Tabroom.com

Tournament of Champions

2016 — Lexington, KY/US

International PF Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Amar Adam Hire 1 rounds

Lauren Amos Lake Highland Preparatory 5 rounds

Cameron Baller Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 19, 2018 at 1:30 PM EDT

Note: Been out of debate for a year, I spend very little time thinking about the topic, cutting cards, or judging. Keep that in mind.

For email chains and questions, my email is crballer1 (at) gmail (dot) com

I will vote for arguments virtually anywhere on the ideological spectrum. You are more likely to get my ballot if you read arguments you are good at rather than ones you think I will like.

Tech over truth, but my threshold for answering bad arguments is very low.

Specifics:

Ks- These debates are either the best, or the worst, please make them the best. Buzz words make bad K debaters. The link debate should always be specific and each link should be impacted out. There doesn’t need to be an alternative. AFF: I like perm+pragmatism/link defense. I want to vote for the team who best contextualizes their thing to the other teams thing in these debates. If the links are more specific than the permutation/link defense, the NEG is in good shape.

K AFFs- Have a method and defend it (which can include defending the lack of a method). I think there is value in having a particular topic, but I am open to the idea that a discussion about the topic is preferable to a topical discussion. For the neg: I like specific strategies. That being said, it is difficult to find specific strategies for every aff. If you like to read FW, I am more susceptible to FW as a counter-method defending law and pragmatism. Structural Ks (Cap, Anti-blackness, etc.) are good routes too. Make sure you question the affirmative’s ability to get a permutation in these debates. I am not fully convinced in either direction and think that there is a good debate to be had. Good spin with strong examples and the root cause/turns case debate usually decide these rounds for me.

Topicality- A list and comparison of the topical affs under each interpretation is necessary from both sides. A topical version of the aff is helpful, but not necessary. There is a direct correlation between how arbitrary the negative interpretation is and how likely I am to default to reasonability over competing interpretations.

DAs- Impact framing, please do it. The importance of link vs. uq is very dependent on the disad- convince me whichever one you are winning is more important.

Theory- The more specific the solvency advocate, the more likely I am to err neg on theory. If you are going to go for theory in the 2AR, spend a lot of time on it. A messy and blippy theory debate will usually favor the negative. All theory arguments (save Condo) are reject the argument, not the team. If I think the status quo is better than the affirmative and the CP, I will only “judge-kick” the CP if told to do so by the negative (without a convincing affirmative response). The illogical nature of this standard pains me, but I think it is necessary to both incentivize technical debating and punish poor strategic choice. I am pretty unlikely to vote for conditionality bad if it is not dropped.

Case- It’s my most favorite thing to debate. Good case debate by the negative can be devastating. Shallow case debate by the negative begs for an aff ballot. 2As: I see you dropping args like it’s hot in the 2AC, don’t do that. Neg: Don’t let them do that. Try to focus the case debate on internal links over impacts, that’s where the aff is usually the weakest.

Impact turn debates are awesome, link turns are the highest form of debate. This is where the real throw downs are at.

Other stuff:

If you are deliberately or continually offensive, you will get very low speaks and lose.

If a clipping accusation is made, the round ends. I will consult with tab and evaluate the evidence. For a team found, beyond reasonable doubt, to be clipping, the punishment is either 0 speaks and a loss, or the particular tournament’s own procedure. False accusations are either your average speaks and a loss, if the tournament will do that, or 28s and a loss.

Stefan Bauschard Lakeland

David Brown Southlake Carroll High School 4 rounds

David Byerman Advanced Technologies Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 13, 2020 at 8:26 AM EDT

I know a lot of judges pontificate for 1000+ words and detail every element of their judging philosophy. I'm not one of those judges. For one thing, I have a life. For another, my philosophy when it comes to judging is actually pretty simple.

Debate is a competition about COMMUNICATION. It's an argument about ideas. That means that the arguments you make matter and the way you make them matters just as much. I'm a flow judge and will penalize debaters who drop points altogether. Extending an argument by reference or even within the context of clash doesn't take much time. Even if it just seems like you ran out of time, who am I to know whether you actually just have no good evidence to refute your opponent? At the end of the day, if both contestants make good arguments but one has points that they extend that were never addressed, those contentions flow in their direction and may determine the ballot. It's only fair.

But the way you make the argument is often overlooked but SO important. This is particularly true in L/D, which after all is an event steeped in the history of the Lincoln/Douglas debates of the mid-19th century and Public Forum, which traces its roots to Ted Turner's frustration with the deterioration of debate as a contest of communication. Can you imagine Abraham Lincoln spreading? Me neither. I respect your ability to spread, but the cacophony of words issuing from your mouth isn't communication, it's a gimmick, substituting quantity over quality. I can't award you wins on arguments if my flow can't keep up with your rate of speech. And if two debaters clash and each make good points, and I can't quite decide who won the argument of ideas, I'll use speaking ability and persuasiveness to break ties and award victories. I also reserve the right to award higher speaker points to the losing debater. After all, sometimes the better speaker has worse arguments.

