Lakeland Westchester Classic
2023 — NY/US
PF Varsity Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
As a judge, I am personally very big on delivery and the style in which the presentation is done. I am a strong believer that a passionate, engaging form of delivery is crucial for any successful speech. I like to see active participation and I also like when competitors avoid direct-reading like the plague!
I’ve been judging both speech and congress for over 5 years and can say that the experience has been great!
I am a lay parent judge. Please be organized in your presentation -- I like solid arguments articulated clearly. Please don't talk too fast, mumble, speak softly, or do anything that would make it harder for me to follow -- give me a clear way to vote for you. I may ask for cards at the end.
Be civil: if you use foul language, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.
Be considerate: If you ask a question in crossfire, please allow your opponents to answer your questions. I need to hear two sides - it wouldn't be a debate otherwise.
I look forward to hearing all of your presentations -- have fun!
Current Affiliations - competitor @ Washburn University: '21-Present, coach @ North Broward Prep: '22-Present.
Past Affiliations - Topeka High School: '17-'21
Don't be mean, this should be a fun event for everyone. People who are mean will be punished via lower speaks. People who are actively awful (discriminatory, violent, or hateful to no end) will be punished via a combination of lower speaks, an L, and a discussion with relevant coaches/adults affiliated with your school.
Tl;dr - well enough for anything, best for policy affs vs. any variation of strategy. go fast, but go fast well. extend ur arguments. write good plan texts or suffer the consequences. sucker for case debate. do what you can justify, and don't blame me if you fail to.
I generally believe debates are determined by a comparison of offensive arguments to relevant defensive responses in the debate. To win under this frame of reference teams should be articulating why the offense they are attempting to win on first overcomes the defense the opposing team has read against it, and second, proving that their offense outweighs its competition. If there is another paradigm for me to evaluate through, it should be articulated as an argument in the round as any other. I think arguments should be properly extended in each speech/block of speeches and will ‘strike-out’ arguments that do not meet that burden if pointed out by the opposing team (sans arguments that are entirely new in the final speeches, given that I am able to identify them as such myself).
I am fine with folks reading fast, but I have become disillusioned by the lack of clarity in many of the speeches I hear. If I say clear (at least in-person) twice, and the problem is not rectified, I will sit my pen down until it is. I think clarity is especially important on taglines, theory positions, any analytical argument, etc. I do not flow off of the speech doc (or usually even look at it beyond the 1AC/1NC) and expect to be able to understand the content being presented.
I like to think I have no preference for a particular type of argument, but I know that I am probably better for certain debates than others. The following list ranks from best to worst what types of debates I am most comfortable evaluating:
1 – Policy vs. K
2 – Policy vs. Policy
3 – K vs. K
4 – K vs. Policy
I will note that I am most considerate of affirmatives that explicitly relate themselves to the topic. How one establishes relation to the topic is debatable, but I consider 'relation enough' to be such that a negative team can access normative arguments about the direction of the topic.
While I enjoy debates with a critical tinge, I have a strong dislike for rounds where it is obvious the team reading the argument does not understand it. If you have a hint of discomfort reading the argument, it is probably best to pick something else one is more confident in. It will always be better to read a perhaps marginally less strategic argument one is confident in than something a bit better that one has no understanding of. I worry less about my understanding of a particular vein of literature and worry more about any given debater’s ability to teach it---critical rounds will never get to the level of nuance or criticism that the authors they are based off of do, and attempting to make it so results in a confusing engagement that leaves everyone worse off.
I prefer affirmatives to have plan texts specific to the solvency advocates being read to justify them. I also prefer plan texts themselves to be grammatically accurate. Given these things, I am usually sympathetic to teams reading theory arguments about solvency advocates or the shortcomings of the plan text itself. Presumption definitely exists (though I don't understand how it 'flips neg' and doesn't just become a burden shared by the plan and counter-advocacy), and I am more predisposed to voting on it than others I am sure.
Being raised a 2N, I appreciate crafty 1NC strategy, and am generally okay with wacky counterplans and types of argument. The problem is, often wacky arguments are built on poor evidence or illogical premises, usually making them hard to defend. My thoughts regarding counterplans generally come down to ‘do what you can justify’, understanding that justifying arguments becomes much harder the worse quality the evidence is. I think most theoretical objections in terms of counterplans and permutations are ‘reject the argument’ at best, sans conditionality. Things like judge-kick and sufficiency framing are not assumed and must be articulated.
Disadvantages require each of their requisite components, uniqueness, a link, internal-link, and impact. Disadvantage evidence should be highlighted such that the warrants required to demonstrate that the components exist are spoken. Case turns should be read on case!
In terms of topicality, I find myself often unpersuaded by arguments for reasonability, and think teams would find a more strategic out by either writing a properly topical plan text and winning the we meet or dedicating time to winning a workable counter interpretation. The plan text seems to be the only metric I can evaluate the topicality of the aff through.
I DO NOT WANT TO BE ON YOUR GOOGLE DOC - WORD DOCs on EMAIL CHAINS OR SPEECHDROP PLEASE
firstname.lastname@example.org -- make an email chain and put me on it! doing this before the round starts = +.1 speaks
Below is a list of "non-negotiables" that if not followed, will be rewarded with not good speaker points/decisions for the team(s).
- evidence must bein the form of cards (see: policy debate), I've come to the point where paraphrasing is in my eyes nothing more than a fancy analytic. Proper cards are much preferred, and your speaker points are capped at 28.5 if you are not reading them.
- Teams must respond to opponents arguments, and extend their own arguments, in every speech, including offensive reasons to vote for their team. Preferably in line-by-line fashion.
