Seattle University High School Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — NSDA Campus, WA/US
LD Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a new parent judge. Pls speak at a conversational pace and do explain the jargons, if you use any.
I award points off of quality; the way you speak, how you conduct yourself, the strength in your arguments, clarity, and organization. Do not spread.
Throughout the round I will be keeping notes, but if there is something you would particularly like me to take more notice to then communicate that during the round.
I will leave it up to you and your opponent to correct and bring up any rule violations you notice, unless I find it necessary to step in. I will be sure to note them down so be sure to not violate the rules.
If a topicality argument is brought up I will listen to and consider it, but it will not be a sole reason for decision.
Evidence is of importance to me, I expect each debater to be prepared with correct and sufficient evidence. If you show me that your evidence is better than your opponents I will hold great value to that.
I am more likely to vote for you if you show me your ability to debate with quality and provide strong arguments. Tell me why I should vote for you!
Overall I want you to be able to leave the debate with more knowledge and practice. Be kind and learn!
My background: Former attorney
What I look for in a Debate: Strong oral presentation, balance of evidence, analysis, application to the resolution and logic. Respectful sportsmanship. Prefer no spreading.
I am a judge with little experience.
I do not like spreading. Please clearly state contentions and signpost whenever possible.
Email email@example.com to add me to the email chain.
I'm a two time national semifinalist from high school and in my 7th year coaching. I try to be tabula rasa, but I have a vast knowledge base and don't like being talked down to as a judge. If I know that you could bolster your arguments presented, I will let you know on the ballot but it usually won't impact my decision.
Call Africa a country and you will automatically lose. It's a continent and offensive to misidentify it. If you are going to refer to regions within the continent, label them appropriately. I understand if you can't pronounce the country/city correctly, but Youtube and Google exist, use it as a resource to teach yourself how to properly pronounce names, locations, words etc. If you don't fully understand your topic, the acronyms you use, the evidence you cite or words in your cases, I'll let you know on the ballot. If you are misusing a word repeatedly, your speaks reflect.
If you misunderstand your case or it appears you did not write it yourself (it's a team case, you bought the evidence or someone else gave you the information just prior to the round) I will assume you bought the case and don't know what you're talking about. I strongly dislike students that use prewritten cases and don't show mastery of the topic because looks like plagiarism. If you don't know what you're talking about and misunderstand the arguments, it will be obvious.
Slippery slope arguments or ELEs are only realistic within the confines of a topical debate. This trend relies heavily on scare tactics I don't subscribe to as a debate coach or judge. I will downvote/give low speaks if your impacts lead to improbable outcomes.
I like progressive debate, but if it gets too meta or narrows the debate to a specific thread, I will base the debate on what is relevant to the argument and topic at hand, especially if your opponent is presenting a more viable option.
I'm a PF/LD traditionalist. I dislike framework in LD; that is what the v/vc debate is. I love framework in PF, but if your framework is unnecessarily or unfairly limiting (abusive), it will work against you and your speaker points will correlate. I tend to vote on stock issues in CX.
If your very narrow interpretation is the only way to interpret the topic, therefore, you're right and win, that doesn't work.
I like debate to address the topic's core, rather than a narrow and specific element. "A just government allows for civil disobedience" should not be debated on what a just government is; rather it should debate the merits of civil disobedience within a society.
Debate needs clash. If there is no clash between the two presented sides, I'm going to vote whichever side is better presented/is more viable under the topic.
I don't flow CX, so if you want it to be on the flow, PLEASE bring it up during rebuttal speeches.
Signpost, go straight down the flow and TRY to minimize flow hopping. If you have a direct argument on your case that attacks/answers your opponent's case, state it at each interval where the argument would apply. Ex: "My c1 directly addresses their c2 sub a..." should be stated twice when you talk about BOTH your c1 AND their c2 sub a.
Extend your arguments and impacts, not your cards. Ex: "Extend Oxford here..."; tell me why "Oxford" is relevant, why it refutes the opposition's point and WHY IT MATTERS. My job as a judge is to base my decision on what you present and how you link it, not if my brain linked it for you. As a judge, I'm not going to make inference between your impacts and cards, you need to explicitly state them for them to be considered.
I can handle spreading, but try to avoid it because it's a bad habit. Be mindful of speed if you choose to not add me to the email chain.
My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD).
Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.
Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.
The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing but I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.
Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.
In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.
I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!
I have quite a bit of graduate work in philosophy, especially ethical theory. While scientific fact is absolutely important in considering an issue, I will likely side with sound philosophical arguments over scientific ones. LD is value debate, NOT policy - if you run policy arguments you will not enjoy my ballot.
Parent judge, please talk slower and explain things well.
I am a parent judge. I have judged both PF and LD.
Things I am looking for:
- a clear constructive that supports your position
- consistency in your flow, i.e. don’t bring up new arguments in your rebuttals
- clear delivery. You can often get more impact with a slower speed where you can put more emphasis on a point.
- an argument that seems reasonable considering human/societal behavior. For instance, I don't typically subscribe to theories that a set of events will lead to extinction of the human race.
Background: Debated LD in Colorado during high school; coach since graduation also in Colorado, MA in International Studies (Governance, Human Rights, and Civil Society). 2021 - 2022 season: I've watched equal amounts PF and LD, only a few CX rounds.
I have judged at Stanford and Berkeley tournaments for several years, plus numerous out rounds in LD and CX at NSDA Nationals.
Apparently I haven't updated this in a while...since that last update I've come to believe that paradigms are even more useless. I write it. You read it. We probably both ignore it.
- Please impact your extensions. I won't simply flow through a card author.
- Give me voters! Probably with some weighing and clash...
- I dislike it when individuals run arguments that they don't understand: 1) quality over quantity; 2) don't waste my time. (I am seeing SO much power tagging. I can pull up your evidence very quickly and do a keyword search.)
- I think the best debate rounds are those in which the debaters agree what is being debated and don't try to play games--don't try to confuse your opponent, don't try to tell me you addressed something when you didn't, etc. Just be clear and engage with the issues of the round.
- If you want to ask me additional questions before a round, please be specific. Otherwise you prepped for a round and my paradigm is just some words on a screen.
I've never really thought about having a PF specific paradigm... My overall thought is that PF is meant to focus on the topic. I want substantive debate and not theory. I'm normally pretty tab at debate, but I find it so uninspiring to hear a whole round on theory.
Nothing special for LD. Be smart on time use.
My debaters have called me out and said I seem anti-CX here. Truth is, I think really good CX debate is better than anything else, and I've come to really appreciate CX. The problem is that it is rare to see a good round of CX. There's never clash. People read arguments they don't understand. People ignore evidence at a whim. There's a tension between just reading a bunch of cards and wanting the judge to do the work of analysis and then complaining about judges not understanding arguments. And more. And it's not unique to CX.
So, long-story short: I try to be pretty tab in CX -- because I wasn't a competitor I have very few preconceived ideas of what I want to see in a round. Take some extra time and explain any CX theory to me. I'm not going to love a lot of "education is better" or "truthiness is better" either. Do some work if it comes down to theory.
Speed: I have no preference and a pretty high threshold for an LD judge from backwards Colorado. I try to keep a rigorous flow so if you get too fast I will clearly stop typing or writing. If you also don't slow down a bit on taglines, arguments and cards probably won't get flowed where you want them.
Arguments: I tend to be more interested in philosophical debates and "traditional" LD (for CX this means I probably enjoy a good K debate, but I also appreciate a clear policy framework), but I will listen to, and flow anything. Start with a clear framework, provide clash, and make it clear for me where I vote. I have a pretty solid background in political theory and an interest in German philosophy broadly (Kant to Habermas).
Second Year S&D teacher / coach, with ever-increasing knowledge of the fundamentals of the debate (Value, Criterion, Disads, Counterplans, etc.)
50 + rounds judged last season (in LD and PF).
What I like to hear is a well-laid out case, clearly articulated, as well as solid and clear responses to the elements of your opponent's case.
Generally, I'm against spreading. Talking fast is fine, but it's important for me to hear and understand your case, as well as taking an accurate flow. Without a good flow, it's hard to judge the round. Spreading, especially if it inhibits articulation and clarity, is hard for me to follow.
I'm also not opposed to K's, as long as they are articulated well, relevant to the topic, and that the debater has a nuanced understanding of the K. Being able to answer questions about your K in cross is key.
For IEs, my preferences are for clarity of topic, engagement with the audience, dynamic delivery, memorization, and compelling narrative.
Thank you. And good luck!
My name is Bren Hamaguchi (he/him) and I am the assistant Speech and Debate coach at Overlake HS.
I want to be clear: I have no prior experience participating in or judging Speech or Debate (this is my second season). But, as a history teacher, I am familiar with how to construct an argument, thesis, use of evidence, some philosophy, and persuasive speaking techniques.
I have no overt biases that will affect the decisions that I render.
Speed - I have a difficult time following along when people talk fast, I'll do my best, but if I don't write it down there is a good chance I'll forget and I can't judge you on information I don't have. You can send me your case if you think you speak too fast. No spreading, even with a case.
LD - Philosophy, Theory, and K's - if you're going to run theory or use a philosophical argument make it clear. If you reference something you think a Lay judge might not understand, either thoroughly explain it during your time or don't bother. Try at your own risk.
Be careful with the amount of technical LD jargon. My knowledge of technical, especially progressive debate terms, is limited.
LD/PF - ESPECIALLY PF - Be courteous! I really dislike when competitors are rude to each other.
Congress - I have my B.A. in Political Science so I am very aware of congressional procedure and how to construct arguments for and against bills. It is still up to you to follow proper procedure and structure your speeches in accordance with the rules and regulations.
Speech - Speak clearly, have a thesis, stay on time, and have fun!
Good luck everyone!
Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.
email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.
Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.
I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.
Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.
Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.
Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.
Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.
Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.
For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards.
Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.
Debated LD for Livingston for 3 years- Rutgers ’26
I mostly competed on the Newark local circuit attending CFLs. I reached elimination rounds in varsity at local tournaments and will flow the round. In general stick to policy arguments, don’t go top speed and send docs. Consider me a flay judge who did compete in the activity and has a good understanding of how debate works. Scarsdale is the first tournament I’m judging so judge instruction + weighing is your best friend,
Some things to consider:
Please share cases with each other before your first speech. A speech doc would be helpful if you are reading any cards during your rebuttal. I need to be able to access all evidence that you use.
It is the debater's burden to make sure that the speech is clear and understandable. While I will not knock spreading/speaking quickly immediately, the faster you speak, the more clearly you must speak and signpost. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it into my flow. I vote off of my flow for all rounds.
