John Lewis SVUDL Invitational formerly SCU Dempsey Cronin
2022 — NSDA Campus, CA/US
Novice LD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I have been a parent judge since November 2022. I have primarily judged LD but have judged one round of Parli. Please speak clearly at moderate speed so that I can understand your arguments. Please be polite to your opponent. Please provide sufficient evidence for your arguments when asked by your opponent. Don’t introduce new evidence in final speech.
I am a parent judge. If I am judging your round, here are some things to keep in mind:
- Talk at a reasonable pace. I do not like spreading.
- Clarity is really important for speaker points
- Make sure your contentions are well backed up with evidence to convince me that your side is what I should vote for
- Be respectful to your opponent
Overall, have fun and enjoy the debate
- My name is Samir Boubezari. I am a parent judge and this is my third time judging debates.
- I vote on any argument that is clearly explained and articulated. It doesn't matter how fast you are if I can't understand your arguments. Please explain the claim, show the impact and the reason why you should win
- Debate is a professional activity showing great respect between the opponents. No need for aggressive and useless attacks to win and instead show you have a strong argument/case.
- I am open to listen and flow all kinds of affirmatives/Negs as long as it is clearly explained and supported by strong arguments
I competed in LD four years and qualified to the CHSSA state in Policy. Therefore I will always be flowing the rounds I Judge!
In LD I look for these things:
-cross examination- I like a good cross examination because I find it clarifies what both the AFF and NEG really are arguing. I take note of the questions being asked and if theres any contradictions they tend to come out in cross examination 95% of the time.
-Definitions:if you define something, do not have 4 definitions for 1 word. Select one that is strong. Having multiple definitions is confusing.
- Theory:if you run theory, argue it well. I have judged rounds with theory in them and do not have an issue with it.
- Make your voter issues known in the last speech
-K affs--> I am okay with, however if you are argue with a K aff, use evidence that STRONGLY supports your case and the resolution.
-Make sure what you are arguing is topical to the resolution.
If you spread make it known prior to speaking.
firstname.lastname@example.org for the email chain
I debated in college policy for three years at both Columbia and Dartmouth, winning a few regionals and clearing at majors. In high school, I debated primarily local LD with some national circuit experience my senior year, and I'm now the Director of LD at VBI and an Assistant Coach at Apple Valley and coach a few independent LDers.
Online debate: I flow on my computer so I won't be looking at the Zoom and don't care whether your camera is on or not. You should locally record all your speeches in case your WiFi cuts out in the middle.
Tech > truth. My goal is to intervene as little as possible - only exception is that I won't vote on args about out-of-round practices, including any personal disputes/callouts (except for disclosure theory with screenshots). I probably come across as more opinionated in this paradigm than I am when evaluating rounds since non-intervention supersedes all my other beliefs about debate. However, I still find it helpful to list them so you can get a better idea of how I think about debate (and knowing that it's impossible to be 100% tech > truth, so ideological leanings might influence close rounds).
Debates over evidence quality are great and re-highlighted ev is always a plus.
Evidence matters but spin > evidence - don’t want to evaluate debates on whose coaches cut better cards.
Extra-topical planks and intrinsicness tests are theoretically legit and an underutilized aff tool vs both DAs and process CPs.
I don't think a risk of extinction auto-outweighs under util and err towards placing more weight on the link level debate than on generic framing args unless instructed otherwise - this also means I place less weight on impact turns case args because they beg the question of whether the aff/neg is accessing that impact to begin with.
Soft left affs have a higher chance of winning when they challenge conventional risk assessment under util rather than util itself.
Zero risk exists but it's uncommon e.g. if the neg reads a politics DA about a bill that already passed.
Case debate is underrated - some aff scenarios are so bad they should lose to analytics.
Impact turns like warming good, spark, wipeout, etc. are fine - I'm unsympathetic to moralizing in place of actual argument engagement (also applies to many K practices).
Smart, analytic advantage counterplans based on 1AC evidence/internal links are underrated.
Immediacy and certainty are probably not legitimate grounds for competition, but debate it out.
Textual competition is irrelevant (any counterplan can be made textually competitive) and devolves to functional competition.
I'll judge kick unless the aff wins that I shouldn't (this arg can't be new in the 2AR though).
I like good T debates - lean towards overlimiting > underlimiting (hard for a topic to be too small) and competing interps > reasonability (no idea what reasonability is even supposed to mean) but everything is up for debate.
Generally think precision/semantics are a prior question to any pragmatic concerns - teams should invest more time in the definition debate than abstract limits/ground arguments that don't matter if they're unpredictable.
Plantext in a vacuum seems obviously true - this does not mean that the aff gets to redefine vague plantexts in the 2AC/1AR but rather that both sides should have a debate over the meaning of the words in the plan and their implications.
I care a lot about logic (and by extension predictability/arbitrariness impacts) - this means that competition should determine counterplan legitimacy and arguments that are not rooted in the resolutional wording or create post hoc exceptions for particular practices (like “new affs justify condo” or “process CPs are good if they have solvency advocates”) are unpersuasive to me. That said, I err against intervention - I dislike how judges tend to inject their ideological biases into T/theory debates more than substance debates.
I default to theory being a reason to reject the arg not the team, except for condo.
I don't see how condo can be anything but reject the team - sticking the neg with the CPs is functionally the same since they conceded perms when they kicked them. Infinite condo is the best neg interp and X condo should lose to arbitrariness on both sides - either condo is good or it’s not. I personally think infinite condo is good but don’t mind judging condo debates.
I think competition drives participation in debate and procedural fairness is a presupposition of the game - the strongest opinion in this paradigm.
While I’ve voted for Ks, I don’t think they negate - the best 2AR vs the K is 3 minutes on FW-neg must rejoin the plan with a robust defense of fairness preceding all neg impacts. Affs lose when they over-allocate on link defense and adopt a middle-of-the-road approach that makes too many concessions/is logically inconsistent.
Line by line >> long overviews for both sides.
Ks that become PIKs in the 2NR are new args that warrant new 2AR responses.
See above - while I think T-FW is just true, I'll vote for K affs/against FW if you out-tech the other team.
For the neg, turns case arguments are helpful in preventing these debates from becoming two ships passing in the night. TVAs are the equivalent of a CP (in that they're not offense) and you don't always need them to win. SSD shouldn't solve because most K affs do not negate the resolution.
For the aff, impact turning everything seems more strategic than defending a counter interp - it’s hard to win that C/Is solve the neg’s predictability offense and they probably link to your own offense.