- IF requested by a competitor, both teams/all speakers will not spread. While I understand the trend is PF being "policy lite" I believe if anything, it provides a chance for some accessibility in "higher echelons" of the activity, and will do what I can to help that. I will not be compelled by theory arguments/critiques about the nature of spreading, unless a request is made prior to the debate, for the sake of avoiding "gotcha" criticisms.
- Arguments must be extended in both summary and final focus to be considered on my RFD.. see whats below on flowing/line-by-line
- If evidence is being sent after speeches (not sending marked docs of what you didn't read after the speech), someone is taking prep time. I do not plan to wait and delay my decision/the tournament for 10 minutes of post 1AC/1NC evidence sharing
While public forum is intended to be more "communicative" than other formats (whatever that means), I do not believe that comes at the cost of technical engagement and argumentation. Competitors should be coherently responding to opponents arguments, in order, based off the flow. Flowing is good, and demonstrating that one can competently do it will be rewarded.
I am fine with policy tactics in PF (plans, counterplans, etc.), however the speech times and resolutions in this activity are most likely more conducive to whole-resolution focused debating more than anything else.
Extra notes -
There is no need to tell me how much prep time you plan to take.
You do not really need to specify in the "roadmap" anything more than which case/side you will begin on -- saying "ill start with links then do weighing and then make voters" is irrelevant and does not change how i flow arguments
Disclosure theory is quite often a bad argument when deployed in PF, if you plan to read theory, it should not take more than 30 seconds of your speech. I do not understand the "here is 2 minutes of theory offense" trend. If you plan to go for theory in your last speech, it should be the entirety of your speech. Procedurals (arguments about the nature of the debate round) usually come prior to questions of substance (offensive/defensive arguments within the debate round).
I debated in college for Swarthmore, and I have judged public forum a couple of times before. Please weigh clearly and signpost excessively.
Hello! My name is Brendan Collins Jordan (they/she), and I am a history and religion teacher at The Masters School in Dobbs Ferry, NY.
I recognize some teams spread more than others, but keep your delivery clear and paced slow enough that a reasonable judge can still follow and flow what you're saying. I appreciate clearly stated claims, logical arguments, and evidence that is based on current and reliable sources. I will count misrepresentation of your sources against you.
I do not tolerate racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc., in your debating or in your arguments. I also don't appreciate bullying, yelling, or rudeness, so keep that out of the round. Please be kind and respectful of others!
Above all, have fun! I am an argumentation nerd, so I'm excited to see what you have to say and look forward to a good round.
Hello! My name is Tim (Sim Low's league partner), and you can call me by my name.
Everyone should understand that although debate is a competitive activity, it should still be one that is enjoyable. Winning is great, but please relax and enjoy your round.
I competed mainly in Public Forum as the second speaker and in Lincoln-Douglas as well as in some Forensic events (Impromptu and Original Oratory) during high school. My high school team competed mainly on the VHSL district level, where I won speaker and team awards. I now currently compete in College Parliamentary at Johns Hopkins University, where I major in neuroscience on the pre-med track.
For other inquiries such as questions about your round, how to improve, etc., you can reach me at email@example.com.
The most important thing in any debate round is asking "why." Every debater should always ask why their argument is being said and why it is even important in the round. Please do not give me bare statements that are simple reiterations of what your research says. Remember to always warrant, mechanize, and impact/weigh your arguments.
I can, and will, follow speed; that does not mean, however, that you should speak at an incomprehensible pace. I will say ‘clear’ or ‘slow’ up to three times - if you fail to adapt, I will flow what I can and whatever I cannot will be missed. I realized that there are some of you guys who speak at >500 wpm; this is absolutely insane for me, so please slow down or you risk me not catching and flowing what you say, which will be reflected in the RFD.
I am very strict on debate being inclusive and equitable. If you even, at the slightest, include any rhetoric that is prejudiced or bigoted towards your opponents, you will automatically be given a loss with the lowest speaks possible. Trust me, I have done this in the past and will continue to do so as it makes my job easier. Likewise, please do not be rude to each other during the debate, particularly during the cross-examinations/rebuttals. I understand that aggressive debates exist; however, if I find that you are being excessively, and persistently, disrespectful, I will dock your speaks. Lastly, please disclose on time. I hate voting on disclosure because I want to hear what you guys have prepared. However, if your cases are not disclosed on time and there is a disclosure argument that has substantive warranting and weighing, I will end up voting for it at the very top.
I will happily answer questions after the round, but I will not tolerate being yelled at by you or your coaches. As much as I love feedback from you guys, please do not post-round me in bad faith. If you decide to post-round me, trust me that my decision will not change. My RFD will be comprehensive enough that when I explain it to tab or whoever I must explain it to, they will also agree with my RFD and stick with my decision.
I believe that the two most important skills in Public Forum are 1) comparative analysis and 2) weighing. What this looks like is comparing the two worlds and showing me why your world is better or showing me why your arguments are the most important for x, y, z reasons. Please also look at the internal links! If you fail to do so, then I will adjudicate based on what argument I believe to be winning, and I can promise you that it will not work in your favor.
I likewise believe that having cards with proper citations is extremely important. If you assume that I will not catch you, I promise you that I will. When I enter a round, I expect all debaters to not cheat. If you do not have proper citations or if you even attempt to misrepresent research, I will drop you with the lowest speaks possible. With this in mind, please send me all your cases and any evidence you intend to read prior to starting your speeches. Yes, I mean all. If you opt out of this, I will assume that you have made up every single card that you are reading and drop you on the spot. In the extreme case that both teams do not send me their cases, have improper citations, or misrepresent research, I will ask Siri to assign the win. I take this very seriously, and I hope you all do too.