I'm not a fan of theory debates. Disclosure Theory, in particular, seems like a very lame way to frame a debate and go for a win. I came for a debate on the merits pro/con on a matter of public policy. That's what this whole exercise is about. I am very likely to judge the round based on who makes the best arguments on that front. I've never considered a theory argument an RFD. It's not to say that I never will... it's just to say that I never have previously.

Professionally, I served for nearly five years as Secretary of the Senate for the State of Nevada and for three years as Director of the Kentucky Legislature. I see facilitating speech and debate as fundamental to the health of our democracy, which let's face it could use more cogent well-reasoned well-informed debates.

I missed my high school graduation in order to go to NSDA Nationals in my senior year of high school, over 25 years ago. Speech and Debate runs in my blood. I love being a part of this and hope you find as much fulfillment out of it as I do. Good luck.

tl;dr Debate is a contest of communications. Speak well, make good arguments, earn my ballot!

Arjun Byju Hire 4 rounds

Courtney Coffman Northland Christian School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed May 15, 2024 at 9:23 AM CDT

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please be kind to your opponents and the judge.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

Erin Cowley West High School 7 rounds

Amartya De Cupertino HS 7 rounds

Jonathan Geldof Hire 1 rounds

Qizhi Gong Davis High School 4 rounds None

Donald Grasse Hire 1 rounds

Holmes Hampton Hire 1 rounds

Cheryl Hoffman Shrewsbury 4 rounds None

Jonathan Horowitz The Harker School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 9, 2024 at 10:47 AM CDT

Hi. I debated at Glenbrook North HS in Northbrook for 4 years, 1.5 in policy and 2.5 in LD. I was the LD coach at Loyola Blakefield HS in Baltimore for 3 years followed by being the debate coach for Chicagoland Jewish HS in Deerfield, IL, New Trier HS in Winnetka/Northfield, IL, Bronx Science, Beacon HS in Manhattan, the director of debate at Mamaroneck HS in Mamaroneck, NY and currently the director of debate at South Shore International College Prep in Chicago. I've also worked at multiple debate camps and have been a private coach for multiple debaters. Trust me, I've seen it all.

Last updated 4/9/24. Changed some words and added my judge kick stance.

I'm fine being on email chains but I'm not posting my email publicly. Just ask before the round.

General stuff:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. I do not discriminate, I'm find with speed (though sometimes my flowing can be bad), fine with theory, fine with kritiks, whatever you want to do. It's your round, not mine have fun with it.

-Extensions are key! Every extension needs to have the word extend/pull through the flow/or similar wording attached to it. Then it needs to have a warrant for what is being extended, finally the extension needs an impact back to the weighing calculus. If that is the value/value criterion mechanism then it needs to impact back to the VC that is being used for the round. If that is some other mechanism, it needs to be impacted to that weighing mechanism (theory means voters I guess). That weighing mechanism and the warrants for the mechanism should be extended (In a v/vc model the vc should be extended along with the argument). If these things are not done then the arguments will not be evaluated in the same depth and I might not give you credit, or as much credit, for an argument that you may have clearly won on the flow. I guess in simpler terms I have a high threshold for extensions. Also, when extending please extend along with the warrant please compare your arguments to other arguments. The best extensions are not just argument extensions but have comparative weighing along with the arguments.

-Evidence is not inherently preferable for analytics absent some argument for why I should prefer that specific piece of evidence over a generic analytic. Debaters are smart and well researched on the topic (usually) and so should be able to have a command of what is going on equal to/greater than a lot of experts. Trust yourself and talk about why you are correct instead of some rando newspaper writer who has probably done less research than what goes into the typical 1AC.

- WEIGH! One of the things I'm almost always unsure of after a round is which argument to evaluate first. Do I look to the Disad, the spike, the contention 1? Most debate rounds involve multiple arguments that could "come first" and people telling me the order in which to evaluate arguments and which arguments are more important makes my life easier. It also means you'll be more likely to win because the argument that you're saying is most important/comes first is probably also the one that you're winning the most. WEIGH! Seriously WEIGH!

On Non-T affs:

You ought pretend to be topical. Topicality means different things to different people and I think that the topic and what topicality means can change in debate and in different debates. However, the aff should claim that they are talking about the topic. What the topic means to you and how it functions might be different than the "traditional" method and that's fine! How you make that claim or whether that claim is true can be (and should be!) contested in the round.