Topic DAs vs K affs that are in the direction of the topic can also be good 2NRs, especially when turned into uniqueness CPs to hedge back against no link args.
K v K debates are a big question mark for me.
Tricks, phil, and frivolous theory are all fine, with the caveat that I have more policy than LD experience so err on the side of over-explanation. Phil that doesn't devolve into tricks is great. Some substantive tricks can be interesting but many are unwarranted, and I might apply a higher threshold for warrants than the average LD judge.
I’m a good judge for Nebel T - see the T section above.
1AR theory is overpowered but 1AR theory hedges are unpersuasive - 2NRs are better off with a robust defense of non-resolutional theory bad, RTA, etc. that take out most shells. RTA in particular is underutilized in LD theory debates.
There are too many buzzwords in LD theory that don’t mean anything absent explanation - like normsetting/norming (which debaters generally use to refer to predictability without explaining why their interp is more predictable), jurisdiction (which devolves to fairness because it begs the question of why judges don’t have the jurisdiction to vote for non-topical affs), resolvability (which applies to all arguments but never actually seems to make debates impossible to adjudicate), etc.
Presumption and permissibility are not the same and people should not be grouping them together. I default to permissibility negating and to presumption going to the side that advocates for the least change.
Conceding a phil FW and straight turning their (often underdeveloped) offense is strategic.
Speaks - these typically reflect a combination of technical skills and strategy, and depend on the tournament - a 29 at TOC is different than a 29 at a local novice tournament.
Judged 2 weekends before in 2022. This is my first in 2023.
I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing yours and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.
Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.
Here's the TL;DR version of the paradigm
I am as old-school and traditional as they come when it comes to judging.
Debate is about persuading me (as a proxy for an audience) that your position is the one I should support. I view my role as judge to be in the role of an undecided audience member attending this debate to learn about both sides of the topic. I will use the information, arguments and clash presented in this debate to move me from “undecided” to “decided.”
To do this, I rigorously compare the strengths and weaknesses of the definitions and arguments (or, in LD, the value, value criterion, and contentions) presented and rebutted to determine which side has persuaded me to support their position. I will especially compare the arguments that generate the greatest clash. Since I approach debate as an undecided audience member, I judge strictly on what you say (I mean, this is a competition where you speak your arguments, right?) and WILL NOT read your speeches or your cards, except as noted.
Come at the debate from any perspective or approach you want to--and I do welcome out-of-the-box frameworks provided they provide a reasonable space for clash and argument and can demonstrate direct relevance to the topic. I try to offer each round as blank a slate as I am capable of doing as it relates to the resolution.
Risk-taking is fine as long as you know what you are doing when you take the risk. I like humor. I am generally skeptical of disclosure theory and other "debating about debate" approaches. The game is the game. As long as everyone is in compliance with the tournament rules and the affirmative's definitions allow for clash, I am generally a very hard sell on arguments concerning fairness and disclosure--although you are welcome to try and I will give it as fair a hearing as I can.
To maximize the strength, effectiveness, and persuasiveness of your arguments, they need to be delivered clearly (NO SPREADING), with solid evidence, data, and citations (placed in context for a judge who may not be familiar with them) in a well-organized speech that is delivered TO me, not read like a drone AT me. In other words, you should seek to win on logic and argumentation, but in doing so, you cannot neglect the communications skills necessary to sell your position and ensure that your audience understands your logic and argumentation--just like you would if you were doing this to a real audience in the real world. Accordingly, I should be able to judge the debate solely on the words spoken without having to refer to documentation beyond my own notes when writing my ballot.
If you have any questions about this, ASK!
Now for those who want to get into the weeds on my approach to judging and my thinking about debate.
First and foremost, have fun
Debate should not be a slog for you or me. This paradigm, although long, is really about getting the slogging and ticky-tack nonsense out of this process. We are both giving up our weekends to participate in this. Let's enjoy it. Keep it loose.
I am generally a VERY traditional old-school judge with a VERY clear set of expectations and standards. If I had to pick a judging theory that I fit, I tend to fall into the policymaker/legislative model of judging with some purposeful appearance-style judging thrown in.
My "role" or "persona" is of an average, undecided listener looking to form an opinion on the topic
I view my role as judge to be an undecided audience member attending your debate to learn about both sides so I can form my own opinion on the topic. As that audience member, I will use what is presented in this debate to move me from “undecided” to “decided.” Accordingly, I believe debate is about persuasion--winning the minds AND hearts of the audience, which is, in this case, the judge(s). That means this activity is about all the skills of debate: research, argumentation, speech, persuasion, and rhetoric.
--Your arguments must be strong, with sound logic, solid research, and real analysis;
--Your presentation must be well-organized so the audience can follow it effortlessly without roadmaps and signposts;
--You must overcome the reasonable objections put forward by the other side while attacking their contentions, case, and/or values, especially on arguments with significant clash;
--You must show why your side has the better idea (or the other side's ideas are worse than the status quo if you are the negative and not running a counterplan);
--And you must sell all this with a persuasive delivery that seeks to connect with the audience, which means gesturing and movement, making eye contact, varying your vocal tone, showing passion, and speaking clearly and at a normal pace.
Wait! Aren't experienced judges just into technical stuff and do not consider speaking style?
Here is why I incorporate some "appearance-style" judging into my paradigm. As a competition that includes speaking, I firmly believe that debate requires you to both make strong arguments AND communicate them persuasively through your delivery. You should be connecting with your audience at all levels. In the "real world" a dry, lifeless speaker has a tough time winning over an audience no matter how good their arguments are. I hold you to the same standard.
I HATE spreading
SLOW DOWN!!! If you speak significantly faster than a normal rate of speed or if you "spread," it will show up in your comments and impact your speaks negatively. This is a debate, not a speedreading competition to crowbar 10 minutes of content into a 6-minute constructive. You cannot persuade anyone if the listener cannot follow your argument because you are flying through your speech at 250+ words per minute. "Spreading" has really damaged debate as a discipline. If this is an issue for you, please "strike" me as a judge. I will totally understand. I will say CLEAR once and only once if it is too fast.
I make every effort to come into the round agnostic as it relates to the resolution
I am agnostic about both the topic of the debate and how you build your case--it simply has to be both comprehensible enough and persuasive enough to win. You can approach the case from any fair direction that is directly relevant to the resolution and allows for reasonable clash and interaction from the other side. Just remember that I need to clearly understand your argument and that you have to be more persuasive than your opponent. Also note the next item.