If you are inefficient in sending cases, cards, or any forms of evidence when requested, I will start your prep time; if it becomes excessive, I will deduct speaker points. I understand that internet issues exist, but this should not be taking you anything more than a couple minutes at most. I have had too many rounds where the round went past the tournament time by 15-20 minutes, and this not only takes away my time, but also delays the tournament. It really is not hard to have everything prepared before each round starts, so please spend a couple minutes after pairings drop to ensure that you have everything ready.
I have two new pet peeves in this format. The first is when you guys tell me that "you are going to collapse on x argument because it was dropped" and then subsequently do nothing. Just because there is an argument that is dropped and you say "you are going to collapse on it" does not mean I will auto-vote on it. You still need to show me why you are collapsing on that argument, why it is important, and why it outweighs any other arguments that your opponents bring up. The second is when you guys tell me that "this is frontline" or that you guys are going to "extend this." If you do not tell me why you are doing these things or why these things matter in the round, then I will not care.
Over time, some of you guys have been trying to include arguments from other formats into Public Forum. Look, if you want to engage in K debates, then go switch your format to Policy. I am unsure as to why you want to include such arguments in a format that traditionally does not include them; I promise you that you are not doing something unique by bringing in these arguments. Theory is permissible and has always been okay in this format, and that is theory when it pertains to violating basic rules, misrepresenting research, improperly cutting cards, and so on.
At the end of the day, please do not make me do extra work. If you are going to make a claim, warrant, mechanize, and impact it out. If you are going to go for any argument, delineate everything to me. What this looks like is going from step one of an argument and showing me all the steps in between to reach step five of the argument. You should never give me one step and then jump to the conclusion without delineating to me how you got there. If you fail to do so, I will not be upset, but sad... very sad.
I will be very honest; Policy is a relatively new format for me. Although I believe that I have become a more experienced Policy judge, especially in the K debate, I am nowhere near as good as the top judges that you have seen on the circuit. I will change this once I know that I can be a proper judge for you all.
I know that many judges include in their paradigm specific preferences for how certain arguments should play out; for example, a judge may describe their preferences regarding CPs, DAs, theory, topicality, and so on. For me, I genuinely do not care about which arguments you run, as long as they are all properly explained. What this looks like is running Cap K and telling me your arguments, why you link, and why it matters in the round that you are in. Just treat me as a lay judge and explain everything to me.
Lincoln-Douglas has changed a great deal since I have participated in this event. I still know, to a great extent, the many philosophers that Lincoln-Douglas debaters cite and use in their arguments. However, I do not know much about truth-testing, tricks, combo shells, and paradoxes. If you have me as your judge, you need to either 1) include cards about the basics behind these arguments and why you are using them in your round or 2) avoid them. Take the time to explain them to me and I will be more than happy to go back and understand them so that you can still use such arguments. Otherwise, you can treat the round like any other Lincoln-Douglas round.
When I judge, speaks always start at 28.0. Depending on how the round goes, I move up or down. I do not see the need to explain what constitutes a high score versus a low score, but here is a short description on what your speaker scores should mean to you when I judge you. If you get a 29.5-30.0, I am clearing you and expect you to break. If you get a 29.0-29.4, you did well and I believe you can break if you are in a bubble. If you get a 27-28.9, you performed as expected. If you get anything below a 27, you did something terrible and I had no qualms docking you. Please do not be the first debater that I have given below a 27 to. Most importantly, I do not, and will not, entertain any speaks theory.
If you have made it to the end of my paradigm, congratulations are in order. You can make a joke during any of your speeches and I will bump up your speaks by 0.1 and possibly 0.2. Please enjoy your round and have fun!
Background - PhD in science and engineering (materials, chemical)
Debate judge for a few years - judged middle school and high school debates
I will flow the round
tech > truth
clear/structured > compiling/spreading
cards/logic reasoning > buzz words/waving hands
Public speaking > screen reading
Respect to other team > aggressive
Get permission first > say sorry later
I value clear and concise arguments and responses with strong cards or logic reasoning. Compiling/spreading is not encouraged.
If your opponent wins one link in a link chain, then you can not use your impact. Make sure that the links are for your side in order for your impact to stand.
Make sure that your impacts are clearly stated. I do not want to guess what your impact is. Tell me what it is clearly.
If you give me a framework, tell me why the framework should be there. Explain why the framework works in the resolution and why the framework will benefit the round.
I will not view what you say in cross-fire for the actual debate unless the point is brought up in speeches.
In rebuttal, if you are planning to respond, give me clear signposting on what your response is. Don't just repeat your contentions again as that is not responding to what your opponent is saying.
Make sure you extend your contentions throughout the debate. In summary, you should extend your contentions and collapse if you want. I want weighing in summary on the impacts. Tell me why your impact is more important than the opponents' impact.
I value probability > magnitude and scope. If something will not happen, then there is no magnitude or scope. Make sure you prove that your impact has a probable chance.
I want voting issues in final focus to help me understand your main arguments. Tell me what is important in final focus so I know what to judge off of.
I did 4 years of pf at stuyvesant in nyc (2016-20)
how i evaluate a round
- usually i only be look at summary&ff unless i have a reason not to (e.g. the impact to this turn wasn't in rebuttal, evidence from case, etc.)
- who wins framing? if there is a framework debate i look there first to decide how i should evaluate the round. usually whoever has better warrants + compares their framework to the alternative and explains why it's better wins.
