National Speech and Debate Tournament
2025
—
Des Moines,
IA/US
Chris Coovert Paradigm
Lincoln-Douglas
Lincoln Douglas Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with LD Debate (check all that apply)
Current LD coach
Former LD competitor
Experienced LD judge
How many years have you judged LD debate?
30
How many LD rounds have you judged this year?
0-10
What is your preferred rate of delivery?
6/91 = Slow conversational style
9 = Rapid conversation speed
Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?
N
Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?
N
How important is the criterion in making your decision?
It may be a factor depending on its use in the round
Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?
N
Rebuttals and Crystallization
Voting issues should be given:
Either is acceptable
The use of jargon or technical language ("extend", "cross-apply", "turn", etc.) during rebuttals:
Is acceptable
Final rebuttals should include:
Both
Voting issues are:
Not necessary
How do you decide the winner of the round?
I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of their position
How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?
9/91 = Not necessary
9 = Always necessary
Please describe your personal note-taking during the round
I keep a rigorous flow
Additional remarks:
I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over thirty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know.
I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why, based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another paradigm being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing.
As far as specific arguments go.
1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments if the aff is affirming the entire resolution. In a round where the affirmative runs a plan, T becomes more relevant.
2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD. I especially hate AFC, and must/must not run plans, or arguments of this nature.
3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate.
4. You need to keep sight of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework.
Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear. Please adjust your speed accordingly. I will not keep repeating myself and will eventually just stop flowing.
Note: if you wish for your pronouns to appear the debaters you judge on text/email blasts, log into Tabroom, click Profile at top, and add them in the Pronouns field.