Impact arguments by both the Aff/Neg should be clearly stressed and extended. It's worth repeating and stressing if you feel you have the winning arguments. Don't just say "______ impact has more chances of happening than my opponent's impact of ____" I would like to see evidence on anything you do present on impact debate.
Clash is necessary. You must convince me that your arguments outweigh your opponents. Dropped arguments leads to that argument being won by whichever side presented it. If your opponent dropped an argument, make sure to clearly state that during your speech in case I miss it on my flow.
I am okay with Topicality/interp. If one does run T/interp the opposing side I would say the other side has to respond. If the T has been dropped, whoever ran the T is more likely to win the round.
I am familiar with the capitalism K, ethical imperatives K, and Feminism K. If you read any unfamiliar K's, please explain well.
Counterplans are okay with me. Make sure to explain how your counterplan would have more benefits than your opposing side.
Any cards you read against your opponent, be sure to ask if I or the opponent would like to see them before moving on. (or just use a speech doc like I mentioned earlier)
Be respectful to one another and make sure you are not making your opponent feel uncomfortable in any way.
Good luck and I'm excited to judge your debate!
Please email speech docs to: email@example.com
TLDR; Flay judge; did policy debate at the national level back in college (this was a REALLY long time ago), so treat me as somebody who mostly has no idea what you are talking about, I'm not up to date on the current policy meta.
Tech>truth, tabula rasa until you're racist/sexist/homophobic/personally offensive in any way, in which case I will instantly drop you with the lowest speaks possible. Defense is not sticky, weighing in the 2AR is imperative, make sure you extend arguments made in the ac/nc clearly across the flow and signpost well so I can flow you, especially if you're speaking fast. Tell me why cards actually matter instead of just throwing around their names in rebuttal. Trad>circuit debate, give me voters in the 1nr/2ar, I will try to remain as noninterventionist as possible and evaluate based off the flow. I look for you to creatively extend your contentions and CPs and think out of the box in your 1ar/2ar/2nrs, those are interesting for me.
I hate speed, I'm not the best flower and I'll probably drop some of your arguments if you spread. I strongly dislike/don't really understand k affs, kritiks, friv t, and non-topical arguments. Avoid tricks as I wouldn't know what hit me and won't vote you up or down for them.
Go for it. Phil debate is an integral part of LD. I default util in the absence of any framing, but if one side offers framing and the other side does not, I'll evaluate based off of framing presented. Just make sure to keep it understandable and don't throw singular cards from random philosophers around as a complete framework.
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
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:
Trent Kuykendoll (he/him)
Bellingham High School/Sehome High School/Squalicum High School/Eastlake High School/etc. etc.
Add me to the chain: email@example.com
If there is a significant skill-mismatch between teams, the better team has an obligation to make the round accessible in my opinion. I'm tired of seeing way more experienced teams just beating up on newer teams, so from here on out I'm going to give low-speaks if I see that. Same situation if you're running tricks.
I’m a TAB/flow judge. Tech > truth, however, will intervene (specifically in impact weighing) if those arguments go unaddressed by both teams. Also, I do judge kick if you're condo or uncontested. Anyone who needs you to spec judge kick is an LD nerd. Here is a pref cheat-sheet before we go into the weeds:
Speed Clarity ---------------------x------- Spread
Depth More args ---------------------X------- More development
Topicality Non-voter --------X-------------------- #1 Issue
Inherency Non-voter --X-------------------------- #1 Issue
K Debate Maybe Cap ------------------------X---- Try your craziest strat.
Impacts Magnitude -------------------X--------- Probability
K Affs Nah ----------------------X------ Yeehaw
Performance Nah ---------------------------X- Yeehaw
Fairness I/L ------X---------------------- Independent Voter
Education I/L ---------------------------X- Independent Voter
Theory Vios DTA --------X-------------------- DTD
Condo Bad -------------------X--------- Good
PICs Bad ---------X------------------- Good
Agent CPs Bad ----------------------X------ Good
Adv. CPs Bad ------X---------------------- Good
Int. Fiat Bad -------------------X--------- Good
I have no loyalties to stock issues and winning a stock issue on the neg will not win the round. I need a reason to vote against a team that is un-topical, has no inherency, etc. I often have a hard time buying half-baked T arguments. If you’re going for topicality, you should probably collapse to T in the 2NR. The other stock issue I have my gripes with is inherency. Full disclosure, I almost never buy that a lack of a barrier to the plan is coherent argument, (however if you can win a round on inherency alone for a plan that has not been implemented already, I’ll give that team perfect speaks… good luck). As far as other stocks go, explain why they’re relevant to the ballot and please, for my sanity, don’t say “harms”.
A 2-hour round is non-negotiable as are -isms. Outside of these, the rules are for you and your opponents to agree upon and if there is something in round that you don’t agree with, run theory on it (this includes Flex prep, tag-team, etc.). <-Read my paradigm on this portion and stop asking. If it does not require the round to be stopped, I will not intervene and I will tell you as much if asked (this means I don’t have any opinions on tag-teaming, flex prep, clipping, altered speech times, etc. unless brought up as a theory argument). I tend to be more willing to drop specific arguments or err one way on evidence or during ties. This being said, I am more likely to drop the team if the round is collapsed to that theory argument in rebuttal. I have no problem with Affs kicking case and going for theory.
I enjoy well developed (emphasis on well developed) theory rounds. I tend to skew condo good, unless the neg is running 3+ conditional counter-advocacies. I have a much lower threshold to buy DTA than DTD/DTT. If you go for drop the debater, I will expect the abuse, real and potential, to rise to the level at which only dropping the team is a sufficient sanction. For this reason, if you want me to buy a DTD argument, I would recommend going for that alone in the second rebuttal, regardless aff or neg.
If you have further questions, ask pre-round.
Hi! I'm Noam. I use he/him pronouns. I debated at Park City High School (2018-2022), where I now coach LD & policy. I'm also a student at UChicago, where I've done some APDA. In high school, I competed in traditional LD, national-circuit LD, and local-circuit policy. I did enough circuit debate that I'm quite well versed in progressive debate norms (as of 2022), but my focus is more on traditional debate now so I may be a bit rusty.
Yes, I want to be on the chain. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Pref shortcuts (mostly for circuit LD)
I'm very flexible, but I'll attempt to rank which arguments I'm most comfortable evaluating. This is not a ranking of how much I like certain arguments, but rather how well I understand them as a judge.
1 - Kritiks (cap, postmodernism)
2 - Phil, other kritiks
3 - Policy stuff
4 - Topicality, generic theory
5/Strike - Tricks, frivolous theory
This paradigm is geared toward national circuit LD because that's what I've spent the most time thinking about.
Policy debaters, please read the sections that apply to you (policy arguments, k's, T, theory) and ignore the ones that don't (tricks, philosophy). Please don't feel that you need to adapt to me as an LD judge, as I am fairly proficient in policy and will not impose my LD beliefs onto policy debates. In fact, I feel that most LD norms would be bad for policy. Do what you do best. I will probably appreciate it.
Traditional (less technical) debaters: don't worry about all the technical jargon in this paradigm if you don't understand it. I will evaluate the content of your arguments over how you present them, and I heavily value evidence/reasoning. Feel free to try out new arguments you couldn't read in front of parent judges, go fast if your opponent is comfortable with it, and make strategic collapses. I appreciate a well-executed traditional debate, so just do what you do best.
PFers: I guess I judge this now. I barely did PF in high school, so I'm probably not up to date on your topics or acronyms. Be nice and explain such things to me :). I'm a tech judge, but don't feel the need to adapt to me on that account. Your best bet is to have a straight up PF debate, just make sure to focus on the flow because that's how I vote. If you want to read stuff that's untraditional in PF (theory, critical arguments), go for it, but know that I will hold you to a high standard as someone who has experience with these arguments. Also, you don't need to read anything in the "specific arguments" section of this paradigm, as that's all LD/Policy oriented.
Important note for trad vs. tech debates: for debates in which traditional debaters encounter progressive debaters, I will still vote on the flow. Unfortunately, this means that I will more often not vote for the more technical debater. I believe that you should try to include your opponent whenever possible, but I will not automatically drop you for reading technical arguments against a lay debater. I may, however, tank your speaks if you read Baudrillard against a novice or pull any similar tomfoolery. If you are the traditional debater in this situation, know that your passionate grandstanding will not win my ballot. Even if your opponent's arguments are unfamiliar, your best bet is to contest them head on. I won't drop you for not knowing obscure jargon, but you still need to win the debate on an argumentative level.
Speed/Clarity: I was good with speed in high school, but I am a bit rusty given that APDA and trad LD max out around 200 wpm. I've judged a fair amount this season, so I should still be good up to 300. I highly prefer it when you slow down a bit on tags and cites. This helps me keep track of which card you're on. I will say "clear" if I can't understand you. I won't drop you for spreading against a team that is much slower than you, but I may dock your speaker points if I feel like you're leveraging your speed in a way that is rude/unfair. Your best bet is to ask your opponents if they're ok with spreading before the debate. Spreading is always ok in outrounds.
Decision Philosophy (important stuff is in bold)
I believe that debate should encourage academic growth and exploration. The debates I love are ones in which students advocate for their beliefs and don't shy away from conversations with real-world implications. I also believe that debate is a game in which students convince a judge to vote for them. Therefore, I consider myself an ideologically flexible judge. While some arguments resonate with me more than others, I feel that my job as a judge is to vote for whoever is winning on the flow. While I don't think it's possible for any judge to evaluate debates objectively, voting for whoever wins on my flow is the closest I can get to unbiased. Read whatever you are best at. With very few exceptions, I'll be willing to vote on it.
I often find myself voting for whoever wins a framing mechanism then proves they meet it. Once I have some sort of metric through which I can evaluate the round, I'll probably vote for the debater who wins the most important argument under that metric. I have noticed a lack of layering and weighing in almost every debate this season. Please be the exception to this pattern.
Arguments need to have a claim, warrant, and impact for me to evaluate them. That means you should make a statement, provide a rigorous reason it is true, and explain its implication in the round. I am unlikely to vote on arguments that aren't completely presented in the first speech. Warrants don't necessarily need carded evidence, but cards will improve the argument's credibility. Honestly, warranted analytics > unwarranted cards.