- i look at the offense that each team has extended in summary & ff. extended means that the entire argument is present-- uniqueness (if it's weird or contested), links w/ warrants (all the way from the resolution to the impact, e.g. rtw --> fewer ppl in unions b/c they don't have to pay dues if they're not members --> weaker unions b/c their power comes from collective bargaining which requires union members to effectively strike/negotiate b/c there is no leverage if a corp. barely loses any workers --> less of the benefits they collectively bargain for --> impact). then, i look if there is any terminal defense & if so has it been responded to? this goes beyond justa response and requires a response that engages with the warrant/evidence of the defense: does the frontline make this response untrue? if there is terminal defense i don't consider the offense, if it's handled i then look to mitagatory defense and factor it in (it helps if the team who reads mitagatory defense tells me what that means in the case of me evaluating the round)
- if there is unresolved clash at the link level, i see if either team has compared the links (e.g. is it more important for unions to have money or members for their effectiveness?) and if they have whose comparison is better (if you compare the comparisons and tell me why your warranting is more true i'll vote there). if it's at the impact level again i look to see which team has given me better comparisons. if you metaweigh and compare your weighing i'll evaluate it how i'm told to.
- if anything is not compared i have to independently decide how i treat the clash/weighing. this puts your fate into my hands! pls don't do this
- if you say "time starts on my first word" or "time starts in 3, 2, 1" etc i reserve the right to dock speaks
- frontline in second rebuttal (necessary for offensive responses, recommended for defense)
- warrants matter more to me than impacts but i'm never really comfortable voting on an incomplete argument (missing a link, warrant, etc)
- blippy extensions aren’t compelling — you don’t have to pretend i’ve never heard the argument before, but you do need to re-explain it in its entirety. fontlining does not mean you're extending your case! feel free to extend while you frontline, but make sure the necessary warrants that don't have any ink on them and are not being frontlined are also extended.
- a lot of summaries try to do too much, you don’t need to win every arg to win the round. i rarely end up voting for teams with multiple pieces of offense, time trades off with extension quality
- good warrants > evidence with warrants > warrants > evidence
- extend cards for emperics
- if you want me to vote on a turn it needs to be warranted, implicated and impacted when you read it and it needs to be weighed in summary & ff. happy to vote for a turn & dropped case if you do this, though!
- if i call evidence it means the round is closer than you should let it
- tech over truth but it’s not absolute. the more ridiculous an argument, the more leeway i give for responses
- weigh, and not just with buzzwords ! do the work to compare the offense and convince me to vote for you in spite of defense. if the clash happens at the link level, i need explicit reasons to prefer your warrants/evidence
- most of the rounds i’ve judged are decided by (1) which team extended a complete argument through ff with links or (2) which team weighed better
- i don't love to judge evidence debates, and it's unlikely i will call for evidence if there is a way for me to evaluate the round without doing so. i will accept any indict as true unless it is responded to in-round
- assume 0 topic knowledge if it's my first tournament judging the topic
- in person email chains are weird
- my understanding of the round will trade off with speed. if you plan on spreading send a speech doc to firstname.lastname@example.org
- i attended 1 progressive argumentation lecture at ndf in 2019. that is the extent of my understanding of the technical aspects of a theory debate, i probably won't vote on it. if there is an abuse in case that you genuinely think is bad for norms, make the argument in rebuttal. if there is an in-round safety violation, say something in a speech and i'll be pretty comfortable dropping the debater.
My name is Lukas Hemmer. I have received judge training, and have participated in 5 tournaments, but please go easy. I am looking for clear and concise arguments delivered slowly and carefully. Treat me like you would a "Lay" judge.
Debate History: I debated for Towson University & Binghamton University (4 years college).
First and foremost, I will not tell you how to engage in the debate. Whether it be policy or K affirmatives I'm open to debaters showcasing their research in any format they choose. However, I do prefer if debaters orient their affirmative construction towards the resolution.
When evaluating a debate I tend to weigh the impacts of the affirmative to any disadvantage or impact the negative goes for in the 2NR. Therefore, if the affirmative does not extend case in the 2AR it becomes more difficult for me to evaluate the debate unless you tell me the specific argument I should be voting on otherwise.
Next, is framework. I evaluate this before anything else in the debate. If you run framework in front of me go for decision making, policy research good, learning about X (insert topic related policy discussion i.e. warming, tech, economy, education, etc.) is good, clash or ground. I do not want to feel as though your framework is exclusionary to alternative debate formats but instead debate about its inherent benefits.
I also really enjoy case debate. If you are on the negative please have case turns and case specific evidence so that the debate for me is a bit more specific and engaging.
CP's and DA's are also arguments I evaluate but I need to have a good link for both or it will make it difficult for me to vote for them.
Please focus more on explanation of evidence and not on the amount of evidence introduced in the debate.
I tend to keep up on politics and critical literature so don't be afraid of running an argument in front of me. I will always ask for preferred pronouns and do not tolerate racism, white supremacy, anti-blackness, sexism, patriarchy, transphobia and xenophobia.
Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com
I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I have not judged much during the pandemic so please start a little slower and work up to your top speed and please articulate. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic and I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.
The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.
Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.
Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.
Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.
Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.
New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.
Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.
The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.
Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.
Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.
Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.
New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.
Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.
Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.
The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.
Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.
Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.
Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.
Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.
Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.
Update for 2023: College Sophomore
Formerly Debated as Devin Kyser
Currently go by Drixxon. Devin is fine if we knew each other pre-Drixxon.
contact me via email@example.com
GDS Alum. If we have that in common, cool.
If there's an email chain, I'd appreciate being on it, but I'm fine with spreading as long as you're somewhat clear.