Agnosticism ≠ idiocy, therefore Truth > Tech
I will not accept an argument that the average person would immediately know is simply not true. Being agnostic about the resolution does not mean I am an idiot. The sun doesn't come up in the west. 1+1≠3. Telling me things that would obviously be false to someone with an average understanding of the world is not an argument that can flow through, even if your opponent doesn't address it. By the same token, if an argument like this IS offered and the opponent does not attack it, that will be noted as well--negatively.
Assume I know nothing about the topic beyond what an average person would know
The risk of insult is the price of clarity. As a judge, I am not as deep in the weeds on the subject matter as you are. Avoid undefined jargon, assumptions about what I already know, or assuming that I am familiar with your citations. Better to make fewer points that I do understand than to make more points that I do not. This is CRITICAL if this is a public forum round.
I only judge what I HEAR you say and how you say it
This is a debate--a competition rooted in a tradition of speech and rhetoric--not a competitive speed-reading recital of your persuasive essay writing. That means I want to HEAR your speech and citations, which is really hard for me to do if you spread. Let me be clear. I will not read your speech or look at your cards (unless there is some question about the validity of the source). That means if you insist on spreading and I can't follow it, you are going to run into a HUGE problem on my ballot.
Part of being an effective and successful to debater is to ensure that your audience understands your arguments based on what you say without the audience having to look at a document--think about how you would address an audience in a darkened auditorium, and you will get the idea. I will make an exception about requesting cards if I have reason to question your evidence.
I reward risk-taking and humor
Don't be afraid to take some risks. Be interesting. Be funny. Maybe even a little snark, A well-chosen risk can result in big rewards in your score. Just remember they call it a risk for a reason. You will also never hurt yourself by making me laugh. Debate does not have to be somber, and it does not always have to be serious. If you are funny, be funny--provided you remain persuasive.
I pay close attention to definitions/values/value criterion
Define the terms of the resolution (and, in L-D state a value and value criterion), and then explicitly link your arguments, contentions, and rebuttals back to your definitions and values. I want to clearly understand how your arguments relate to how the debate has been framed and/or how it supports your definition and value. What is the point of taking the time to lay this out and then never mentioning them again when you get into your speech?
How I weigh your arguments
The overall strength of your case and arguments--especially where there is clash--relative to your opponent's case is paramount in earning my vote. This means the quality and development of your arguments, contentions, evidence, citations, and rebuttals are far more important to me than quantity.
--Focus on your strongest arguments rather than throwing in the kitchen sink.
--Make sure they link back to your definition and/or your value and value criterion
--Go deep with your analysis before going broad;
--Use examples and metaphors to illustrate your points;
--Tell the story coherently in a speech that is logically organized to lead me to side with your position.
Ties ALWAYS go to the negative/con
The affirmative/pro always has the burden to convince me to change the status quo and in a tie, the affirmative has failed to meet that standard.In any instance where I truly believe both sides fought the round to an absolute draw, I will cast my ballot for the negative/con. For the history nerds out there, this is based on what is known as Speaker Denison's rule, which is a convention in the British House of Commons that when the Speaker votes to break a tie, they never vote for the side that will change the status quo.
Dropped arguments do not always matter to me
Just because your opponent drops a weak argument does not mean I will flow it through. If you jam ten contentions in and the opponent only responds to 9, that does not mean the 10th argument carries, and you should win the debate because it was dropped and therefore flowed through. The quality of the dropped argument matters a lot. As long as your opponent addresses and rebuts your main arguments and effectively responds to your case overall, I will not be concerned that they dropped some weak, secondary contention, especially if they have filled their time. Obviously, not addressing a major argument will hurt any opposing case.
I never allow off-time roadmaps unless the tournament rules require me to
Unless the tournament rules state otherwise, I will not grant ANY off-time road maps. Off-time road maps are a crutch lazy debaters use to avoid getting their speech into a clear, well-organized form. Worse, being off-time, it allows the speaker to preview their arguments without the clock running--essentially giving them free time to communicate without pressure. Nonsense.
Your speech should be properly organized so that a listener can follow it without you having to spoon-feed them what you are going to do up front. If you need to do a roadmap during your allotted running time, you are welcome to burn your clock time to do so, and I will not penalize it. That said, you would be better served simply organizing your speech and, perhaps, doing some signposting.
Give your citations context so I can give them credibility
Assume I know nothing about your citation nor will I read your card unless I have reason to question the validity of your evidence. While I recognize that a citation of "Smith, 2019" is the minimum the rules often require, it has little real credibility if you don't give me some context about why the citation matters. I don't know who Smith is, where you found his material, or what he wrote in 2019. It is SO much better to say something like: "In a 2019 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Julian Smith, an expert on vaccines, wrote...." Now I know where you read it, who Smith is, and when it was written.
I pay very close attention to CX, crossfire, and POIs
While I generally don't "flow" CX/crossfire (or POIs in Parli), it does matter to me. There should be engagement and clash. Debates I have judged are occasionally won or lost in CX when one debater put the other in a logic box or otherwise made the debate impossible for their opponent to win. Use CX/crossfire (or POIs in Parli) to undermine your opponent's arguments and to expose weaknesses and logic problems in their case, rather than rehear parts of the opponent's speeches you missed the first time. Additionally:
--If you are rude during crossfire/CX by aggressively interrupting or cutting off respondents who are not filibustering, it will impact your speaks;
--If you insist on yes/no answers in crossfire/CX when more information is obviously needed to make a response, it will impact your speaks;
--If you keep asking questions in crossfire without giving your opponent a chance to ask some too, it will impact your speaks;
--If you filibuster and are dilatory to try and run out the clock in crossfire/CX (or refuse to answer at least one POI per opposing participant that asks for a POI in Parli), it will impact your speaks and;
--If you are passive and ask no questions in crossfire/CX (or make no POIs in Parli) or sit back and watch during grand crossfire without participating, it will impact your speaks.
Your public speaking and presentation skills matter to me
Your speaking skills and delivery can impact the outcome of the round. Our greatest persuasive communicators are all excellent and compelling speakers. This idea that debate is some monotone recitation with your eyes glued to a piece of paper or a screen while you stand there like a wax statue is absurd. Yes, your arguments and rebuttal of the opposition matter most, but your job does NOT stop there. You must hold the audience's interest too. It is part of the game. That means:
--Speak TO me, do not read AT me;
--Gesture and move to help communicate your arguments;
--Make eye contact;
--Vary your tone and vocal emphasis;
--Show some passion to demonstrate you really believe what you are saying.