I appreciate debates with a lot of clash. I've noticed that many debaters rely on arguments being conceded or undercovered in order to win. I find this trend of running from debates very disturbing, and I think we could all learn from more head-on debates. This means you should go for that really good DA, even if there's a straight turn on it and the theory blips were undercovered. I think that good strategies contest opposing arguments instead of avoiding them. I will obviously still vote for conceded arguments, and you should go for them if you think it's a good strategic move. However, I like it when debaters actually debate.
I like it when debaters are innovative. You will probably get high speaks if you read an argument that is unknown to debate. This could be a new framework, a new kritik, a new theory shell, a cool disad, or a completely new type of argument. Just clearly explain to me what you're doing and defend your norm. Debate is a constantly changing activity. Be the change.
I will not vote on any arguments that are racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, or bigoted in any way. If your opponent does this and I don't catch it, call them out so I can drop them. Depending on the severity of the issue, I will either let the debate continue or stop the round immediately. If you feel really uncomfortable and you'd like me to stop the round, please ask. This doesn't mean you should spam independent voters, it means you should take note when there is a serious problem. There are limits to this intervention. I will drop any debater who reads arguments like racism good, but I won't automatically vote for you off an argument about util being racist.
Back in high school, I went to plenty of west coast LD tournaments and won some policy tournaments in Utah. I certainly don't specialize in this, but I like to think I understand it.
Policy arguments should have uniqueness, a link, maybe internal links, and an impact. You need to win all of these and weigh them to win a policy debate. Weighing is huge for me in policy debates. Weigh strength of link, use multiple metrics for impact calculus, and weigh between those metrics. It will make my job easier.
I like policy-style arguments that talk about structural violence as opposed to nuclear war. I do, however, understand that extinction outweighs is a great argument, so I get it if you read big stick arguments.
I'm a sucker for a good case push. Turns are amazing arguments and I love it when people collapse to them. I'm fine with impact turns as long as they're not repugnant (china war good is fine, sexism good is not fine. I don't love death good, spark is ok though).
Policy debaters still need to engage in the framework debate, ideally with an actual framework instead of 8 independent reasons that extinction comes first. Policy cases that lack a good framework page will likely lose to the kritik or phil.
Plan/counterplan texts should be understandable and you should always read a well-warranted solvency advocate. I'm willing to vote on plans bad and spec shells, so watch out when you're writing plan texts.
Tell me when you're kicking something, and get rid of any turns before you kick it. I will vote for turns on kicked arguments.
Conditional advocacies are fine, but prepare for the theory debate. Conditionality does not get you out of reps. If your conditional counterplan links to one of your disads, kicking the disad does not get you out of that (conceding no link or impact defense would work).
I love the kritik. I mainly went for the kritik throughout high school and it's my favorite argument to coach. I really enjoy these debates. I am most familiar with literature about capitalism (Marx, Lenin, Dean, Workerism, Fisher, Hardt/Negri, Zizek), semiocapitalism (Berardi, Beller, also Dean, also Hardt/Negri), and some postmodernism (Agamben, a little bit of Deleuze, Hauntology, Butler). I also really love cybernetics, especially Haraway and Beller. This is not an exhaustive list of kritiks I can evaluate, but rather the ones I understand best. If you read one of these kritiks, I might subconsciously hold you to a higher standard because I'm more familiar with them. Please don't read a specific k just because I like it, read what you're good at. I'd prefer a well-executed identity k over a poorly-executed cap k any day of the week.
I am willing to evaluate any k literature, but please explain thoroughly if it's a niche theory I'm unfamiliar with. You should also explain kritiks that I understand. I won't fill in gaps with my prior knowledge.
I like it when k debaters engage in the line by line, and I'm not a fan of massive overviews that are just cross-applied throughout the speech. Reading a kritik is not an excuse for bad technical debate, in fact, I think it demands more technical skill in some cases. That being said, k debates shouldn't be blip storms. Please explain your arguments thoughtfully while also showing how you're winning the flow. I think that quality>quantity in these debates. K debates also demand a lot of analysis beyond the line by line and explanation of how arguments interact. Do these things. Explicitly tell me how and where to vote.
I am perfectly willing to evaluate kritiks with a model of debate that doesn't rely on the flow (performance, for example), but you need to win a warrant for such a model and explain to me how I can decide the round.
Some random notes on the kritik
- Extending a theory of power is very important, you should do this to outweigh whatever your opponent is saying. I view a theory of power as an important framing mechanism that establishes uniqueness and goes along with the ROB.
- K affs are cool when they're topical, cool when they're not topical, and very cool when they're somewhere in between the two. Please explain to me why your topicality counterinterp is a better model for debate, ideally by reading more than impact turns.
- I view k v. k debates as comparisons of theories of power and methods. For me, these debates break down to which k can explain a relevant form of oppression, and which k can solve that form of oppression.
- Please be able to clearly explain your alts and what they actually do. I am not here to hear people read vacuous alt cards then extend a bunch of buzzwords.
- Specific links are amazing, generics are also fine
- I'm unfamiliar with k tricks but I'll vote for them if well-articulated. I should be able to tell that it's a floating PIK by reading the 1NC.
- I will not immediately drop you for reading ontological claims about an identity group you don't belong to, but I will very likely drop you if your opponent calls you out for it (and warrants why what you're doing is bad).
Theory and Topicality:
I get it. I did national circuit LD so I have dealt with a lot of theory, much of it frivolous. I'll vote for almost any shell if you win it.
Things I wont vote for (don't read them): arguments about your opponent's appearance (shoes theory), ridiculous spec shells (spec favorite movie or some other silliness)
I'm good for anything else, although the bar for responses is lower against frivolous shells.
I default drop the debater, competing interps, no RVIs, although all of these can be easily changed.
Please weigh your standards. These debates can get irresolvable very quickly if you don't. Explain to me the story of your shell, why the abuse outweighs the counterinterp, and why it's a voting issue.
I'm also good with topicality. T framework, nebel, and more specific shells are all fine.
When reading t against k affs, feel free to go hard for fairness first, but I do prefer impacts contextualized to the k. I was almost always on the k side of these debates, but I think t framework is a great shell and I'm happy to vote for it. These debates are about models, so please win why yours is better.
I'm probably not that well-read on your topic, so super specific t debates might be hard for me to follow. I'll evaluate them, just explain your acronyms and definitions to me like I know nothing.
Generic policy shells like t-substantial are fine. I don't love them, but go for it if it's your best strategy.
I did a lot of this in high school. My favorite frameworks walk the line between philosophy and critical theory (Levinas and Butler are good examples). I also enjoy straight up phil, I've gone for plenty of Kant and Virtue Ethics over the years. Read whatever framework you'd like, I will evaluate it fairly. If the framework is niche, please explain it.
The best frameworks have robust syllogisms. Deep explanation will make me happier than a 12 point prefer additionally section. I will vote on either though. I prefer phil cases that are actually about philosophy, as opposed to vehicles for tricks or 1AR theory. I also prefer phil debates that aren't pure battles of efficiency, but rather ones that involve high level idea comparison. The bottom line is that I like thinking about philosophy, but I will vote on more tricky phil strategies as well.
Reading a framework isn't an excuse for bad offense. You should read cards and explain why they're relevant under your framework. That being said, I think turns are some of the best responses to phil strategies.
I don't like the trend of oversimplifying complex frameworks. Extinction is probably still worse than lying, even if you win Kant. Your standards should be nuanced and you should use impact calculus under every framework.
I don't like them, I will still vote on them. The bar is very low for responses, and gets lower as tricks become less nuanced and more recycled.
You need to win a framework that allows me to evaluate tricks (truth testing, most likely). Otherwise, I probably won't vote on them.
Every argument needs a claim, comprehensible warrant, and clear impact in the first speech. "I am the greatest conceivable being because grapes are purple" does not count as a warrant and does not need to be responded to.
I honestly like some of the more philosophical tricks, especially when they're original or funny. Please just explain them well and weigh them against your opponent's arguments.
Theory spikes are fine. Just like any other argument, they need claims, warrants, and impacts.
I am very willing to vote on arguments that criticize tricks debate, like theory or kritiks. This might be one of your best angles against tricks if you don't think you can line by line them.
Speaks are based on clarity, organization, strategic choices, argumentative creativity, technical execution, and rhetorical appeal. I try to average about 28 points on the national circuit, probably lower in Utah since the point scale is less inflated at local tournaments.
Weighing and layering are the quickest paths to my ballot. If you do one or both of them well, you will very likely win.
I like being told what to do. Please explain to me how arguments interact, which arguments matter, and where I should vote. Write my RFD for me in your final speech.
Overall, just do what you do best. Be passionate. Read arguments you love. Be innovative. Show me that you care. Disagree with your opponent. Have fun!
I am a parent judge. Please go slow as english is not my first language. I value good speaking, communication, and questioning during cross examination. In arguments I like to see good evidence. I will try to be tab when weighing the majority of arguments but do keep in mind I may not be as likely to vote for certain arguments unless you explain them very very well (friv theory for instance - I'm tab when it makes sense to me).
If you are sharing documents, please only use email. Please send to: email@example.com
tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.
policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present
ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present
My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.
I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.
General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!
if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email firstname.lastname@example.org (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!
flowing: it is good and teams should do it
stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)
All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:
1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).
2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).
3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).
4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.
My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!
I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.
Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.
Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).
note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)
Some general notes
Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.
Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.
Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.
I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.
Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.
I try to give points as follows:
30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive
29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots
29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined
28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix
28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round
27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors
27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors
26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament
25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.
Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.
Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.
Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):
I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.
Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.
I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.
I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.
T/framework vs planless affs:
I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.
I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.
I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.
I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.
The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.
Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.
default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one
Topicality (not framework):
I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.
Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.
Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):
I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:
1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)
2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented
3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument
I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!
Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.
I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.
Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.
currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.
Arguments I will NEVER vote for:
-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).
-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).
-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")
if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.
Hi, I'm Shai Markwardt! I competed in PF and LD debate in high school, and am currently a senior at Northern Arizona University.
I am comfortable with speed but do prefer more classic LD style debate - I, generally, dislike kritiks, shells, etc.
I love a good philosophical framework debate and the use of burdens, when applicable.
Debated LD - 1997 - 2001
Coached High School LD / Policy / PF / World Schools - 2001 - 2010, 2015 - present
Assistant Policy & British Parliamentary debate coach at the University of Miami - 2010 - 2017
I am open to all debating styles and could handle speed. I appreciate all the skills that go into being competitive in the debate space; updated research, comparative analysis in rebuttals, making strategic decisions with time allocation, and creativity in argumentation to name a few. Tailor-made Kritiks are probably my favorite type of argument, but conversely, generic link of omission K's are on the opposite side of my preference spectrum. Love the politics DA, make sure your cards are updated! Will vote on theory if we all wasted our time and education was lost in the round. If you're having a non-traditional debate, a discussion of the role of the ballot is important. Save your breath on RVI's and put your tricks away for me. Prefer Speechdrop over email chains.
