National Speech and Debate Tournament
2022 — Louisville, KY/US
Brian Shouse Paradigm
Lincoln Douglas
Lincoln Douglas Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with LD Debate (check all that apply)
Current LD coachFormer LD competitor
Experienced LD judge
Current Public Forum coach or judge
Former Public Forum debater
Speech coach
Community judge
How many years have you judged LD debate?
11How many LD rounds have you judged this year?
31-40What is your preferred rate of delivery?
6/91 = Slow conversational style9 = Rapid conversation speed
Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?
NWill you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?
NHow important is the criterion in making your decision?
It may be a factor depending on its use in the roundDo you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?
NRebuttals and Crystallization
Voting issues should be given:
Either is acceptableThe use of jargon or technical language ("extend", "cross-apply", "turn", etc.) during rebuttals:
Is acceptableFinal rebuttals should include:
BothVoting issues are:
Not necessaryHow do you decide the winner of the round?
I decide who is the winner of the key argument in the roundHow necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?
7/91 = Not necessary9 = Always necessary
Please describe your personal note-taking during the round
I keep a rigorous flowI have a more complete paradigm on tabroom.com which I encourage you to read. Here are some highlights from that: I prefer a more traditional style of LD, but I don't have any huge objections to progressive debate. I strongly prefer that clash focus on points of significance (not on points that are unlikely to sway my ballot) and that speeches be organized. Roadmaps should be off-time and accurate; signposting is essential. I can follow about 275 words per minute maximum (assuming you speak clearly). Start slower and build up to max speed. Be polite. I try to minimize judge intervention in the round, but I am not (and no one is) a completely blank slate. I prefer to evaluate a round by identifying who is winning which pieces of offense in the round, and, if both debaters have votable offense, weighing the various pieces of offense aginst each other. Weighing can happen through arguments on the flow (e.g., magnitude analyses) and/or through a standard (e.g. criterion, role of ballot). Winning the standard is not in itself a reason for you to win; you must also outweigh under said standard. You don't need a value or crition necessarily (though I would prefer you did), but you do need an identifiable and clear standard/weighing mechanism of some description. Values are usually much less important to me than criteria--values occasionally they are relevant (maybe 1 in every 60 rounds), but generally it is the criterion, as the weighing mechanism, that is most impactful on my decision. Finally, I go into each round with a set of basic presumptions. I do not retreat *to* my presumptions, rather, I am willing to retreat *from* them if you can provide sufficiently strong argumentation that I should. These presumption are: (1) Arguments in LD should be topical, (2) It is the Affirmative's burden to defend the whole resolution as a general principle, (3) Theory is a reason to drop the argument, not the debater.
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.