I am the official timer of the round unless the rules say otherwise
Unless the tournament rules state otherwise, I am the official timer of the debate. You may use your timer to monitor your speaking time (but you MUST turn off any sounds or alarms or you will be penalized in your speaker points after one warning), but my time governs.
Before each speech or crossfire, I will ask, "is (are) the speaker (participants) ready? Are the opponents ready? Time begins now." At that point, speaking may start. I will announce "time has expired" when the clock runs out. You may finish your sentence if I make that announcement mid-sentence. No more speaking after that unless the tournament rules allow for a grace period or otherwise limit my discretion to end the speech. I will also update both sides about the remaining prep time during the round.
The game is the game
If something is required by the rules of the tournament, do it--if not, game on. If the tournament rules do not require it, then it is up to you if you want to disclose, etc. Arguments about disclosure, debate fairness (other than debatability of the resolution as framed by the affirmatives' definitions), etc., will meet heavy skepticism if the other team is acting within the rules of the tournament and civil behavior. I am agnostic about arguments for and against the actual resolution. I have limited interest in debates about debating--unless that is the topic. You can certainly argue it in front of me if you want, and I will do my best to take it seriously, but in almost every case you would be better served simply debating the topic and then taking up your disclosure/fairness issues with the coaches, tournament directors, and league administrators.
I will not tolerate racism, rudeness, or nonsense
If you make faces, gestures, or otherwise show disdain for the person speaking, know it will negatively impact your score. Also, anything you say or do that demeans the race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc., of ANYONE (unless you are directly quoting a relevant source or citation), WILL ruin your score. It WILL be reported to the tournament authorities.
I am a parent judge. What matters to me is that you make a convincing argument in front of me on the topic given. I would be only based on the content and quality of the debate.
Clearly state the following:
⦁ Your value/criterion for the debate and how it is relevant on your side.
⦁ Your contentions/arguments supporting your side. No spreading please. Your arguments should be clearly articulated in a way that a lay person can understand.
⦁ Citations (do not count on the number but quality and relevancy) are required. Complete lack of citations is a red flag.
⦁ Rebuttals to your opponents arguments.
⦁ Any inconsistencies on the opponents side should be brought up but in a respectful manner.
⦁ Do not evade your opponents questions during cross examination but answer respectfully and to the point.
My name is KaLeah Guptill. I competed in debate competitions my entire high school career. I competed in PF, LD, CX, EXTEMP, and Poetry/Prose. I judged in several events in several separate competitions.
My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY
All things said in the round need to be clear! You must clearly articulate while speaking whatever it is that you want me to understand, vote on and so forth. I make this stipulation in order to place the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments that are presented.
First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.
Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:
1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.
2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.
Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.
The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!
Ask any other clarification questions before the round!
I am a parent judge.
This is my second year as a parent judge. I take a very relaxed approach to judging and will entertain the same from you, so do not stress and if you have any question, I will do my best to answer.
Please limit spreading and speak at a reasonable speed, this will benefit both of us as losing me with speed and information/fact dump will not impress.
I am a volunteer judge for Wilcox HS (Santa Clara, CA) and this is my third year of judging. I have judged multiple formats (LD, PF, Parli) at both the novice and varsity levels.
Here are some things to keep in mind:
- Speak slowly and clearly. Spreading won't help if I cannot understand what you are saying.
- Keep your own time.
- Off time road maps are preferred. Deliver organized speeches, based on your off time roadmap. It's easier for me to keep track that way.
- I do take notes throughout the round so make sure you emphasize your important contentions/points. Clearly state voting issues in your final speech to tell me what to base my decision on.
- Overall, remember to remain respectful during the round (to your opponents, and to the judge). It is important to be assertive in your arguments but no yelling, interrupting, etc. I will take away speaker points if I have to.
- Please try to stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon. If you are going to use a technical term, it is imperative that you explain it to me (as the judge) as well as in the debate space.
- Lastly, remember that the goal of debate is education and productive discourse. I prioritize inclusiveness over overtechnical strategies. This means that if your opponent is a relatively new varsity debater, and cannot engage with theory, K, etc, do NOT run them. If you do run those strategies, simply to gain an easy win rather that engaging and arguing the topic with your opponent, I will NOT vote for you because you are making the debate space exclusive. I would much rather see a strict case debate (value, framework, counter plan) rather than judge high level arguments (theory, K), because at the end of the day, we want to become more educated and better informed in our society.
Otherwise, good luck and have fun!
I am a parent judge, who prefers clear speaking, logical links, elaborate policy explanation, and precise points.
Please don't assume I know everything about your topic, and be mindful of your target audience (formal).
I'm also not really a fan of jargon, so please thoroughly explain it when you use it.
I debated PF for Centerville High School in Ohio for four years and coached the middle school team for three years. I am a senior at Vanderbilt University coaching the University School of Nashville's debate team.
I competed at a few national circuit tournaments, but most of my debating was done on the local circuit. Because of this, I am not too familiar with theory and Ks. I am open to hearing these arguments, but I won't be the best at evaluating these types of arguments.
Add me to the email chain at email@example.com. If you spread, send a speech doc.
In terms of the round, here are a few things that I want to see:
1) You don't have to read direct quotes. I am fine with paraphrasing. However, if I find that you are misconstruing your evidence to make your claim, then I won't vote for that specific argument. Your speaks probably will go down as well if your opponents call you out for misconstruing evidence.
2) If you are speaking second, make sure to frontline any offense. I think it is strategic to frontline everything but at the minimum frontline turns.
3) I won't flow cross-fire, but if something major happens, make sure to address it in the next speech.
4) When extending cards and offense in the latter half of the round, make sure that you explain the warranting behind it.
5) If evidence is called, make sure to produce it in a timely manner. Also, I will call for evidence if you tell me to call for evidence.
6) Don't just dump responses. Explain what your evidence indicates and how this piece of evidence is significant in responding to your opponent's case.
7) I like to see you start weighing in rebuttal. I think it is strategic to set up the weighing earlier in the round and then carry that through summary and final focus.
How I vote:
If you want me to vote on a certain argument, it should be in both summary and final focus. Your argument should be explained in a clear manner and your impacts should be extended. Weighing your argument and impacts against your opponent's argument and impacts will make your path to the ballot easier. I will try not to intervene, but please weigh arguments comparatively to make my job easier as a judge. If not, I will have to decide which arguments are more important.