Any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.
Traditional LD only, no spreading
Speak in short, clear sentences. Take advantage of pauses, which are very effective at helping any speaker make their point or add emphasis. Also look up from your prepared text once in awhile; if in person - make eye contact. It's far better to clearly emphasize one key point than to try to argue/rebut several points by speaking too rapidly or saying far too many words in the short time allotted.
Remember, you're trying to reach your audience (or in this case, a judge) to make your argument.
Be respectful to others at all times and have a great time doing so.
I will judge to the best of my ability, however I will judge based on what I hear or understand. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable speed.
Case/evidence email: email@example.com
Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for over 6 years and work in the tech industry.
Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)
Criteria: I consider myself to be a "traditional" LD judge. I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.
Note: I don't care for "progressive" arguments... most of the time they're just a cheap ploy to ambush unsuspecting opponents instead of expanding our understanding of the problem and the philosophical underpinnings guiding our decision. (If you'd rather be doing policy, there's a whole other event for you to enter.)
Public Forum is based on T.V. and is intended for lay viewers. As a result, there's no paradigm, but some of the things that help are to be convincing, explain what the clash is between your opponents position and yours, and then show why your position is the logical conclusion to choose.
I have experience in just about all types of debate. While some distinctions between formats I see similarities rooted in intentional relationships, education and rhetoric. I do not see the judge as a blank slate. So I have some things that I think, based on my experiences as a debater, social science teacher, coach, parent and program director effect my role as a judge. We all have filters.
Personally, I debated NDT for the University of Houston in the early 80's. Achieving out rounds at major national tournaments and debating at both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. I have coached all debate events and many speech events. My policy teams won St. Marks and Memorial TOC tournaments and enjoyed success nationally. My students were also successful on Texas UIL and local circuits. I have had debate teams, LD debaters, extemp speakers and congress entries placed 1st or 2nd in Texas and have also coached a state oratory champion.
Currently, I consult and do debate on the side from home. I'm 62 years old. Concerns or questions about a judge that age are addressed below. The two biggest concerns are usually handling "speed" and "progressive" arguments. Speed with style and good technique is one thing speed that seems like a stream of consciousness is another. As for what progress is or progressive is, well that depends on your experiences.
I am open to alternative approaches to resolutions but also enjoy frameworks employed in the past. Debating and coaching in Houston and teaching at the UTNIF for a decade definitely shaped my my ability to listen to different types of frameworks - or what the debate is supposed to mean or accomplish. I have coached at so many levels, for many years on different topics - instead of seeing differences I see many similarities in the way arguments are framed evolve. I debated when it was highly questionable to do anything beyond policy debate - even counterplans, much less conditional frameworks, but being from a small squad (in a different info environment - when access to research and evidence was definiteley privileged) we pursued the edge strategies - such as hypothesis testing to level the field. Coaching in policy we ran all range of arguments. Over time shifting to a more critical approach. Once again in response, in part, to the changing information space. On an education topic we went deep all year on Critical Pedagogy and on a criminal justice - Constitutive Criminology. There are very few rules in debate. What policy debate means and what my vote means are for grabs by both teams. I'm not into labels at way to define myself. If I had to pick a term it would be: Critic of Argument
A couple of notes
Speed, unless evolution is really off track, speed can't be any faster, even from when we debated in college. Speed is rarely what set the best debaters apart. However, these are my first NDT rounds this year. (I'm contemplating grad schools in the mountain west for next year) Make sure acronyms, initialisms etc. are clear first before ripping through what will be new information for me. I suggest making sure each of you arguments (CP/K/DA - plan objection if you're old -) have a quick efficient thesis that makes sure I understand your position and its potential in the round before you take off speaking more quickly.
I evaluate your proofs. Proof is a broad term - much more than published material.
I consider evidence to be expert testimony. A type of proof. The debater who presents experts to support their claims should lay the predicate - explain why that source is relevant and qualified to be an expert - when they present the evidence. Quotations submitted as evidence with just a publication title or name and date often fall short of this standard. Generally I don't want to call for a card after the round whose author was not qualified when presented in constructives. I will call for evidence on contested points. However, that evidence has been well qualified by the team presenting it and the debaters are usually talking about lines and warrants from the card. It is highly unlikely that I will call for card not qualified and/or not talked about in rebuttals. If a piece of evidence is not qualified in a meaningful way during a debaters speech - it is unlikely I would call for it after the round. I've seen traveling graduate students from England just dismantle top flight policy teams - they had proofs that all knew and accepted often with out some of the "debate tech" norms found in academic policy debate (NDT/CEDA). See the comments below on what matters in rebuttals!
Notes on Education
Spurious "quick claims" claims of a specific educational standard thrown out with out all elements of an argument are problematic. I am a life long educator who has witnessed and evolved with debate. Often teams quick claim Education as a voting issue. As an educator, I often see performance methodology (like only reading names and dates to qualify evidence or "card stacking" reading only the parts of a card that favor you - even if full context sheds a different light OR speed reading through post-modern literature as probably much more important than a debate tech argument) as serious education issues that could be discussed - and much more primary to education - than debate tech one offs.
I find "debate tech" like spreading and some uses of technology in round serve to privilege or tilt the playing field. This doesn't mean to slow to a crawl - fast and efficient - but also accessible to both the other team and the judge. So winning because the affirmative can't respond in depth to 8 off case arguments is not persuasive to me. Be bold - go deep on issues that you think are yours. "Debate Terms of Art" often fall in this category. Language choice should be accessible - even if it means adapting to your opponent as well as your judge.
Evidence often is not enough
Most debates aren't won early - the changing information space has created a lot of equity. But there two things debaters do in my experience in rebuttals that make a difference. After they have strategically collapsed or decided which issue to go for they:
1. They talk authors and specific warrants contained in the evidence - usually contrasting opposing authors and warrants. These warrants are prima facia - they are best when clearly identified - even in the opening speeches.
2. They can tell a narrative - or give examples of the mechanics, warrants, internal links in the card. They can also explain sequences of events - what would happen if I voted for your argument/position or team.
From an educators view - this is the goal of debate.
Counterplans and debate tech
Counterplan "micro theory" has really evolved. That is my term for many variations of counterplans that drive focus away from clash on the topic. Superficial, procedural and timing exceptions or additions counterplans. I actually spent time reviewing two articles on the history of PICs and their evolution prior to writing this. The excessive use of academic debate "Terms of Art" is problematic, sometimes exclusionary. I prefer head on collision in debate - and debaters who figure out how to position themselves for that debate. I prefer the debate come down to clash on field contextual issue as opposed to "side swiping" the topic. Just my preference.
I also find that this type of debate tech functions as a tool of exclusion. The debate should be accesable to your opponents without an overreliance of theory or tech debates. If they are used as time sucks that rubs me the wrong way going to your Ethos as a debater.
I do not and will not vote on or enforce a preround disclosure issue. Settle that before the round starts. Take it over my head if you object. If you ask me to adjudicate that - you might not like the answer.
How we treat each other
This is something that might trigger my voting in way you don't expect. Let's work on accomodating each other and creating safe spaces for academic discourse and the development of positive intentional relationships.
Current coach and traditional Judge. I will be flowing so please speak clearly and be respectful to your opponent. I enjoy off-time roadmaps and being able to get an idea of the structure of your argument.
TLDR; I did one year of Public Forum in high school and went on to do NPDA/Parli, IPDA, and more PuFo in college. I also coached policy for a couple of years and have judged/coached all of these events for several years now. I'm fairly open-minded to any argument that is well justified and I'm going to vote for the team that paints the best picture via their impact comparison. I want you to write my ballot for me in your closing arguments. Also please note I will not vote on any argument that isn't extended in your final speeches. If you want me to vote on something you need to extend it and tell me why I'm voting for it. Other than that, just have fun, debate is your space.
Here are just a few specifics, feel free to ask about more:
I believe there is far too much emphasis on evidence in many rounds of LD and CX as of late. Cards are important for backing up a claim which specifically needs evidence (think statistics, quotes, etc). Some folks are quick to dismiss their opponent's arguments by saying "no evidence" without actually responding to the merit of the argument. Conversely, the overemphasis on evidence has made some students afraid to get up and make an argument simply because they don't have a card on it. Perhaps it is because of my background in NPDA, but I strongly believe that many claims can be made and warranted via analytics and in fact that these arguments are even preferable because they demand that debaters think on their feet and respond to the argument specifically instead of searching desperately for a card that may or may not actually verify the claim they want to make. An argument has 3 parts: Claim, Warrant, Impact. A card is one type of warrant but historical and or/material analysis is another which is just as valid and I encourage debaters to make whatever argument occurs to them so long as they can warrant said argument.
In general, I don't care what you read. Debaters should make their own strategy and use whatever they think is competitive. That said, I am of the opinion that "6 off" strategies tend to be uncompetitive because no arguments are really developed and I will lean towards skepticism of neg blocks which develop a lot of new arguments because their initial constructives refused to engage the debate in depth. Quality tends to prevail strategically over quantity but I won't impose this belief onto you, if you think 6 off is more strategic, then prove it and I'll vote for it if you win. There is no K, CP, or theoretical argument I will reject outright on principle. Some arguments are likely more theoretically legitimate than others (An uncondo K is probably pretty alright and 8 condo delay CPs may not be) and some arguments are certainly more true than others but what I think is irrelevant in context of what is said in the round. Whatever it is you decide to go for, I do believe "collapsing" is good and makes debates simpler and also that arguments should be explained in context of one another. That's to say, how does "straight-up" make sense of the K, how does theory make sense (or not make sense) of the Aff, so on and so forth. Framework is the most important aspect of debate (followed by links). Tell me what my role as a judge is or the role of my ballot is and precisely how I ought to use it. I want to do as little as possible when writing my ballot and want as much of the argument as possible to be framed and explained for me. You should understand the difference between defense and offense and recognize that defense does not independently win rounds. Defense can empower offense but is not sufficient in and of itself to overcome any offense which improves upon the status quo.
*As an updated addendum to this, I would strongly prefer not to vote on violations that are alleged to occur outside of a debate round.