Will vote on Kritiks and Theory Shells as long as you explain them well. Not a very big fan of tricks, but I won't vote you down for it.
Please keep things cordial and respectful. I understand that Debates can get very intense, but it's important to attack someone's case rather than their person.
Sign posting is highly valued, as it makes my job easier, and is appreciated when I see that your case and motives are organized.
I'm a parent judge. Debaters please talk clearly without rushing to beat the clock. I have some experience judging, but I still prefer that you talk slowly and explain your arguments clearly. I will vote based on a combination of the best arguments and how well you convince me with them.
This is my first year judging PF. This means that you must do your job to adapt to me as a judge, but at the same time I will do my best to follow what you say, take notes and provide feedback. I understrand that you have spent time and effort on it so I take judging very seriously.
You can speak as fast or as slow as you want, however, explain everything that you are saying very clearly. Do not skip any steps in your logical chains – things that are intuitive to you might not seem that way to me.
I will do my best to judge the round fairly as long as you do your best to convince me why you should win. Please speak in a conversational tone – don’t yell – and be as persuasive as you can. Be respectful!!
For the October Topic, I do have a little topical knowledge on it and I've seen unique arguments for both sides!
**Updated October 31, 2023
My judging history will show that I’ve primarily tabbed at tournaments since the pandemic started. However, I’ve been keeping up with topic discussions across LD, PF, and Policy and am looking forward to judging you all!
I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now, and have been coaching with Lexington since 2016. Starting this academic year, I also teach Varsity LD and Novice PF at LHS. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged mainly policy and LD since 2016. I also judge PF at some tournaments along with practice debates on every topic.
TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive or exclusionary. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round to frame my ballot. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.
ONLINE DEBATE NOTES
In an online world, you should reduce your speed to about 75%-80%. It’s difficult for me to say clear in a way that doesn’t totally disrupt your speech and throw you off, so focusing on clarity and efficiency are especially important.
I usually use two monitors, with my flow on the second monitor, so when I’m looking to the side, I’m looking at the flow or my ballot.
MORE IN DEPTH GENERAL NOTES
If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I flow by ear and have your speech doc primarily for author names, so make sure your tags/arguments/analytics are clear. I default to tech over truth and debate being a competitive and educational activity. That being said, how I evaluate a debate is up for debate. The threshold for answering arguments without warrants is low, and I don’t find blippy arguments to be particularly persuasive.
In general: Please also look at my policy paradigm for argument specific information! I take my flow seriously but am really not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates. I am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well-articulated and impacted. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and err on over-explaining your lit.
On Framework: In LD, I default to framework as a lens to evaluate impacts in the round. However, I am willing to (and will) evaluate framework as the only impact to the round. Framework debates tend to get really messy, so I ask that you try to go top-down when possible. Please try to collapse arguments when you can and get as much clash on the flow as possible.
A note on fairness as a voter: I am willing to vote on fairness, but I tend to think of fairness as more of an internal link to an impact.
On T: I default to competing interpretations. If you’re going for T, please make sure that you’re weighing your standards against your opponent’s. In evaluating debates, I default to T before theory.
On Theory: I lean towards granting 1AR theory for abusive strats. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and would prefer clash on substantive areas of the debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.
On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. Further, please make sure that if you’re going for an RVI that you spend sufficient time on it.
On Ks: I think that the NR is a difficult speech - answering the first indicts on a K and then having to collapse and go for the K is tricky. Please make sure that you're using your time effectively - what is the world of the alt and why is my ballot key to resolving the impacts that you outline?
In general: I rely on my flow to decide the round. Keeping my flow clean is the best path to my ballot, so please make sure that your speeches are organized and weigh your arguments against your opponents.
On Paraphrasing: I would also prefer that you do not paraphrase evidence. However, if you must, please slow down on your analytical blocks so that I can effectively flow your arguments - if you read 25 words straight that you want on my flow, I can't type quickly enough to do that, even when I'm a pretty fast typer in general. Please also make sure that you take care to not misrepresent your evidence.
General Comments On LD/Policy Arguments: While I will evaluate the round based on my flow, I want PF to be PF. Please do not feel that you need to adapt to my LD/Policy background when I’m in the back of the room.
On PF Theory: It's a thing, now. I don't particularly love it, but I do judge based off of my flow, so I will vote on it. However, I really, really, really dislike frivolous theory (feel free to look at my LD and Policy paradigms on this subject), so please make sure that if you're reading theory in a round, you are making it relevant to the debate at hand.
On Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round. Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. Please weigh your standards against your opponent’s and tell me why your model of debate works best. While I will vote on fairness as a voter, I tend to default to it as an internal link to another impact, i.e. education.
One off FW: These rounds tend to get messy. Please slow down for the analytics. The best path to my ballot is creating fewer, well-articulated arguments that directly clash with your opponent’s.
On Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority of your 2NR. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you clearly articulate why your interpretation is best for debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.
On DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please use impact calc.
On K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates. Coming from the 1AC, I need a clear articulation of your solvency mechanism and the role of ballot / judge.
Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow
On Ks: Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I have some experience with most authors you will read in most cases and should be able to hold my own if it’s well articulated. I need to understand the world of the alt, how it outweighs case impacts, and what the ballot resolves.
One off Ks: These rounds tend to get very nuanced, especially if it’s a K v K debate. Please have me put framework on another flow and go line by line.
I am currently a medical student at the University of Miami.
- I debated at the University of Pittsburgh (2019-2022) and Glenbrook North HS (2015-2019). I qualified twice to the TOC, qualified twice to the NDT, and have cleared at the NDT.