If there is no offense generated from each side (highly unlikely), then I will default to the first speaking team. If you say things that are sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, or are extremely rude in any way, I will drop you and give you low speaks. The debate should be civil and debaters should be respectful.
Please do not postround me. I do encourage you to ask questions about the round and why I voted the way I did. I am always looking for feedback to improve my judging.
If you have any additional questions, let me know.
I am a parent judge. I do not understand most of the technical expectations for various speech and debate formats. What matters to me is that you make a convincing argument. Your arguments should be clearly articulated in a way that a lay person can understand. The arguments have to be rational and follow a logical sequence. I usually do not care too much about how many references you cited in your speech/debate, although I might note a complete lack of references as a red flag. Make eye contact, be confident and speak clearly.
Enjoy debates that are fact based, with evidence where possible. Please be professional and respectful at all times. I also listen to the counters during CX carefully. Strong evidence will earn you points (over eloquence)
Background – Debater for over 6 years and an experienced judge in multiple formats.
General Notes for speakers:
· I)I appreciate organized speeches which are clear to follow. The manner, style, vocabulary and pace of the speech doesn’t matter insofar as the speech is able to communicate the depth and meaning of the argument and case.
· II)Healthy environment must be maintained during speeches i.e. AVOID: - a) condescending behavior to opponents, b) passing rude and stereotypical statements about particular community which might be offensive to majority of rational individuals, c)Racist, sexist and homophobic prejudicial behavior, d)Generally abusive and unfair tone.
· III)Use material which would be understandable by an average reasonable voter.
· IV)Customization, innovation and uniformity in arguments is always cherished
· V)Feel free to reach out to me via mail for any queries or assistance.
Arguments and Cases:
· I) I do not have any preference in terms of which Type of arguments matter more, however I sit with an open mind for the speakers to convince or sell argument want me to buy through their Persuasiveness. (you should be able to sell a comb to a bald person)
· II) Analysis to the arguments- simply stating a fact isn’t enough until and unless you prove :-a)why a particular fact matters more than others, b) how it is relevant, c)Implication of the argument, d) evidence to support the facts, e) Analysis to core issues and trends to support the consistency and applicability of an argument.
· III) Give taglines to flag out your arguments – i.e. while giving a speech which includes *why pollution is bad* - the taglines can be a) Pollution is bad because it has health hazards to humans , b) Pollution is bad because it impacts climate change and c) Pollution impacts economy. These headlines can further be analyzed.
· IV) Counter proposals/ plans – if you wish to introduce counter proposals, try to analyze and extend the comparative of the benefits of your opponent’s plan and your counter plan. For eg. You can compare it by means of feasibility, efficiency, cost benefit analysis, time saving etc.
· V) Comparative – be comparative and weigh as to why your impacts have stronger stance than your opponents. Make the specific links of “where your side is comparatively better and how?”
· VI) Uniformity – it is important to establish a clear stance of the team and becomes easier to follow. Any inconsistency in form of contradiction, doubts or hesitation shows non uniformity of the bench which reduces the integrity of the case. Insofar as the contradiction isn’t huge enough which might change the entire meaning and impacts of your case, it doesn’t impact you much with respect to speaker score, otherwise you might attract certain penalties based on the degree of contradiction.
VII) Engagement - Rebuttals and clashing is very valuable to judge the closest teams in a round. Simply reading prewritten cards aren’t enough to win a debate, you need to modify and adapt in order to outweigh your opponents. Prove why you are right and disprove your opponents. Weight your benefits with theirs, compare your harms with theirs and tell why your world is still better than your opponents.
The ballots reflected will be based on following criteria
· 1) Overall performance in terms of arguments, analysis and engagement.
· 2) Quality of speeches irrespective of whether you win or lose.
· 3) Any form of racism, sexism, ableism and homophobia seen in your speeches will tank your scores.
I will generally vote on flow, but rhetorical skill is equally important. If you're a good speaker, that alone won't get you a vote from me. Cross-examination doesn't have a lot of bearing in my decision, but I do want friendly exchange rather than talking over each other. I did LD for 2 years, so I have some experience in this format.
I vote on flow, but speaking plays into my decision quite a bit. I'm okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc. I will vote on progressive cases if it's presented well. I don't usually vote on T.
I am a parent judge who started judging in 2022 -- I have been a judge for 5+ tournaments so far. I love debate and speech and hope to help students become better debaters and speakers. One request -- please speak clearly and do not speak super-fast. There is no point in cramming too much information in your speech if your audience cannot understand any of it. Better to argue your points clearly, understandably, and forcefully.
I am an experienced parent judge (lay style, not circuit style).
I started judging in Jan 2022. Please minimize excessive spreading.
I like well-constructed, linear arguments that bear directly on the debate topic.
I do not generally comprehend "meta-rhetoric" (that is, arguments about the merits or validity of the debate question itself).
My email address for sending evidence and cases is firstname.lastname@example.org
I did PF throughout high school and parliamentary debate (APDA) at the University of Maryland. I've coached students in PF, Parli, LD, and Policy and I've judged all debate formats, though I'm most up to date with PF.
Some general things:
1. Don't be rude.
2. Rounds are evaluated based on argumentation. Speaks are evaluated based on contribution to the ballot.
3. I can handle speed as long as you remain coherent. I will never intentionally penalize you for spreading but you take on an increasing risk that I miss something on the flow the faster you speak. Send me a speech doc if you want to be safe: email@example.com
4. I will stop flowing when time is up (yes, you can finish your sentence). Keep track of each other's prep time.
5. I don't flow cross but will pay attention. For me, cross often helps clarify things (remember, I'm not an expert in the topic you're debating). If there's something from cross you'd like me to evaluate in my decision, bring it up in your speech.
Some notes on debate and flow
1. Please signpost and road-map. Telling me where you are on the flow will ensure that I am also there.
2. Tech > truth. The further from "truth" your argument strays though, the lower the threshold I have for what qualifies as a response. For instance, "no they can't" is an acceptable response to "elephants can fly".
3. I (tend to) only evaluate arguments made in the speech where they belong. Constructive arguments belong in the opening speech. Responses should be made in the first speech they can be made in (generally the subsequent speech). New arguments don't belong in the final speech.
4. Extend (and frontline) the arguments you want me to flow through. If you forget to extend it, I'll probably forget to vote on it.