** A second addendum on theory - in light of some rounds that have occurred in early 2023, I'm realizing that in a debate that collapses to theory where theory truly feels like a wash, I think I'm preferring to flip to the team that didn't go for theory. This means you should use theory with me in instances that truly feel abusive. This is not to say that I won't vote on potential abuse, but it is to say you better win your shell convincingly if you intend to collapse on potential abuse
In general, I don't mind speed. I used to debate quite quickly, I listen to every podcast in the world on 2.0, and one of my previous partners was probably one of the fastest there ever was. That said I don't think speed should be a tool of exclusion and I do think there is a point at which speed is used (especially in evidence style debates) as a tool to lazily "warrant" an argument by reading cards that don't say what you say they say in the tagline and just hoping no one notices. Obviously, you should slow down to read taglines but even when you're "spewing" out the actual card, it should be comprehensible. This is especially true in a world of online debate which can become particularly hard to understand. I've watched some judges in a panel be too afraid to clear/slow when no one can understand a word someone is saying (especially in online debate). To be clear: I am not afraid to clear/slow you. Clear means speak more clearly, slow means I need you to slow down. I'm much more likely to say clear than I am slow as I want to hear the merits of your cards so if the card becomes an issue in a debate I can actually hear what you read. I don't mind going back to read a card that is contested but I also think that as soon as I start spending time outside the round reading, I'm now being asked to input my interpretation of what I read and apply it to what the debaters said. This quickly begins to violate the so-called "path of least resistance" that most judges are looking for. As such, my preference is to evaluate what I understood and hopefully not have to go back and read. It's the responsibility of debaters to make sure that what they're arguing is understood by the judges to the maximum extent possible. Spewing out a card at a speed you can't handle without slurring your words does not accomplish this goal. You'll get a lot further spending your time making coherent arguments everyone can understand than you will spitting nonsense to make fake claims.
*As an addendum to this, this issue has gotten a lot worse since I first wrote my paradigm. And frankly, at the highest levels (CEDA), we now see debate starting to slow back down. Honestly, I'm starting to feel like this is my preference. I'm not going to punish anyone for spreading, and I don't need you to speak your case at 2mph, "2.0 podcast" is a pretty good speed. My highest priority is understanding. Look, we are talking about some really in-the-weeds ideas in some of these debates. Debate will inevitably bastardize almost any philosophy, but I think you're going to do a lot more just interpretation of it when you slow down enough to actually explain your position and how you resolve the issues in and out of round.
If you ask me for prep, I'm just going to run your time, it's up to you to keep track of how much you're using. Flex prep is fine, but if you're going to do it, please ask your opponent and establish it at the beginning of the round. I've had some debaters ask me if flex is OK after their opponent already used some or all of their prep and this seems unfair to me. If you make an argument in CX, make sure you actually put it on the flow during your speech time.
PLEASE provide me a copy of all texts (Plans, counterplans, perms, alts, interpretations, etc)
hi my name is rachel (she/her) i’m excited to judge (almost always)
chahta yakni | šuŋgmánitu oyáte
apple valley 22- email chains consistently annoy me. if you can use <speechdrop.net> i would appreciate it very much.
going forward- i'm not going to clarify a position on my paradigm for only 1 debater- if you want to ask questions, i think it's only fair that your opponent gets the same opportunity. if you want to email me beforehand, either cc your opponent or just wait until everyone is in the room.
Quick Guide if you want to pref me
1- Give back the land (Tuck and Yang, not Churchill)
Orthodox Marx (i have mixed opinions on Stalin and Mao. I think there are probably better critical theorists who articulate their ideas better, but whatever floats your boat. Lenin is fine, but I'm only really familiar with Imperialism:HSoC. If you read Krupskaya I'll be stoked).
SC authors (Locke especially, Hobbes 2nd and Rousseau 3rd)
LARP (i think of this in two ways, either structurally or argument-wise. I'm pretty solid on both, although you'll be better off dropping some hyper-specific policy language because it wasn't what I usually went for as a debater)
Spinoza (this is only at a 2 because I genuinely don't think you could ever make Ethics topical).
Hegel- i mean what can you do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
3- Trad/lay (i debated in SD, so go figure).
SOME DnG (I think I get rhizomatic thought, I think I get schizophrenic capital, I don't understand most of the rest of it. Plz be cautious.
Kant- idk man this is run in so many different ways you should just ask.
4- Middle-of-the-road Performance (I have not yet been able to find a debater that clearly articulated how to substantively weigh performance in a round, and I ran performance several times. If you think you can then go off, I'd love to hear it). This includes poems, songs, personal narratives, etc- see "5" for aggressive or emotionally traumatic performance.
"High Theory"- whatever this means, if it's gonna make my brain bleed i'm not a fan.
Chinese Imperial Philosophy: Confucianism, Taoism.
Theory- I'm not a huge fan and I'm bad at flowing it. Like terrible. Please if you do this to me go very slow I will unintentionally drop 50% of your standards. RVIs mostly good. paragraph theory is fine, it just needs clear impacts to the round/debate space.
5- Evola (ill drop you no cap)
Time Cube >:(
badly done death drive (ie "k*ll everyone, nuke war good). Don't justify oppression, don't be rude. Also in here- physical performance or extremely emotional performance. Do not read me trauma-porn.
here is a list of things that make me go :) in rounds
1. extending the whole argument (claim + warrant) in every speech
2. warrants that you can actually explain tbh
3. evidence comparison (especially using author quals)
4. when u kick ur F/W and turn their case (that’s spicy stuff)
5. when u run a well articulated Kritikal position that ur excited about and that makes me learn stuff ( although it makes me go :/ if it’s clearly commodifying a people group- ex. don’t facilitate a performance you have no stake in)
6. in general if u teach me something that’s great!!!!
here’s a list of things that make me go :( in rounds
1. you have a captive audience in the round, so don't make the round unsafe for anyone (think the -ists and -phobias). if you do so in a manner that i think warrants it, i will
a. drop kick u off the ballot
b. give u the lowest legal speaks
c. talk to ur coach
d. tell ur mom
2. when ur winning and u rub it in the other person’s face- that is rude stop. not gonna drop ur speaks though- its just annoying.
3. don’t run afro pes if ur non black or anything like that- don’t use other people’s oppression as a gimmick y’all the ballot isn’t worth it
if you take each part of the debate seriously then u should be fine- most people mess up the most when they get too confident
ask me if u want more info i’ll tell u how i feel about anything and i’ll give u time to change it if u need to
my email is firstname.lastname@example.org if u need it
u get +.1 speaks if u can diss Andrew Myrick in ur speech and it flows well
Parent, communications degree, professional - Operations manager. My daughter calls me a Flay judge, in between a Lay judge and Flow judge. Will understand the arguments but you will need to speak more slowly, clearly, communicate and persuade me. Be polite, be smart, sign-post. In rounds I like more straight forward debates, alternative plans need to clearly relate to the resolution.
I am a former high school and college CEDA debater (UofO) and college NDT coach (graduate assistant coach at USC) and former Director of Forensics at SDSU. I am also a former professor of Communication at UW, with an emphasis on argument, persuasion, rhetorical theory and criticism. As such, I will be a critic of argument. I have not been in the field for years. I prefer sound reasoning and analysis to "blippy" superficial tags and points. A quick rate of speech is fine, if it has substance. The quality of your research and sources will be of value; the consistency of your use of a source with their overall position is important; The internal reasoning in the evidence has weight. Have a tag, qualify your source, read the quote. I am unlikely to be persuaded by a tag line, a last name and a date, and something that follows that it not clearly the quote. Make it very clear where the evidence/quote starts and where it ends, and where your analysis/impact statement about the evidence starts. Depth of insight is preferable to breadth of expression. Focus on sound, smart and thoughtful questions in cross periods. Although not necessarily on the flow, it will reflect command of issues, reasoning and demonstrate civility. Enjoy, employ your strategy, show respect for the subject and your opponents. I have noticed what I see to be a pattern. Consistent with the need to understand implicit bias, I will attend carefully to my impressions. However, I see aggressiveness and rudeness/dismissiveness directed at female competitors by males more than I see it directed at male competitors by male competitors. I ask that all opponents be treated with respect and to be aware of your own potential implicit bias in the communication toward and attitude about your opponents, regardless of who they are.
Hello, here are some things to note about how I will judge:
Please emphasize clarity over speed, as I will have difficulty keeping up if you talk too fast. English is also my second language, so please be patient. Additionally, as I am a parent judge without much familiarity with debate, I would appreciate if you limit your usage of technical terms. I will also dock points if you are overly aggressive in cross examination; be polite and respectful to your fellow competitors.
That’s all! Good luck!
Kyle - He/Him/His
Updated for Last Chance, if I'm judging you in CO it's obviously less strict but I still have preferences :)
My email is email@example.com. Please add me to an email chain. Flashing seems to be especially important with online debate. Use a descriptive subject line to help me keep track of rounds. Note I will not pull up the doc to follow in round, but want your evidence to read if needed.
I did CX and PF in high school.
PF (CX is going to be similar vibe):
I'm a flow judge. In general I prefer traditional PF, but I'll listen to a progressive round. I don't have any super strong preconceptions of what your round should look like. Don't lie about evidence (paraphrasing is fine). I use an offense-defense paradigm to help me evaluate who won. Make sure you at least win some offense. Defense alone never wins rounds (unless you fully unironically have terminal defense on everything and make a case for why I vote your side on presumption). I will flow everything but cross, but I'll still pay attention and jot down notes if something important happens. Also my preference for case format is a doc with a paraphrased version that you read and then all cut cards included below it, but that's just a preference so do whatever you want.
Some extra stuff
1. Front Lining is necessary. If you're speaking second, you need to defend your own case in rebuttal. If you leave your side of the flow empty going into summary, you just dropped all your opponents attacks on your case. I used to disagree with this, but second speaker is a huge advantage otherwise and I think this makes for better debates. Feel free to drop a contention so you can do more attacks, but you have to front line or you'll almost certainly lose the round.
2. Please collapse. We both know you aren't winning everything, and you don't need to win everything to win the round. Just tell me what you are winning and why that should win you the round.
3. Analytics. You don't need a card to make an argument. Strong, specific card > strong, specific analytic > weak card. Just make good arguments
4. Speed is fine, but if your opponents ask you before or during the round to slow down try to honor that. Debate should be accessible.
5. Tech > Truth. I will try my hardest not to step in and do any work for either side. The bar is much much lower for you to respond to a bad argument, but you still need to respond.
6. Theory in PF is kinda lame, but there is a place for it and I'll give you the ballot if you actually win it. Bar is lower to respond in PF w/ shorter speeches but again, you still need to respond.
