of 'insert ev' just read it, if it is actually that good of an argument you should be reading it anyway.
School affiliation/s - please indicate all (required):
The Hockaday School
Years Judging/Coaching (required)
Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)
Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)
Check all that apply
__X___I judge WS regularly on the local level
__X___I judge WS at national level tournaments
_____I occasionally judge WS Debate
_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before
_____I have never judged WS Debate
Rounds judged in other events this year (required)
Check all that apply
____ I have not judged this year
____ I have not judged before
Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)
What does chairing a round involve? (required)
Chairing means making sure everyone is present and ready, calling on individual speakers and announcing the decision. I usually announce the decision then ask the other judges to provide feedback before providing my own.
How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? (required)
WSD is what debate would be if people stopped the tactics that exclude others from the debate and arguments. The delivery and required clash of WSD means that there is no hiding from bad arguments or from good arguments.
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? (required)
I flow on excel using techniques like other formats. I attempt to get as much of the details as I can.
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. (required)
It depends on the motion. On a motion that tends towards a problem-solution approach I will tend to prefer the practical, but on a motion that is rooted in a would or believes approach I tend towards the practical.
The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)
For me, strategy is how the speaker addresses the large clashes in the debate and compares those clashes for one another. For example, if the debate is about the efficacy of green patents I am looking for the speaker to address something that exists in the assumption that efficacy is good or bad.
WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? (required)
I do that in the style section.
WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? (required)
I tend to grant both claims as being true and then look to see if the claims are mutually exclusive. If they aren’t then I look at whether the teams advanced a burden/principle that supports their side. Included in this is an evaluation of whether a side has compared their burden/principle to the other team’s.
How do you resolve model quibbles? (required)
I don’t like to resolve these issue because they often revolve around questions of fact, which I can’t resolve in a debate where there are no objectively verified facts. I tend to go through the same process as I do when it comes to evaluating competing claims.
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? (required)
First, I think both sides have the option to have a model or countermodel, but it is not required in the debate. Second, I think about the practical and the world each side creates. If a team is comparing their world to the world of the other team then I tend to follow that logic. Hopefully, both teams are doing this and then they are using their burden/principle to explain why their world is more important for me to vote for. One item that I tend to not enjoy is when teams treat models and countermodels as plans and counterplans and attack each other’s position without a comparison. Keep in mind that reasons the other team’s position fails are not reasons your position succeeds!
If I am judging you in an event other than WSD.
I am sorry, it has been several years since I have judged anything else but WSD. I do not subscribe to the technique over truth paradigm, nor do I want to listen to a mistakes driven debate. I want to see clash, not strategies geared towards avoiding/trapping the other side. Please do not spread, I will not flow that fast and I will not go back and reconstruct your speech using a speech document. Acts of exclusion will result in low points and possible loss of the ballot. I know this is a list of do not's rather than do's so I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
I mostly judge WSD, the below applies to such.
Clarity and cohesion (as a team) are good. Build off of each other.
If you don't have enough content to fill the entire allotted time, don't feel pressured to drag it out. A good speech can be shorter than 8 minutes.
Try to resolve conflicts on definitions and assumptions quickly. Not doing so cuts into the amount of time debating the substantive points, and it helps neither side.
Debate is a performance as much as it is intellectual exercise, so try to make sure your audience can understand it -- speaking at a conversational pace is best.
Primarily a Congress/Extemp/Worlds judge.
Worlds- strategy is a big part of the game: what are you arguing and why? Find a framework/voting issues/whatever you're calling it and link arguments into the framework. Many debates come down to what the topic actually means and what the framework issues are- so tackle these head on and link your arguments into the framework.
Do a bit of everything- show the logic, weigh the impacts, think about effective delivery. I prefer arguments that are rooted in reality more so than hyperbole. Structure and logic matter a lot- stay organized, hold my hand, walk me down the flow. I like a good line by line debate, but make sure you're linking into the bigger story your team is trying to sell.
In later speeches, think through cohesion. Third constructives with brand new arguments or logic not already laid out by their teammates are likely to do more harm than good for me. Same goes with new substantives in the second constructive: I like them, but leave yourself time to develop them and don't blip them at me with 30 seconds left on the clock.
I love a good POI, but make sure you're asking something that matters and answer the question you were asked. Quality over quantity rules the day in this regard. Speakers should expect to take some, and questioners should not pepper the speaker with requests. For online debates, I prefer verbal POIs and verbal responses to those POIs (whether you take them now, later, or dismiss them).
Congress- First and foremost, this is a debate event. There should be clash, weighing of arguments, and healthy discourse. Argumentation should be realistic with clear links to the legislation. The later in the debate we go, the more clash is expected. New arguments as the 4th advocacy speech will likely not earn you much headway with me. I am particularly impressed by debaters who can synthesize debate well.
Strategy is a big part of Congress. Giving only refutations or only sponsorships does not show your range as a legislator. Parliamentary procedure should be used to advance debate AND your own interests. Debaters should be prepared to argue both sides of legislation- debaters who do so will never find themselves shut out of debate. Think twice before you volunteer to be the second consecutive speech on a given side of a topic- you're likely doing yourself a disservice. I will notice if multiple opportunities go by for you to get a speech in and you choose not to take it.