5. I will only call cards if you explicitly ask me to and they matter for my decision. Hint: they almost never do.
6. Tell me how to weigh arguments or I will weigh them myself. I'm bad at weighing.
Specific argument preferences/biases
1. I am receptive to pretty much any type of argument, so long as you tell me why it matters.
2. Progressive arguments (Ks, theory) are cool. However, I offer no guarantee to keep up to date with the latest acronyms or terminology, so err on the side of explaining things more thoroughly.
a. I prefer "drop the argument" to "drop the debater". I'll consider whatever you run, but I'm more inclined to buy the former.
b. Used to be categorically against RVIs, have come around somewhat. I'm down to vote on them, but it's context dependent.
c. Still very against tricks, very receptive to theory on tricks bad. If I have to vote on them, you are almost certainly getting a low speak win.
3. Tabula rasa is fake. Neither side has to begin by proving the existence of the world or the laws of logic. Debate involves a common pool of knowledge assumed to be true. In the interest of transparency, my defaults are: policymaker role of the ballot, debates should be fair and educational, the world exists, science is correct, the earth is flat, words have meanings, consequences matter, equality good, people have free will. Feel free to make arguments challenging my assumptions, but keep in mind that you incur the burden of proof.
4. Feel free to ask questions before the round. I don't claim to be 100% perfectly unbiased, but I am very willing to clarify any pre-existing beliefs I may be bringing into the round.
5. If you say "baba yetu" in your speech, I'll sky your speaks. I'm not kidding.
-Lay Flow Judge
-Prefer Traditional Cases
-Will flow through the round, but please keep in mind that if you choose to spread, I should be able to understand the speaker and if it become too unbearable I will put my pen down.
-If you use any debate jurgen, please explain it before continuing on with your case.
-Provide definitions when necessary.
-Will not disclose.
-When it come to break rounds and you have other judges to consider, don't stress the not spreading detail and having to run a traditional case for the sake of me. I can put up with it, if the majority of judges prefer it.
In debate, I value true debating. I look for clash and actual consideration of competitor's arguments, not just person after person reading their pre-written, un-customized speeches. I also value communication. If you talk too speedily and I cannot hear distinct words, those arguments will not be accounted for in my judging. This is not to be mean, but if I can't understand you, I can't really judge you. Finally, you will be polite and respectful. Yes, I want clash, but nothing personal. Debate your opponent's points, not their personality or appearance or whatever else. Honestly, that would just make me more sympathetic to them, so don't do it. And PLEASE, no lingo. Say real people words. I do not care enough to learn every swanky fancy term for something you could just call by name, so if you use debater's slang around me, I just plain won't know what you mean, and that's not good communication.
IEs are a little different. Of course you will not be clashing, so those parts don't apply. Still, I expect you to speak clearly, and I expect to not. be. yelled. at. I don't mean I don't want to be lectured, because extemp speeches and oratories are literally lectures, but do not raise your voice at me. Get passionate, vary your tone, all that good stuff, but don't literally yell. It's kind of the same principle, if I can't hear you well and you're just being mean, I'm gonna have a harder time giving you first place.
And for POs in Congress, please, be chill. I'm not saying be lax on the rules, but in my opinion, an amicable (but not lazy!) chamber is the best kind. I don't like being yelled at. As long as everyone gets to speak and you run the room fairly, you'll be good in my book, and you'll be satisfied with your rank on my ballot.
I just want y'all to be nice to each other. You're all overachievers who choose to put on a suit and debate politics on the weekends for fun, there's no need to get nasty or cutthroat or anything l like that. You're a lot more similar than you are different, which is a good thing! Just be cool, and I'll be cool too.
Good luck, all!
Name: Shubhajit Mazumder
School Affiliation: N/A
Number of Years Judging Public Forum: - 2
Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: -
Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 8
Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 10
If you are a coach, what events do you coach? BP Debates, WSDC, AP
What is your current occupation? Competitive coach, and Brand Specialist at Japan Tobacco International
Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:
Speed of Delivery: writing down important points, trying to type as much as possible fo being able to deliver RFD
Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Comparison of both sides, depends on speaker if prefer clashes or other structure, should provide crucial points for the debate
Role of the Final Focus: unclear what final means
Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Allowed but unstrategic - left little time for rebuilding and responding to rebuttal
Topicality: important, arguments should be linked to the particular context
Plans: structure and strategy are helpful
Kritiks: depends on the format
Flowing/note-taking: I'm writing most of speeches, marking my comments to be sure after the round what i add
Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument over style
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Ideally rebuttal, conclude outcome of rebuttal in summary speech
Qualified to the TOC in LD
I don't think you should worry about reading this too closely, I'll evaluate anything and evaluate arguments however you tell me to in round and I will try to be tab as possible but I do have biases which while I can try to keep them out of debate, some will implicitly be present and I feel like it would be better for me to make you aware of them rather than pretend they don't exist.
TL/DR: These are just my preferences as to what I believe is good for debate I won't default one way or another unless there is absolutely no pushback from either side.
Regardless, a ranking of how familiar I am with things:
Policy/K/T - 1
T-FW/K Affs - 1
Theory - 2
Phil - 2
Dense Phil/ Pomo read as an NC - 3/4
Tricks - 4/5
K Affs vs FW
- Been on both sides and these are my favorite debates to judge however I probably do lean slightly neg.
- CI's are good to resolve some offense and provide uqs for an impact turn but it's not necessary.
- 2N's need to do a better job winning the terminal impact to FW, don't overinvest into reading long blocks that explain why the aff is unfair/decks clash because let's be honest, they aren't gonna contest that most of the time, focus on implicating why that is important both in the context of debate and in the context of the affirmative.
- Framework 2nr's I've thought were excellent often use the same verbiage as the aff instead of using long o/v blocks.
- TVA/SSD to resolve some offense is good, even if it doesn't
- 7 minute 2nr's entirely on the case page often get confusing for me when they lack good judge instruction -- try and be clear as to what you are doing on teh case page before you get into the lbl
- good for larp v k
- bad for k v k (biased towards the perm + often get confused a lot); if I do end up unfortunately judging one of these, judge instruction is paramount. I will evaluate these debates generally knowing that theories of power are largely compatible. So, my ballot will be a reflection of differences between the aff and the alternative and the impact to those differences. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is worse than the aff, I vote aff. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is better than the aff, I vote neg.
- lbl > long o/v's
- Framework CI = you don't need an alt unless the aff says you do and winning links is sufficient if you've won framework
- Alts that result in the aff are fine absent a 1ar warrant why they aren't (being shady in cx is kinda annoying tho)
- Only understand cap, Moten/Harney, Warren (never read this in round), and a little bit of Baudrillard -- explanation is good.