7. Evidence calls shouldn't take too long (like 2 minutes tops). If you can't find the card I'm just dropping that argument. Be able to show your opponents the quote you use and a little context around it. That being said, if you're paraphrasing in case and you heavily misrepresent or outright lie about evidence, I will most likely just give you the L. Let me know at the end if you think your opponent did this and I'll read a card or two and make a decision.
If you have any more questions, just ask me before the round. If you want more feedback after a round just email me and I'll probably tell you more. Be nice and have fun :)
Random stuff I'll keep adding as I watch rounds:
1. Time yourself, I'll forget.
2. If I'm timing I'll just stop listening after ~5 seconds over time. If I forgot to start a timer just stop your opponent when they're like 10 seconds over.
3. Cross is usually zzz. I'm listening but I'm not flowing so if something important happens say it again when I am flowing :))
Last updated - 9/22/23
Garland HS - '20
The University of Texas at Austin - '24
Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Conflicts: Garland (TX), McNeil (TX), Westwood (TX)
LARP - 1
T/Theory - 2
K - 2-3
Phil - 2-3
Tricks - hurts me physically (pls strike)
TLDR: Please just read the bolded stuff, speaks at bottom
Background: Hey I'm Ishan (pronounced E-shawn). My pronouns are he/him and I'll use they/them if I don't know yours. I debated for Garland High School for 4 years in LD and competed on the national circuit for almost 2. I broke at several nat circuit tournaments, got a bid round, but never bid - do with that what you will - also broke at NSDA nats and was in octos and trips of TFA State for my last 2 years. Debate focuses/expertise include: LARP, T/Theory, and generic Ks and phil (Cap, Security, word PIKS, Kant, etc.)
People I agree with/have been coached by who I may or may not have modeled this paradigm after: Khoa Pham, Alan George, Bob Overing, Devin Hernandez, Vinay Maruri, Patrick Fox
debate is a game
Tech>Truth with the caveat that burden of proof>burden of rejoinder - I'm not going to vote on a conceded argument if I can't explain the warrant/impact - the bare minimum is saying this argument is bad because of XYZ.
CX is binding
DTA>DTD (except for T/condo)
1AR theory is cool
Presumption goes neg (absent an alternate 2NR advocacy)
(Tbh these don't matter as long as you make the argument for the other scenario)
Ev Ethics: (PLS READ)
- I didn't enjoy rounds that were staked on this a debater so I obviously won't as a judge. However, this doesn't mean you should not call out your opponent for a violation.
- If/when an accusation is made, I will stop the debate and determine if the accusation is true/false. Whoever is right about the accusation gets a W30, and whoever is wrong gets an L0.
- Reading an ev ethics shell is not the same as an accusation and I will evaluate it like a theory debate, so you might as well go for the accusation. That said, winning "miscutting ev good" is a hella uphill battle and probably the wrong decision.
- PLEASE have complete citations - if you don't and it is pointed out by your opponent, I will not evaluate the argument/card and your speaks will drop. Make it a voting issue! It's your responsibility as a debater to cut good ev.
- Don't intentionally clip cards - I will follow along in the doc to prevent this as much as I can. If I notice this in prelims, it's an L0, if I notice this in elims, it's an auto-L. Seriously, don't do it. >:(
- Don't miscut your ev (cutting out counter-arguments/modifiers, breaking paragraphs, etc.) - If I notice this in round, it's an auto-L.
General notes I think are important:
- BE NICE, bigotry of any kind will result in an L0 and me reporting you to tab.
- I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments (racism, sexism, homophobia, death good, etc.) - I will vote you down.
- Debate is fundamentally a game, but it is also a very competitive game that can get very messy. If at any point in the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, let me know verbally or by some sort of message and I will stop the round to help you in any way I can.
- If you are hitting a novice or someone who is clearly behind in the debate, don't be mean. Go for simple strats (2 or less off, no theory, 50% speed, etc.) and err on the side of good explanations. Doing so will result in me bumping your speaks.
- I'll call clear/slow as many times as a need to be able to flow. If you don't listen after 5+ times, that's your fault and your speaks will suffer.
- Please do NOT start off your speech at max speed, just work your way there.
- If the tournament is online, I understand tech issues will happen, so I'll be pretty lenient.
- Get the email chain set up ASAP. Sending docs in between speeches shouldn't take that long. Don't steal prep, I'll know and drop your speaks.
- Speech times and speaker order are non-negotiable.
- I'd really prefer you don't interrupt another person's speech, even if it's a performance. CX is obviously an exception.
- Performances that justify voting for anything outside of the debate realm (e.g. dance-off, videogames, etc.) are not persuasive to me. If you're conceding the round (exception), however, just let me know ahead of time.
- I know my paradigm is not short and you might not have time to read it, so ask questions if needed - I won't be an ass about start time unless tab forces me to - I think debaters should always read their judges' paradigms and take them to heart since it often results in better debates/speaks. That having been said, I'd rather see you debate well with a strategy you know than a strategy you're bad at just because you're trying to model what I did as a debater.
- My favorite style of debate and the one I'm most familiar with
- Link/impact turns require winning uniqueness!
- I think doing your impact calculus/weighing in the 2NR/2AR is fine - idk how the alternatives are feasible - making your weighing comparative/contextual is a must. I think debates about impact calc are really interesting and carded meta-weighing will get you far.
- If your extensions don't have a warrant, you didn't extend it - I won't do your work for you. (Ex: The aff does X and solves Y by doing Z)
- I'm perfectly fine with reading evidence after round, especially if was a key contestation point. Also, call out your opponents on having bad evidence. Debate fundamentally requires well-researched positions.
- Having clever analytic CPs, especially when the aff is new, can be really strategic - negs should always exploit aff vagueness, especially on questions of solvency.
- I really liked going for theory as a debater, but often felt discouraged by judges who hated frivolous theory. That's not me though so feel free to go for it - with the exception of egregious arguments like policing people's clothes - also keep in mind that intuitive responses to friv theory are pretty effective. Reading bad/underdeveloped shells does not equate to reading friv theory and will make me sad.
- Please slow down on theory interpretations and analytics and number/label your arguments - especially in underviews - I don't type very fast - seriously tho stop blitzing theory analytics
- I think paragraph theory is cool and prefer it most of the time. I don't think you need paradigm issues, but if you know your opponent is going to contest it, you might as well include them.
- I think going for reasonability is under-utilized and strategic, so doing it well with up your speaks. However, you need to have a counter-interp that you meet, even when you go for reasonability. I don't think a brite-line is always necessary, especially if the shell was terrible and you have sufficient defense.
- I'll resort to defaults absent any paradigm issues, but they are all soft defaults and I'd rather not, so literally just make the argument for the side you are going for.
- Winning the RVI isn't a super uphill battle with me, but I find that it often is a poor time investment.
- Having CIs with multiple planks (provided you actually construct offense with them) is cool/strategic.
- Weighing between standards, voters, and shells is just as important here as it is in LARP!
- I ran and debated Nebel T a lot as a debater, so I'm quite familiar with the nuances. If I can tell you don't know what this argument actually says e.g. you don't know what semantics being a floor/ceiling means, your speaks will suffer.
- I'm quite fond of topicality arguments and think they are a good strat, especially against new affs. That being said, if your shell is underdeveloped or you can't properly explain an offensive/defensive case list, the threshold for responses drops.
- Having carded interps and counter-interps is key.
- I don't care about your independent voters unless you can actually explain why they're a voter.
- T-fw/framework (whatever you wanna call it): I read this argument a lot as a debater and this was often my strat against k affs.
- Procedural fairness is definitely an impact, but I will gladly listen to others e.g. topic ed, skills, clash, research, etc. and I often find these debates to be very interesting.
- Contextualized TVAs are a must-have.
- Contextualized overviews in the 2NR are a must-have as well. If I wanted to hear your pre-written 2NR on framework, I'd go read my own.
- I think disclosure is good for debate, but I'm open to whatever norm is presented in round. I think reading disclosure theory, even at locals (provided you also meet your interp) is fine. I was a small-school debater and I disclosed all my stuff with full cites and round reports. I think the first 3/last 3 is a minimum, but you do you. Open-source, full text, round reports, new affs bad, etc. are all shells I feel comfortable evaluating like any other theory debate.
- This is the only theory argument about out-of-round abuse I will vote on.
- Don't run disclosure on novices/people who literally don't know about the norms - maybe inform them before round and just have a good debate?
- I have a good understanding of Marxist cap, security, afropess, and humanism. I have a very basic understanding of Deleuzian cap, Baudrillard, and Saldanha. That being said, I can't vote for you unless you properly explain your theory to me and you should always err on the side of over-explanation when it comes to the links, alternative, turns case arguments, and kritiks your judge doesn't know front and back.
- For afropess specifically (cause apparently this needs to be on my paradigm) - if you are making ontological claims about blackness as a non-black debater, I will vote you down.
- The K needs to actually disagree with some or all of the affirmative. In other words, it needs to disprove, turn, or outweigh the case. Actual impact framing>>> bad ROB claims.
- Please don't spend 6 min reading an overview - if I can tell someone else wrote it for you, I will be very sad and drop your speaks - if your overview is contextualized to the 1ARs mistakes, however, I will be very happy and bump your speaks up.
- I think CX against the aff and CX against the K are very important and I make an effort to listen. Pointing out links in the aff and using links from CX itself is cool. I also find that sketchiness in CX is acceptable to some extent (ex: it's a floating PIK), but I'd prefer you not be an ass to your opponent. If you make an effort to actually explain your theory, links to the aff, and alternative sufficiently, I will make an effort to up your speaks. Absent a sufficient explanation, the threshold for responses to K plummets.
- I think K tricks/impact calc args (alt solves case, K turns case, root cause, floating PIK, value to life, ethics/D-rule) are under-utilized.
- Please have a good link wall with contextualized links from the case!
- The words pre/post-fiat are inconsequential to me. Just do proper impact framing.
- I think these strategies can be very interesting and these debates tend to be very fun to listen to. However, I'm not the best person to evaluate dense KvK rounds (not that I won't).
- If your K aff has no ties to the topic whatsoever, don't read it in front of me, it won't be a fun time for either of us.
- Your aff should be explained with, at the bare minimum, a comprehensible, good idea. If I can't explain what I think your affirmative/advocacy does, the threshold for responses along with your speaks drops.
- The 1AR vs T-FW/T-USFG should have a robust counter-interpretation that articulates a vision for the topic. Having counter-definitions is a good thing to do. "Your interp plus my aff" is not convincing.