- Assume I know nothing about the topic.
- You do you. Debate is a game but how you play it is up to you.
- I have noticed that I tend to make decisions based on the simplest way to resolve a debate. The clearer your flow, and the more you explain the implications of the arguments you are winning, the more likely an argument/claim/warrant will result in a victory.
- Please be entertaining and pretty please, do impact calculus.
Framework and Topicality: I will happily vote on framework arguments. I have been on both sides of this debate. I think a TVA is useful but must be topical. I find myself finding the utility of TVAs mostly to filter content-based arguments about the topic. Non-traditional affirmatives must define how I ought to evaluate solvency and conversely, teams going for topicality and/or framework need to define their impacts in a tangible manner. Too common, I find myself asking about the solvency mechanisms of critical affirmatives and wanting more impact calculus in comparison to FW. Furthermore, fairness can be an impact but I find it more strategic to explain fairness as an internal link to research/argumentative refinement. I think definitions in FW debates are not the most strategic.
Kritiks: With exceptions, I generally evaluate the consequences of plan implementation versus alternative solvency unless an alternative framework for judge evaluation is won. I judge a good amount of debates about the costs/benefits of cap and tend to not prioritize framework arguments as much as other judges. A negative framework is incredibly useful as a way to evaluate links. I enjoy links that simply impact turn to the affirmative. I think more affirmative teams should impact turn links and impacts. When I vote neg, it is generally because of tricks such as impact uniqueness. When I vote aff, it is generally on an impact turn to links or impact calc. Moreover, your alt or model of debate must solve the links you go for. Please do not assume things like "heg is good" or "the game is unethical" but rather provide a reason and impact to these large claims.
Counterplans: Too many advantage counterplans link to the net benefit. I strongly believe it is useful to explain if your net benefit is a yes/no binary question or a sliding scale [ do not just say this but explain how the link to the net benefit makes this framing argument function ]. Perm "do both" means "both things at the same time". If you want it to mean more, then explain it as such.
Theory: You need a counter-interpretation that solves your offense. You need offense. You need impact calc. Please do not go for bad theory arguments if you are winning substance. If conditionality is dropped, you will lose if the argument has a claim, warrant, and implication.
Topicality: I do not like topicality debates. In short, have good evidence and explain debates under your version of the topic looks like. Limits for limits sake is not compelling. I have not judged many debates on this topic, please explain the trajectory of the topic.
Speaker Points: Please start the round on time. The email chain should be sent as soon as the round starts. It's just that easy. Be convincing, be clear, and be technical. Good luck.
Public Forum Paradigm
Please do not spread and explain your arguments as if to a lay audience. I likely have little understanding of your topic and would greatly appreciate simplicity. I do not recommend extending three million link turns to your opponents' claims as that would make the debate quite messy.
From Reed Ven Schenk's paradigm: "I'm fine with being postrounded. The debate that just happened may be static, but the ideas are not. You're allowed to be angry if I'm allowed to be cheeky - deal?"
livingston high school '20 | university of california, berkeley '24
warrants matter (in all speeches would be ideal)
squirrelly arguments can be fun
i have some experience with Ks and Theory but substance debate means i need less sheets of paper...so take that however you want
debate the way you want. all styles are cool. be your own person and be happy with yourself above all. feel free to speak fast but be clear. if y’all decide amongst yourselves before the round and want me to be a lay judge, just lmk
be chill, have fun. this goes without saying but anything “-phobic” of any kind can be grounds for the lowest speaks or even a drop based on how egregious it is. debate is supposed to be a safe, intellectually stimulating space; keep this in mind and it will serve you well. think before you speak but at the same time do not be afraid to crack some jokes—debate is most fun when you have fun doing it. also please let me know if there's anything i can do to help you feel more safe or comfortable
i like pop culture and references to it so if u want me to like be happy mention books (any quotes from anything by F Scot Fitzgerald will get u + speaks), movies (mention smth by nolan, tarantino, p much anyone cool and will get u + speaks), sports, songs (jeremy zucker bars will get u + speaks) whatever
giving me a good story that i want to believe + making smart decisions = high speaks. but keep in mind that debate is also definitely a game of persuasion.
^speaking of good stories: i really enjoy narrative debate. smartly extend and implicate one coherent, cohesive story and you will do fantastic
good luck, no matter the outcome of the round, be proud of yourselves.
as always, if you have any questions about any of this don’t hesitate to ask me before the round
and ask questions after the round; that's the best way to learn
if u need any other advice or have any questions about anything, reach out after round or on fb messenger
once again: good luck. enjoy your time in debate—you're never going to get it back
I'm a Ridge High parent, judging in my second year. Public Forum and Lincoln/Douglas. My favorite color is green. I have two dogs. I grew up in RI. I went to college in FL. My undergrad degree has nothing to do with my eventual professional career. Explore and enjoy your time here.
- uniform speed that is intelligible to fully appreciate your views
- evidence-based assertions, show me you know what you are talking about
- having fun while learning and growing-this shouldn't be a stressful burden
- respectful discourse with your opponents
- rude condescending tone or mannerisms
- trying to take 5-10 second preps repeatedly
- focusing on cards obsessively or trying to game your opponents instead of just debating
- asking if I'm just a Mom judge
- talking over your opponents in cross
Michael Siller Paradigm
About Me: I have judged many high school public forum debate tournaments. I have been a practicing attorney for over 30 years and have a good sense of what makes a persuasive argument and an effective presentation style.