- All the interactions that people consider "k tricks" should be implicated in the 1nc or else 2ar answers are justified (saying lines in the card make the claim most often doesn't really count)
- Like this a lot
- UQS prolly controls link direction
- all cp theory can be dtd granted a warrant
- hate reading cards and I will stay away from it as much as possible but end up having to read ev in most rounds.
- defense is underrated and can def be terminal if implicated as such (i.e: bill alr passed prolly is terminal)
- solves case explanation can be new in the 2nr as long as it was in 1nc evidence
- perm shields the link/cp links to nb -- explain these args to me! I'm not v smart/takes me time esp since I don't know the topic lit most likely
- Haven't read anything besides util/Kant and a little prag -- think it's hella interesting doe if that counts for anything
- Weighing is important, spend more time explaining your syllogism and why that excludes theirs.
- TJF's prolly o/w and are the move if I'm in the back
- weird complex ev mandates not-weird not-complex explanation
- Like this
- Weigh between standards
- low threshold to vote on rvis -- still need to justify them and w/e
- reasonability should be explained and is v strategic at times -- I will not vote on an RVI if you are going for reasonability obviously
- will vote on these as long they are implicated fully in the speech they are read
- I can't flow for my life so like try and slow down a Lil bit
- did pf for 2 years, cut cards weren't a thing, people paraphrased, the average card was shorter than T definitions, and evidence was sent via url's + ctrl F -- I really don't care at all about ev ethics until it's mentioned but i'm p sure my standards for ev ethics are very stringent so if you do call it out/stake the round on it in PF you will probably win 90% of the time
- if staking the round, that should happen the moment the violation is called out. -- don't read a shell and debate it out until the 2ar and then decide you wanna stake the round instead
(i.e: Miscut 1AC ev means you should stake the round immediately after you see it BUT at the very latest after 1nc cross)
- I'm cool with post rounding -- not cool w/aggressive or toxic post rounding
- I am awfully new to LD (Started at strake my junior year) so clear judge instruction is really helpful
- Will disclose speaks, j ask
- Hate it when people steal prep (rip speaks)
- hate unclear signposting (rip speaks x2)
- Record your speeches in case audio cuts out
- if you say moo once in the round, I will bump speaks
- time yourself and stop at the timer.
Hey! I’m a Lay LD debater (NSDA Nats 22 qualifier) and a middle school coach. I use she/her pronouns. Here are a few things to keep in mind during your round!
1. Signpost clearly, especially if you’re collapsing arguments or moving to different parts of the flow. Clearly state when/where you are extending impacts/evidence as well!
2. Don't do sketchy extensions. If you mention an argument in your constructive, mostly drop it in refutations, and then completely blow it up in your voters, I’m not going to be comfortable voting on it. Extend important arguments consistently throughout the round.
3. Weigh well and weigh early. Grant your opponent their full impact and then show me why yours still matters more.
4. Don't forget about framework, especially when weighing impacts or giving voter issues. Also, I am all ears for a good framework debate, but if you and your opponent are arguing for pretty much synonymous things, please don’t waste too much time going back and forth over it.
5. Don’t spread out your opponent! I am not a huge fan of spreading online and will vote against you if you are using it in an abusive manner. Regardless of what speed you’re speaking at, make sure you’re always enunciating clearly.
Be respectful! Winning rounds feels great, but it should never be at the cost of your opponent’s well-being. During cross-examination remember that you can be assertive without being rude. If you're discussing sensitive topics, I would appreciate brief trigger warnings in your off-time roadmap or at the top of your case. Use your discretion and be mindful.
For circuit LD: If you and your opponent both agree to run a circuit round and it is allowed by the tournament, that’s fine with me. That being said, I am a lay debater and will need a clear explanation of any niche theory/philosophy arguments.
oh and pls chat with me after the round if you're a taylor swift fan :)
While judging for LD, I prefer the presenters to speak clearly and not in a fast pace so that the content can be understood clearly by everyone. Also the contestants should be respectful of each other no matter how the other is doing.
I am a volunteer parent judge and have only judged a few LD Debates. I will do my best to follow, but appreciate no flooding.
Please include me in information that is exchanged: firstname.lastname@example.org
I am a lay parent judge.
Speak slowly and have coherent arguments, no spreading.
If I can not flow it, I will not vote on it.
Do not be disrespectful, competitors will be dropped for disrespecting their opponent or the judge.
1. Clarity > Loudness > Speed.
2. Framing > Impact > Solvency. Framing is a prior question. Don’t let me interpret the debate, interpret the debate for me.
3. Truth IS Tech. Warranting, comparative analysis, and clash structure the debate.
4. Offense vs Defense: Defense supports offense, though it's possible to win on pure defense.
5. Try or Die vs Neg on Presumption: I vote on case turns & solvency takeouts. AFF needs sufficient offense and defense for me to vote on Try or Die.
6. Theory: Inround abuse > potential abuse.
7. Debate is a simulation inside a bigger simulation.
TOPICALITY: As far as I am concerned, there is no resolution until the negative teams reads Topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation resolves their voters, while also proving abuse. The affirmative either has to win a no link we meet, a counterinterp followed up with a we meet, or just straight offense against the negative interpretation. I am more likely to vote on inround abuse over potential abuse. If you go for inround abuse, list out the lost potential for neg ground and why that resolves the voters. If you go for potential abuse, explain what precedents they set.
FRAMEWORK: When the negative runs framework, specify how you orient Fairness & Education. If your FW is about education, then explain why the affirmative is unable to access their own pedagogy, and why your framework resolves their pedagogy better and/or presents a better alternative pedagogy. If your FW is about fairness, explain why the affirmative method is unable to solve their own impacts absent a fair debate, and why your framework precedes Aff impacts and/or is an external impact.
DISADVANTAGES: Start with impact calculation by either outweighing and/or turning the case. Uniqueness sets up the timeframe, links set up probability, and the impact sets up the magnitude.
COUNTERPLANS: Specify how the CP solves the case, a DA, an independent net benefit, or just plain theory. Any net benefit to the CP can constitute as offense against the Permutation.
CASE: Case debate works best when there is comparative analysis of the evidence and a thorough dissection of the aff evidence. Sign post whether you are making terminal defense arguments or case turns.
KRITIKS: Framing is key since a Kritik is basically a Linear Disad with an Alt. When creating links, specify whether they are links to the Aff form and/or content. Links to the form should argue why inround discourse matters more than fiat education, and how the alternative provides a competing pedagogy. Links to the content should argue how the alternative provides the necessary material solutions to resolving the neg and aff impacts. If you’re a nihilist and Neg on Presumption is your game, then like, sure.