- I'm more lenient to 1ARs with case arguments that apply to T, but I'm very hesitant to vote on new cross-apps in the 2AR unless they're justified.
- I'm most familiar with Kant since it was one of my generic strats, although I know some basic Hobbes/Testimony/Rawls.
- Please slow down on phil analytics/overviews as well.
- Be able to explain the difference between confidence and modesty and go for one in a rebuttal.
- If you can't explain your NCs syllogism in a way that I can explain it back, I'm not gonna feel comfortable voting on it.
- I think using examples to prove how a philosophy allows for some morally repugnant action is strategic.
- Please do proper weighing between framework justifications (if both sides keep repeating my fw precludes/hijacks yours without comparison, I will be sad and dock speaks)
- This is likely the type of debate like/want to see/feel comfortable evaluating the least. However, if this is your bread and butter, don't let that discourage you. That being said, if even I can tell you don't know how the trick you read interacts with the debate, your speaks will suffer.
- I'm from Texas and never debated in the Southeast or Northeast, so if you're from those states, err on the side of over-explanation.
- I'm probably going to be more lenient to you if you're not reading 30 hidden a prioris and skep triggers, so just keep that in mind.
- If you aren't winning truth testing, I'm probably not going to evaluate any of the tricks.
- I view presumption as a reason the judge should vote aff/neg in the absence of offense. I view permissibility as whether the aff/neg actions are permissible under some ethical theory/ in a world without morals. Winning skep will rely on you winning either 1- moral facts don't exist, 2- moral facts are unknowable, or 3- all moral statements are false.
- I'm generally pretty nice with speaks so long as you're clear and debate well - I prefer strategy over clarity but hey why not have both - I'll start from a 28.5 and go up or down depending on the round.
I'll up speaks for doing the following:
- ending a speech/prep early (<2 min) - up to +0.5 depending on strategy (I would prefer a shorter/concise and conversational speech to a repetitive long one, especially when debating a novice)
- if you make an arg with a funny analogy - up to +0.3 depending on quality
- keeping me interested in the debate (interesting affs, bold NCs, good/funny CX, etc.) - +0.1
Note for novices: I would advise you to "stay in your lane" as it were, I know debating using progressive techniques can sound fun or like a great way to easily beat your opponent, but frankly I think that is a little unfair. Furthermore, while I cant stop you from running anything you want, recognize that conforming to your judges preferences is an art and a skill that will help you a great deal. I am of the opinion that all debate should be an educational space, but novice especially, it is important to get down the fundamentals of debate before you move on to trickier things, walk before you can run. The rule stands for all debaters I judge that if you can't run it properly don't run it, also I would advise you to advocate for yourself, if you know you won't be able to flow properly if your opponent spreads, say something, you are both have equal rights to learning and enjoyment in this space so your opponent should take your preferences as well as mine into account. Your opponent may have a right to spread, but if they should chose to do so, you are also well within your rights to ask for a copy of their case. I know debate can be scary, especially if you are new to it, but it is truly a place where you can build skills you will use for the rest of your life if you let it, I am not here to work against you, and we've all been scared before going into round, so take a deep breath and know that it will all be okay.
Debate should be a fun and educational space, a little feistiness in round is cool but know the limits. I debated Lincoln Douglas for three years, and have been judging for two more, so I am familiar with most arguments, but make sure to sign post during rebuttal speeches. I am okay with speed but make sure your opponent is also okay. There is a time and place for spreading and if you should feel the need make sure you enunciate clearly, I have yet to find a speed that is too fast for me to flow as long as your words aren't a jumbled mess...content matters here so preference quality over quantity. Furthermore if you should feel the need to spread please send me your case, my email is email@example.com and I will let you know in round if you are going too fast by either saying "speed" or more likely "clear". I truly believe that a debate should speak for itself and will not make arguments for you so make sure to give me a clear road to the ballot (explain what points you've won and why it should win you the round). That being said while I will evaluate anything you put in front of me frankly, if you can't run a progressive case well, it will work against rather than for you. I believe theory needs to be weighed first in a round, but if you give me half assed theory, I will buy a half assed argument from your opponent to take it out. I don't love DA's, counterplans, K's, but that comes from a place where I RARELY see them run properly. I will evaluate all points you make fairly as long as they are fair points, so make good points and impact them out. WEIGH ARGUMENTS AGAINST ONE ANOTHER, it is not enough to just make good points in debate argue against your opponents points and tell me why yours are better. I will not tolerate outright violations of the safety of debate, name calling, intentional misuse of pronouns, derogatory comments of ANY kind toward your opponent; this is about your cases not each other and know that even if your opponent doesn't call you on it, I will via a loss of speaker points. As I said if you both want to be more spirited or plucky in your argumentation I think it can make the round more fun, but don't be rude and recognize how your opponent is feeling, if there is any doubt don't do it, you can usually tell who is up for a round with more banter, and who just needs a straightforward round so while I will always give the benefit of the doubt, don't push it :) (Bonus, ill give extra speaker points if you can work in a LOTR reference)
I'm a traditional LD judge - I prefer a traditional V/VC framework, and like a philosophical debate that substantively engages the resolution.
I have very limited tolerance for speed / lack of clarity.
I like debate and have been coaching and judging debate for 40 years. I competed in high school policy debate and college NDT and CEDA debate. For most of my career, I coached all events at Okoboji High School in Iowa. I worked for Summit Debate at NDF Boston in Public Forum for 15 years and judged numerous PF LD practice and tournament rounds. I have been the LD coach for Puyallup High School for the past four years. I'm working with the LD, Congress and PF at Puyallup.
The past six years, I've judge LD rounds from novice through circuit tournaments. I judge policy rarely, but I do enjoy it. Paradigms for each follow.
PF This is a debate that should be interesting for all Americans. It should not be overly fast or technical. I will take a detailed flow, and I don't mind terms like link and impact. Evidence should be read, and I expect refutation of important issues, especially the offense presented in the round. Follow the debate rules, and I should be good. The final focus should spend at least some time going over weighing. Be nice to each other, and Grand Cross should not be a yelling match. The summary speaker must extend any arguments to be used in Final Focus. I expect the second speaking team to engage in the arguments presented in the rebuttal. I do not like disclosure theory, and it would be difficult for me to vote for it.
LD - I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past four years. Washington state has a slower speed preference than the national circuit, so I'm not as practiced at that type of speed. My age means I don't flow or hear as well as I use to, so make sure I'm flowing. I like speed, but at rare times I have difficult time keeping up. If this happens, I will let you know. I expect a standard/criterion debate in the round. If you do something else, you must explain to me why it is legitimate. If you run policy positions, you must develop them enough for me to understand them. I do not like micropol positions. I will not drop them on face. I don't mind theory, but again, it must be developed. Bad advocacy is bad debating. Lying in the round or during cx will be dealt with severely. CX is binding. I expect clean extensions of arguments, and will give weight to arguments dropped by debaters. I want to be a blank slate in the back of the room. Please tell me why I should vote for you. Finally, I will not vote for disclosure theory unless something weird happens.
Policy died in our circuit, and we were the only team still trying to do it. I haven't coached a policy team for a season since 2010; however, I've had teams go to tournaments in policy for fun and to try it. I've also judged policy debate at district tournaments to fulfill the clean judge rule.
Watch me for speed. I will try to keep up, but I'm old. It's a lack of hearing that may cause me to fall behind. I will yell "clear," and that probably means slow down. I'll do my best. I like all kinds of policy arguments, and I'm ok with kritiks. You may want to explain them to me a bit better because it may have been awhile since I heard the argument. Besides that, I'm a policy maker unless you tell me to be something else. Theory is ok, but it should be developed. Abuse must be proven in the round. Rebuttals should kick unimportant arguments and settle on a few to delineate. The final speeches should weigh the arguments.
I'm a first time parent judge. I'm looking for convincing arguments and clear and concise rebuttal. I'd prefer conversational speed, but will not interrupt you if you go too fast, but I may then miss points. I bring experience as a corporate attorney, and past high school debater (although in a very different tradition).
firstname.lastname@example.org ; 7 years of policy debate experience
Debated at the TOC level in high school for 4 years, debated at the University of Wyoming from 2017-2021
Judging 2021-Present (Policy, CARD, sometimes high school policy & LD)
Over the last few years of judging policy and CARD, I lean more on being a big picture type judge. While I still believe that a dropped argument is true and I can follow tricky framing arguments on the flow, debaters need to provide clear judge direction in the rebuttals on what those arguments mean in terms of the debate and how I should deal with them at the end of the round. I am most persuaded by teams that go for fewer arguments in the rebuttals, spend time impacting/fleshing them out, and telling me how it implicates the rest of the debate.
Impacts need to be fleshed out in the final speeches. I need to know what is triggering the impact, where some war is happening, why it's uniquely coming now, etc. I find myself voting for teams that spend a lot of time in the final rebuttal giving me specific details on their impacts, how they can be avoided, and doing impact comparison with the other team. Same goes for more structural impacts.
Case engagement/a good strategy for case will go far in front of me. I find the block not spending as much time on case, and it makes the debate a lot closer than it should be. If you read one off vs. a policy aff, reading impact defense, solvency takeouts, and evidence indicts to these policy teams will go far in front of me. If you are aff, I am persuaded by teams that know their ev in/out and consistently talk about their aff (thorough impact explanations/comparison, drawing me a picture of what the aff world looks like, etc).
If you want me to vote on a role of the ballot/judge, there needs to be clear weighing and impact extension as to why this plays an important role in the debate. Evidence comparison and indicts are also great weighing mechanisms that I find are underutilized.
For kritiks v. policy affs, I prefer teams that give extensive analysis of their evidence and provide specific examples to contextualize their link with the aff, rather than dumping a bunch of cards or shadow extend arguments. If you read psychoanalysis or other high theory, I am going to need a lot of explanation on some basic concepts so please keep this in mind.
With counterplans, I default to judge kick unless told otherwise.
If you want to have some fun with what you read, I am all for it. I love impact turns including nuclear war good, untraditional styles where you’re playing games instead of debating with speech times, etc. – so long as there is a metric for how I as the judge evaluate the debate I am here for it.
--- LD ---
While I have not competed in LD, I have judged numerous varsity LD rounds from the local to national level. I do not have a preference to a style in which you debate the topic, i.e. philosophical, kritikal, traditional, etc., however, I do care that you debate the topic in some way.
Here are some thoughts that I have about particular arguments but also how I evaluate LD debates:
1. I view the value-criterion as the framing for the debate and typically go to that debate first so I can filter the rest of the debate through this framework. In some debates it matters, others it doesn't (especially if the teams agree on/have similar value-criterions).