Questioning- ask strategic questions. You should be soliciting something from the speaker you can use later on in the debate or to defend points you've already made on the topic. When responding, be brief- don't ramble for the sake of killing time. Avoid leading questions that start with "are you aware" and "did you know"- if you're asking a question you already know the answer to because its fact-based, save it for your speech.
POs- I'm a big fan of an efficient, affable PO. You can absolutely get a 1 from me as the PO. The less I/the parli has to intervene, the better. Be free from bias, keep the room moving, and watch your word economy. Do not be afraid to lead. Use consensus motions to save time (e.g. "seeing no objection, I'll open the floor for docket nominations.") Run the room, don't let the room run you. Feel free to hop into the debate and give a speech if tournament rules allow.
A note on language- this should feel like Congress. I've never heard Chuck Schumer say "I affirm the bill" or Kevin McCarthy say "I stand with the negation." Model congressional behavior, not high school debate norms.
LD/PF- Here are a few things you need to know about me that you're probably not used to:
- All time counts. Either it's a speech or it's prep.
- No, I don't want to be on the email chain.
- This is an oral communication activity, not a read-along.
- Don't waste time, just debate.
- If I want to see the card, I'll ask for it. I probably won't ask for it.
- No, I won't disclose. I wrote you a ballot for you and your coach to read.
I'll vote on anything if you give me a good reason, a clear framework, and weighable impacts. I'm not likely to vote on arguments spurious to the resolution, so please debate the topic as presented. I'm not particularly interested in debates outside the scope of the topic. I do believe strongly that debate should be publicly accessible- while I can handle most arguments, a general audience should be persuaded as well as I am. As much as the line by line matters, it is how you use it to build a compelling narrative to vote for your side that really counts.
Evidence- I'm not normal when it comes to evidence. Just because you have a card doesn't mean the card is gospel. Look for the warrants. Challenge the logic, whether it has cards or not. I do not flow author names- if you say "extend the Warren card", I will have no idea what you're talking about. I very rarely ask to read evidence after the round and I'm ok with paraphrasing evidence as long as the full text is available in round. I have zero tolerance for waiting for evidence to be exchanged- if you're going to use an email chain, use it. Have all of your evidence ready to exchange the moment it is asked for. All time counts- either it's speech time or it's prep time. There's no such thing as 'off time roadmaps' and 'waiting to see the card'.
Speed kills- don't spread. You can go faster than normal conversation, but not by much. This is a communication activity after all.
Extempers- answer the question. That's my primary consideration. Sources are your friend. They should be recent and relevant. Also answer the question. Delivery should be conversational and engaging- show us your personality. Also answer the question. Think about feasibility of arguments. Then answer the question. Don't just tell me that things happened, tell me why things happened. Have I mentioned you should answer the question? Use research that is specific to the topic and shows your ability to access resources- if it's an internet-prep tournament, I expect to hear more than just what a google search pops out as the first five links. Find the good research. Then answer the question.
OO/Info- same as extemp, except replace 'answer the question' with 'defend your thesis'. I prefer OOs with interesting angles on topics and a unique perspective. In Info, I want a 'need to know'- what do you expect me to do with this information? There's a big difference between informative and persuasive: Infos that have call to actions or are describing problems in huge detail implying we should solve them aren't infos. Visual aids in Info should contribute to the understanding of the concept- I don't like VAs that are just for fun/entertainment. Note: VAs are not in fact required. If you don't need them, don't use them.
Interp- crisp, clear characterization matters. I look for continuity/flow in the cutting, believability and relatability in the performance, and a variance in emotion as the piece/cutting builds. The introduction should say something and give me a reason to watch the performance- there should be social significance and an argument laid out. Particularly for POI and program cuttings in Poetry, I'm looking to see if you have an interesting argument and if the lit says what you say it says. I want to see characters that feel real and grow as the piece progresses. Less is more- use all your communicative skills to convey emotion. There are ways to show anger other than yelling, there are ways to show sadness other than screaming.
A Note on Time in Speech Events- prepared events should not require time signals (you should know roughly how long your speech is). I do not believe the grace period is an excuse to add 30 seconds to performances, especially in extemp. I'll give you a couple of seconds leeway as a benefit of the doubt, but if you are clearly abusing the grace period, I will have issues.
I will listen to most arguments. I have problems with most theory arguments in LD. Topicality is like the death penalty so I proceed with care. I understand policy arguments and kritiks. I flow most of the time. If you have questions about what I think about your arguments you should ask.
I believe debaters should be civil to each other. I would prefer that high school students not use foul language in debates.
I am ok with performance debates. I do believe the teams should engage the topic. If a team chooses not to engage the topic, then I will give the other team leeway to deal with the lack of engagement.
Reverse voting issues do not make sense in most instances.
I am ok with counterplans and disadvantages.
I will vote for the team that makes the most sense at the end of the debate.