Procedural Preferences: There are a few guidelines I will ask you to follow as you present your case, to allow me to most effectively understand and judge your arguments:
(i) Please identify yourself at the start. I want to make sure I get your names, schools, the side you will be arguing, and the order in which you will present so that I can correctly assign speaker points.
(ii) Please try to avoid speaking too quickly. I prefer that you speak clearly, focus on your most important points, and avoid trying to cram in every argument you can think of. It will be more difficult for me to follow the flow if you are speaking too quickly.
(iii) Signposting, or signaling the parts of your presentation, is important both while setting up your contentions and when rebutting your opponent's contentions, evidence, or impact. It will help me better understand your case and cross-reference it to the rebuttals.
(iv) Mind your time: I will not be judging you by how many seconds you are under or over the limit. A few seconds over is not going to be penalized; on the other hand, you should strive to use up as much of your available time as possible.
(iv) Be polite. There's an apt maxim from the field of legal ethics: One may disagree without being disagreeable. Attack and criticize your opponents' arguments, not your opponents.
"Theory" arguments. If you intend to make theory arguments that's fine, provided you also engage on the merits of the topic at issue. Debaters will be judged and scored on how they address the assigned topic.
Evaluation Criteria: I will evaluate your presentation based on a combination of how well you: (a) appear to demonstrate a mastery of the substance (about which you may I assume I know far less than you); (b) present your arguments logically, coherently, and persuasively; and (c) refute and weigh your opponents' arguments, as well as on your presentation style (e.g., poise and ability to think on your feet).
I wish everyone good luck and look forward to your presentations!
Hello, my name is Ninad Tambe.
Few things to keep in mind:
- I have basic topic knowledge but I would appreciate really clear arguments so that I know at the end of the round without a doubt who I should vote for.
- I can't understand speed, so if anybody goes too fast for me, I reserve the right to shout "CLEAR" or stop taking notes. If you see my pen go up or you see me stop writing, that should be a cue that you're going too fast for me and you've lost me.
- Please don't be rude or overly aggressive, especially in cross - I want to see reasonable and calm crossfires, not the two speakers shouting at each other.
- I appreciate humor, and if you can make me laugh (NOT at the expense of your opponents) I'll award extra speaks.
- If you cannot prove to me why the impact of your case is more important than the opponents', I will have to decide myself.
Good luck to everyone!
Being comparative is a good way to win my ballot. This is meant to be an educational experience for everyone. Have fun & learn something new!
Paradigm: I'm a "Flay" judge, but I've been judging PF since 2014, and I've judged at major tournaments like Harvard, Georgetown, and UK. Don't spread - I flow the entire round (including crossfires) and I want to be able to not only understand your arguments, but note when you are or are not addressing your opponents' arguments. I prefer clear logic, solid evidence, and confident rhetoric. I don't believe that the entirety of a debate is evidence versus evidence, so frameworks, weighing, and actually speaking persuasively are a major plus. While I fully understand debate jargon, don't rely on it as you would with more technical judges. Make me care more about your world than your opponents'.
I prefer PF rounds are NOT theory or K arguments. However, I will always judge based on how you handle your case, and how your opponent handles it.
If the tournament allows spectators, those spectators should not be leaving and coming back repeatedly during the round. It's incredibly distracting for me and may hinder competitors as well.
FOR DIGITAL TOURNAMENTS: Please speak slowly enough that the internet connection can keep up with you. Even with a solid connection, going too quickly results in a blur of noise that makes it difficult to listen for judges and opponents alike.
Additionally: During a digital tournament, please speak up if you cannot hear your opponent. Don't wait until the end of their speech to note that, for you, they were cutting out. It is better to handle the issue with tech time and have the speech given normally than having an off-time recap.
Hi, I’m Asher (he/him). I competed in LD from 2017-2020 and qualified to the TOC twice. Currently coaching the LD debaters at Canyon Crest Academy. Shortened my paradigm for efficiency – feel free to email/message me if you have any questions about my opinions on specific arguments. Other events at bottom
1. It’s in your best interest to go at 50-65% speed for analytics and 80-90% speed for cards. Slower on tags, conversational pace for short tags that are 1-3 words/plan texts
2. Record your speech locally to send in case there are network/wifi issues. I will not let debaters regive speeches – if you didn’t record it locally I will vote off of what I have on my flow
1. I will vote on anything as long as it is won, not blatantly offensive, and follows the structure of an argument (claim, warrant, and impact). My decisions are always impacted first and foremost by weighing, no matter what style of debate you choose. I value argument quality and development – I’m unlikely to pull the trigger on cheesy, one-line blips and reward debaters that perform quality research and explain their positions well.
2. You must take prep or use CX if you want to ask your opponent what they did/did not read
3. I will not vote on anything which occurred outside of the round (with the exception of disclosure) or use the ballot as a moral referendum on either debater. Genuine safety concerns will be escalated and not decided with a win or a loss.
4. "Insert rehighlighting" - you should be reading the card if you're making a new argument distinct from the one the evidence made when it was initially introduced. Insertions are okay if you're providing context, but you should briefly summarize the insertion. I'm unsure how to enforce this besides being a little annoyed if you go overboard, but if your opponent makes an argument that your insertion practices are toeing the line I'll be inclined to strike them off my flow
1. I think theory can be an invaluable check on abuse and enjoy creative interpretations that pose interesting questions about what debate should look like. The more bland and frivolous the shell the more receptive I am to reasonability. Reasons to reject the team should be contextual to the shell – otherwise rejecting the argument should be able to rectify the abuse. Counterplan theory is best settled on a competition level
2. Kritiks should be able to explain and resolve the harms of the affirmative - the less specific the link arguments, their impact, and the alternative the more likely I am to vote aff on the permutation and plan outweighing. Impact turns are underutilized. 2NR fpiks = new arguments unless clearly indicated earlier in the debate
3. I have no strong ideological predispositions against planless affirmatives. However, in a perfectly even matchup I would likely vote on framework
I will end the round and evaluate whether or not the evidence is objectively distorted: missing text, cut from the middle of a paragraph, or cut/highlighted intentionally to make the opposite argument the author makes (ie minimizing the word “not”). For super tiny violations like powertagging I’d prefer you just read it as a reason to reject the evidence.