2. I am going to take a bit from a former coach's paradigm because I believe this is something I encounter a lot in LD: "too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it's awesome. You should make sure I know it's awesome while you read it...Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, [by thoroughly explaining their evidence and why it matters in the debate], will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot."
3. I do not like when debaters will read/extend a bunch of arguments that do not provide a good warrant or reason why the argument matters. I would rather the 1NC read 1 less off case position in favor of more developed case analysis, impact calc, or fully complete arguments. I would rather the 1ar make 1 less theory argument in favor of actually explaining what the words "perm do both" mean, why the case outweighs, and sinking time in where it matters.
4. Impacting out your arguments and doing impact/evidence comparison in the final rebuttals is very important to me. Tell me why your arguments matters, why they are a priority, and overall why you won the debate. Ships passing in the night or blippy extensions are not advantageous for you.
5. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but it's not that hard to defend condo good and I think most of these counterplan issues are best resolved at the level of how competitive they are with the aff, not theory. Again, sink time into arguments where you feel confident in going for them and explaining thoroughly in your final rebuttal.
6. I do not discriminate against certain arguments but if you read Kant, I am probably not the judge for you. I have judge a few of these debates and they are pretty confusing to me. If you are a Kant person who gets me as a judge, I need a lot more explanation on some of these buzzwords. I am also convinced that many students who read Kant don't really go for an impact or tell me how it relates back to the resolution so please do these things.
Hi, I'm Quincy. I’m an assistant coach at Iowa City West, I am in college at the University of Iowa, I debated for 2 years and I have been judging LD for 4 years, PF for 3 years and speech events for 2 years. For the sake of transparency, I’ve only judged 4-5 bid tournaments, but again, I’ve been around the block.
Email Chain Format:
1. Spreading: If I cannot understand you, I will say 'clear'. I expect to be on the e-mail chain. If I have to say ‘clear’ more than twice, I will stop flowing until your you achieve clarity again.
a) Strategy: Debate is an intellectual battle. Strategy shows that you are a good debater. Creativity in your arguments shows ingenuity, which will be rewarded. Unorthodox standards or contentions are encouraged.
b) Common Courtesy: Some simple things affect this, like whether or not you ask to see if your opponent is ready before a speech or before CX. Signposting is always good. Off-time road map, etc. DBAA- don’t be a jerk.
c) Presentation: This has everything to do with how you carry yourself. Wealth can’t buy class. You can look more presentable with a $3 t-shirt than in a rumpled $500 suit.
I will award speaker points based on these factors, and debaters that exhibit a good combination of both of these will be the only ones whom I will award 30 speaks. I will typically award 27-29 or so.
3. Norms Setting: I will harshly punish prejudice (ableism, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.), evidence ethics violations, and other tomfoolery. I reserve the right to unilaterally drop you from the round if the violation is egregious enough. On the flip side, frivolous IVIs will not convince me.
Don't steal prep time, don't stall, and have your evidence and sources on hand in case your opponent asks about them.
4. Ks: I will give VERY low speaks if you run an identity K(e.g, afropess, queerpess, etc.) that doesn’t apply to you (e.g. afropess but you aren’t black).
5. tech > truth. Obviously. If you win K > theory, I’ll vote on that. If you do the opposite, I’ll vote on that too.
Lastly, if you have questions, or if anything is unclear, don't hesitate to ask. However, you should wait until your opponent is present to ask questions.
Good luck, and may the best debater win!
P.S. +0.1 speaks if you tastefully roast any (current) IC West Debater.
Badgerland Only: online tournaments often have audio issues. Please ensure your environment is clear of ambient noise. I’d hate to vote incorrectly because of audio interruptions.
UT UPDATE: Not voting on speaks theory or eval after X speech unless articulated as "eval every argument in the debate after X speech except for this one"
Tech over truth. If you disagree, strike me. My flow will never be disregarded. I do not reject arguments because they are "silly" or "intuitively stupid". The truth of an argument is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is whether it was technically defeated.
I litigate arguments, not people. The introduction of screenshots, arguments about your opponent's identity, threats of violence, or character attacks will result in an immediate loss and the lowest speaker points I can possibly give. What happened outside the round is not my concern, and frankly, I do not care.
Behave maturely. Snarkiness and wit can be appreciated, but being a jerk is likely to annoy me. There are better ways to achieve perceptual dominance than denigrating your opponent.
Bring accessibility concerns to me before the round so I can make accommodations. Do not intentionally misgender/deadname people.
The degree to which shenanigans are present in the debate has a negative correlation with my threshold for warranting. My warrant threshold is lower in tricks rounds, and higher in substantive rounds.
Zero risk is possible but difficult to get. Dropped internals/impacts don't have to be explained, just pointed out. Insertions of evidence do not need to be read unless contested. I will read cards after the debate, but flag cards you want me to read.
Answer arguments in the order they were read and number them. I detest poor organization and it makes it difficult to resolve arguments.
Clearly point out that you control try-or-die and explain why it matters.
Fine for "cheat-y" process CPs, PICs, agent CPs, and anything else people dislike. The burden is on the aff to explain why their actor or process is necessary.
Judge kick unless told otherwise. Textual competition alone is vile. Equally good for "functional" and "functional and textual" competition.
CP theory is generally more convincing as a reason to reject the argument or a permutation.
I prefer the simplicity of a DA/case 2NR. Anything from links to fiat, to politics, to core topic DAs is permissible.
Turns case arguments and "even if" win conditions should be utilized very heavily.
Most theoretical responses to DAs are insane. The intrinsicness test is a vile, brain-rotted argument that deserves no more a rude remark.
I will evaluate these debates with the same level of technicality as any other debate. Defaults are drop the debater, competing interps, no RVIs, fairness and education matter, and epistemic confidence. If a shell with no paradigm issues is read and this is not contested, I will assume those defaults.
There is no bright-line for when a shell becomes "frivolous". Intuition is a subjective metric that allows judges to intervene to avoid attempting to think about debates. If offense to a shell is won, then it is obviously not frivolous.
My personal biases tend towards framework, but the rules of debate are themselves debatable. Explain the benefits of your model and why they outweigh and/or turn the benefits of theirs.
Fairness = Skills > Clash.
The only thing my ballot can change is your Tabroom record and your mood. I am unreceptive to spillover arguments that proclaim to change anything internal or external to debate absent a very good card.
Your impact turns need to be nuanced and well-explained. Topicality is not policing, it is not surveillance, and, no, the reading of topicality itself did not cause you psychological harm. Grow up.
K teams should pref me if they believe that they can use technical debating, knowledge asymmetry, and strategy to beat their opponents. If you cannot do this and instead want me to rely on my "intuition" or "throw away my biases", you will lose.
I have only a passing familiarity with most critical literature bases. I find most of it to be very boring and uninteresting. Innovation is rewarded as it will improve both my mood and my desire to vote for you.
Keep insane buzzwords out of debate. Do not throw terms from drama PhDs and expect me to know what they mean. Explain arguments.
I will not evaluate appeals to personal experience. Debate is a competition, not therapy. Appeals to emotion will be disregarded.
I don't have a strong predisposition for/against tricks. If an argument has a warrant, I am obligated to consider it. I will not disregard arguments because they are "stupid" or "don't make sense" unless the explanation of said arguments is poor. "Unwarranted" arguments can be answered by equally empty arguments.
I don't care if you read nail-bomb against novices/traditional debaters. Debaters are here to win, not be nice. Either get good or get out.
Judge instruction and crystallization are important in these debates, especially if it is high-level. Pointing out conceded a prioris, explaining why those are more important / turn their offense, and generally making my ballot easier will make me happy.
I have a debate-level understanding of most philosophy and am not particularly academically well-read in any one particular framework. I have good understandings of Kant, Rawls, Util, Hobbes, and decent/okay understandings of things like Levinas and particularism.
Weigh between justifications, make hijacks, presumption arguments, etc. Short overview explanations of your framework become more necessary the more esoteric the framework is. Slow down on the complicated stuff.
Most independent voters to frameworks are stupid. There are usually 2/3 arguments in conjunction with each other that make it very difficult for me to consider them legitimate.
I have an extensive history in debate. I did LD in high school and CEDA in college. I have coached NPDA, IPDA and BP as well as a full spectrum of speech events. I am currently the Director at the University of Washington Bothell.
I prefer clash debate. I don't mind speed as long as everyone in the competition is happy with that. Debate should not leave anyone out. Make sure to meet criteria. After that, I try to be tab and judge on what the debaters bring into the round.
My name is Madysyn Williams. I have experience in LD, Spar, and Impromptu.
Speed- Going fast is okay as long as its not incredibly fast. On a scale of 1-10, about a 7 is the fastest I would like to see, slower is completely fine. Something I don't like to see in this area is going so fast just to trip up your opponent, I prefer to see actual debate.
I like to see framework debate in LD. Please do not forget your framework it is very important in my weighing of rounds.
Impacts are very important, I like to see how exactly your case is relevant and solves for issues.
I started to learn LD debate in the summer of 2021. I am a parent judge. I’ve worked in the IT industry for over two decades.
You should speak at a conversational speed and convince me with evidence and reasoning for why I should vote for your side. I will not vote against you for exceeding my preferred speed, but if I cannot understand you when you give speeches (e.g. by spreading), it will not help you.
I feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case. Explain the criterion if it is uncommon. I am a traditional judge. Try not to use Kritiks, Theory or Tricks in your speeches or CX; I may not understand those types of arguments. Contentions, Disadvantages, and Counterplans are fine. Affirmatives may read Plans only if they are topical.
I prefer roadmapping and signposting before every card so that I can properly flow the debate, and I think Voting issues are necessary.
I will vote for whomever persuaded me more that they better uphold the criterion.
I’m a new judge, but I’m clear at what I want to see in a round.
Debate should be understandable for everyone, so I discourage the use of speaking fast. Respecting your opponent and your judge should be counted. Off time roadmap helps me understand the topic and your stance. Good luck!
Hi there --
I began learning about the world of LD debate this past year and have a background in technical communications and writing.
I believe the essence of a strong case is built upon logical arguments backed with appropriate evidence that is concise and easy to understand. The key, hence, is to persuade me that your side is better in an efficient and effective manner, this can include leveraging tools such as clear structure, roadmaps, and signposting. I would prefer no spreading and am not likely to prefer theory arguments. Additionally, debate terminology is not one of my strong suit, so clarity is key.
Good luck and have fun!~