PLANS WITH EXTINCTION IMPACTS: If you successfully win your internal link story for your impact, then prioritize solvency so that you can weigh your impacts against any external impacts. Against other extinction level impacts, make sure to either win your probability and timeframe, or win sufficient amount of defense against the negs extinction level offense. Against structural violence impacts, explain why proximate cause is preferable over root cause, why extinction comes before value to life, and defend the epistemological, pedagogical, and ethical foundations of your affirmative. i might be an "extinction good" hack.
PLANS WITH STRUCTURAL IMPACTS: If you are facing extinction level disadvantages, then it is key that you win your value to life framing, probability/timeframe, and no link & impact defense to help substantiate why you outweigh. If you are facing a kritik, this will likely turn into a method debate about the ethics of engaging with dominant institutions, and why your method best pedagogically and materially effectuates social change.
As a 2A that ran K Affs, the main focus of my research was answering T/FW, and cutting answers to Ks. I have run Intersectionality, Postmodernism, Decolonization, & Afropessimism. Having fallen down that rabbit hole, I have become generally versed in (policy debate's version of) philosophy.
K AFF WITH A PLAN TEXT: Make sure to explain why the rhetoric of the plan is necessary to solve the impacts of the aff. Either the plan is fiated, leading a consequence that is philosophically consistent with the advantage, or the plan is only rhetorical, leading to an effective use of inround discourse (such as satire). The key question is, why was saying “United States Federal Government,” necessary, because it is likely that most kritikal teams will hone their energy into getting state links.
K BEING AFFS: Everything is bad. These affs incorporate structural analysis to diagnosis how oppression manifests metaphysically, materially, ideologically, and/or discursively, "We know the problem, and we have a solution." This includes Marxism, Settler Colonialism, & Afropessimism affs. Frame how the aff impact is a root cause to the negative impacts, generate offense against the alternative, and show how the perm necessitates the aff as a prior question.
K BECOMING AFFS: Truth is bad. These affs point to complex differences that destabilize the underlying metanarratives of truth and power, "We problematize the way we think about problems." This includes Postmodern, Intersectionality, & Performance affs. Adapt to turning the negative links into offense for the aff. Short story being, if you're just here to say truth is bad, then you're relying on your opponent to make truth claims before you can start generating offense.
This is the second time that I participated as a judge. Please deliver your arguments in a clear, slow manner and emphasize your key points.
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it
My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...
for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later
1. yes, i flow
2. yes, speed is fine
3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )
4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running
5. ask questions
TLDR: I am an interventionist judge that prefers truth over tech. The way to get me to get me to buy your arguments is to explicitly explain the link chain running through your case and spend LOOOOTS of time on the warrants and links for each card you read, each off-case, and each rebuttal. Just spreading piles of cards will get you dropped. I do weighing and cross-application myself as I flow, only spend time on it if you say something non-obvious, otherwise I ignore it. If you want to win on framework, focus on it almost exclusively, as blippy ink all over the flow for everything is too easy for me to disregard. It's not that I prefer traditional debate to progressive, it's that I want progressive debate to be used to raise the skill ceiling rather than lowering the skill floor.
Edit for Congress and Parli: If you are an opening/authorship speaker, you have a natural disadvantage, try to have at least one preemptive response to an obvious argument the opponents will bring up, otherwise, you risk reading non-interactive material purely based on how the rest of the debate goes. For parli this is less of a problem, so be sure to carefully and responsibly frame the debate so that other teams can interact without going too far afield.
Edit: I DO NOT VOTE ON CROSS APPLICATION ALONE. YOU MUST WIN YOUR CASE FIRST TO CROSS APPLY. SAY IT BRIEFLY IN YOUR FIRST SPEECH. BUT SAVE THE EXTENDED WEIGHING FOR THE END, DONT WASTE YOUR SPEECH ON CA WHEN YOU SHOULD BE ATTACKING OPPONENT'S WARRANTS.
CARDS ARE JUST DATA. YOU MUST STILL SUPPLY AND EXPLICITLY EXPLAIN THE WARRANT. TELL ME HOW THE NUMBER WAS ARRIVED AT AND READ YOUR OPPONENT'S NUMERICAL IMPACT CARDS TO CHALLENGE THEIR WARRANT. I will vote for someone who explains mechanisms of action but has no cards over someone with all the cards and no explanation. If you don't explain the warrant, and defend against opponent's alternate explanation, you don't get to claim the number. Don't just have cards that form a link chain. EXPLICITLY EXPLAIN THE LINK CHAIN. This sets out clearly what the opponent must do to respond.
I only vote off framework if the cases are a wash or you spend a ton of time on it. I'm much more easily persuaded by resolutional analysis on how an example is or isn't part of the aff world, and how relevant the stats are as a result.
Counterplans must explain how they are explicitly different from aff world (especially if the aff is claiming ground that the prewritten cp was not meant for), else Neg loses all unique offense.
Did PF and LD in high school, extemp in college.
I don't need to be on the email chain if you speak normally, but do if you spread. Most debaters who spread read too much evidence to effectively use, and most of the time reading the card reveals that the tag does not match the card text, or card text is more equivocal than the supported claim. Spreading can be used to lower the standard of evidence, as opponent has less time to respond. Therefore, I will intervene much more heavily on your side of the flow to compensate, cutting out any and all cards and links I don't personally buy.
Most arguments are fine.
If I miss something due to speed, it's not flowed. If you spread at least pause through author and date, missing those may cause me to put something in the wrong place on the flow.
The only time it's acceptable to extend an argument without briefly explaining it is your final speech.
Even if I know the K lit, I'm only voting on it if properly explained and linked.
SIGNPOST. SIGNPOST. Tell me where you are on the flow and what you're responding to.
Overviews and roadmaps shouldn't go longer than 10 seconds.
I don't vote off cross ex alone unless someone concedes something. Use it for clarification or to set up your next speech. If you use it to attack a warrant, you can save time in your next speech by referencing cross instead of reexplaining, I like it when people do that!
I strongly dislike when the text of a card does not match or fulfil its tag. If tag says extinction, the text should either say or be easily linked to extinction.
I dislike frameworks whose only function is to lock opponents from the round. In the case of a framework tie, I prefer the wider, more permissive framework.
If I'm not told how to weigh the round, I'll have to intervene. My default is to tally up the offence that links to the winning framework. I will vote off topicality.