Be nice to your opponent! Will nuke your speaks if you are too rude, especially if your opponent is a novice or is making a good faith effort to get along
PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES.
I'm comparatively less involved in this event and so I'll try not to impose my opinions on its conventions. For varsity, I'd prefer both teams share their evidence prior to their speeches, and I dislike paraphrasing as a practice but won't automatically penalize you for it. Speed is fine but not ideal given the norms of the activity. Generally speaking, I would prefer you not read progressive-style arguments given this format's time limitations. Other than that, just weigh.
Hi, I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging public forum
SPEAK SLOWLY. If you spread, I will likely not understand you. Take your time and keep a reasonable pace. Also remember to signpost in Summary and Final Focus so I know what you are referring to (ex: Our two impacts are, this weighs more than the other teams...) since it's easier to understand.
Make sure that i can understand you, do not use too much advanced terminology I would likely not understand. I have not judged this topic before so I am not an expert, so explain thoroughly. Also please try not to use any Kritiks or debate theory as I am not as familiar with those concepts, but if you do please explain them thoroughly.
Respect the other team, don't call names or yell.
In the end it is about having fun :)
Put Me on the Email Chain: Cjaswill23@gmail.com
Experience: I debated in College policy debate team (Louisville WY) at the University of Louisville, went to the quarterfinals of the NDT 2018 , coached and judged high school and college highly competitive teams.
Policy Preferences: Debate is a game that is implicated by the people who play it. Just like any other game rules can be negotiated and agreed upon. Soooooo with that being said, I won't tell you how to play, just make sure I can clearly understand you and the rules you've negotiated(I ran spreading inaccessible arguments but am somewhat trained in evaluating debaters that spread) and I also ask that you are not being disrespectful to any parties involved. With that being said, I don't care what kind of arguments you make, just make sure there is a clear impact calculus, clearly telling me what the voters are/how to write my ballot. Im also queer black woman poet, so those strats often excite me, but will not automatically provide you with a ballot. You also are not limited to those args especially if you don't identify with them in any capacity. I advise you to say how I’m evaluating the debate via Role Of the Judge because I will default to the arguments that I have on my flow and how they "objectively" interact with the arguments of your opponent. I like narratives, but I will default to the line by line if there is not effective weighing. Create a story of what the aff world looks like and the same with the neg. I'm not likely to vote for presumption arguments, it makes the game dull. I think debate is a useful tool for learning despite the game-structure. So teach me something and take my ballot.
Other Forms of Debate: cross-apply above preferences
This is my first time judging a debate tournament, I am a LAY parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly; if I can't hear what you're saying, I won't write it down. Please don't use debate jargon, as I might not understand. Also, please time each other and do not go overtime by more than 10 seconds. Thanks, and have fun!
TL;DR 1) track prep verbally and don't mute otherwise, 2) I flow all crossfires, 3) don't waste time saying what you "don't know" about an argument, 4) in-depth extensions often aren't necessary
Oakton '20 (PF, some LD/policy/congress), JHU '24 (APDA, BP). Contact firstname.lastname@example.org for chains, Facebook or email@example.com otherwise. You can ask about decisions, speaks, individual feedback, or anything else - I'm always open to help anyone.
1. If nobody's prep is running, stay unmuted. Your prep starts and stops when you say "start prep" and "stop prep" out loud. Keep track of time - if you go decently over, I'll verbally interrupt your team going forward. I'll verbally notify you when prep ends.
2. Be equitable and respect others, don't use gendered pronouns unless they're explicitly denoted.
3. Don't skip or ask to skip anything. I won't flow over time. Don't hold up your timer/phone/fist when you think someone's time is up.
4. I flow cross. I don't flow off docs. I don't mind "off-time roadmaps" but I won't pay attention, say what your speech will do/is doing (signpost) on-time.
5. If presuming (very rare), I flip a coin, and I don't evaluate arguments saying to presume in other ways.
6. I'll disclose and will disclose speaks on request, average in-division 28, 29.5+ impressed me. No speaks theory.
1. Don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, anything! - just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This includes claims about what I "don't know," e.g. "you don't know when/where/how much this happens," please do not say this. This part is routinely ignored!
2. Arguments are dropped if the next opposing speech doesn't interact, excluding the first two speeches. (This applies to stuff like explicitly conceding something to make a point, or reading a new theory violation, no waiting around.) I ignore "strength of link weighing" saying to prioritize dropped points because they're dropped.
3. Contested (opponent directly addressed that specific claim) or weighed (you applied/compared to another argument) arguments must be extended in summary and final focus to be considered. Others don't have to be (e.g. an impact when the debate's been about links so far, "drop the debater" when both teams go for theory).
I'm a parent judge with no experience judging.
I have limited English proficiency and won't evaluate any progressive arguments.
Please speak at a reasonable pace and flush out arguments with strong warrants and implications.
Weighing makes my job easier.
PLEASE remind me of your side, your name, your team, and the general contents of your speech.
Any racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, etc. will be an auto drop.
Debate well and have fun.