- Other thing: It has become very clear since 10/7/23 that settler-colonialism justifies mass atrocities. I will vote against it much as I vote against people who say or uphold racist/sexist/homophobic or other harmful ideologies.

- Feel free to come up to me at any tournament and ask me questions about anything, I can't guarantee you a great answer but I can guarantee that I will try to respond.

LD Paradigm:

Things I've noticed about my preferences for debate: (This is just a list of things I like, none of these are necessary to win a round but they do affect my judging)

- I tend to prefer debaters who debated similarly to how I debated. What does this mean? I debated in an old school national circuit LD style. On the aff that meant a very broad criterion with mutually exclusive contentions that I tried to kick out of as much as possible (usually at the end of the 2AR, I had one contention and maybe framework). On the neg, it meant a short NC, no more than 2 minutes, with extensive analytical responses to the aff. While it might not help you win the round, debate has changed a lot, it will help your speaker points.

- I like a 2AR that isn't on the flow. What does this mean? The 2AR should be more of a story speech that merely references the flow. A lot of weighing/crystallizing or time on voting issues.

-I like even/if stories. They tend to make the round clearer and make my life easier.

-LD debaters need to stop saying "we" when referring to themselves. You are a singular human being and not one half of a partnership. If you say "we" while referring to yourself you will lose 0.1 speaker points. I will also interrupt your speeches to ask "who is we?" Be prepared.

-I'm a leftist politically. Property rights arguments and other capitalist arguments are not particularly persuasive to me and I don't like hearing them. That doesn't mean I won't vote on them, it just means if you have something else it's probably a good idea to run it.

-I presume coinflip. That means if I can't find any offense or way to vote I will flip a coin to decide the round. I have done this quite a few times and never want to do it again but I'm not afraid to do it and if I think your round warrants it, a coinflip will happen. (That said the only times I've done it has been in rounds where there have been on offense by either side so as long as offense exists I will not flip a coin).

-I like philosophy, I am a philosophy major. That said I'm not good at flowing it, especially when spread at the beginning of the speech. So if you do read philosophy slow down a little bit so that I can catch your arguments.

-Going off that last point, my major is in continental philosophy; which means I take classes on all those critical authors you've wanted to use in rounds. Kritiks are wonderful! If you know what are you talking about, please run them in front of me. Ks do not need an alt, though it is preferable. Make sure to understand the interactions between your position and the position of what your opponent is running.

- Please start the AC/NC with I affirm/I negate. It doesn't take away from your word economy and it gives me a second to "catch up" and get used to your spreading/debating voice so that I don't miss your first argument. You don't need to re-state the resolution though, that's unnecessary.

-Something most debaters forget is that as a judge I do not look to see what you are reading while you are reading it. I don't read the cards on the email chain until after the round. Therefore, be more specific in signposting then off the Martin card 1..2..3 etc. Don't just say Martin, say what Martin said as well, because I might not have gotten the author name Martin but I got the argument they made. Also, be clear about where Martin is on the flow. If Martin is a contention 1 card, say that she is in contention 1. Virtual/Computer debate note: I do ask to be on the email chain but I don't read the cards on the chain until after the round so this still applies.

- Policy style arguments have started to come more and more into LD and people like running them in front of me. That's fine, I really like them. However, if you are running them you also take on policy-style burdens. For example, if you read a plan then you have to fulfill the 4 criteria of the HITS (if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be running a plan. Also, considering the last person to lose on significance was Tom Durkin in the 1978 NDT, significance doesn't matter anymore). Most importantly, is that policy has a status quo whereas LD does not. That means that you need to orally give me the dates of evidence! If you're running a DA I need to know that the uniqueness is actually unique, if it's a plan that the inherency is actually inherent etc. Evidence without dates on it means that I won't give you credit for uniqueness or inherency claims that you need in the debate round. If your opponent points out that you didn't read those dates then I will give zero credit for any uniqueness/inherency claim and assume that your evidence is from 1784 and take away any offense that is based off of that plan/DA (I will also give said opponent at least a 29). So make sure to tell me those dates!

- I've recently read A LOT of social movement theory and have also been actively been involved in crafting strategy for a social movement. This has made me significantly more wary of most kritik alternatives. Kritik alts either make no sense, are not realistic, would never be adopted by wide ranging social movements, or are actively harmful to spreading social movements. It won't change how I vote, if the alt is won, but it does mean that common sense arguments against K alts will be considered more important. But if you look at my earlier stuff from Ks you'll see that I don't even think an alt needs to be read, so, you know, think about that risk.

- A priori/pre-standards arguments/other tricky-esque nibs. If you are losing everything else on the flow I need a reason to uniquely prefer your 3 sentences over the rest of the flow. If that does not happen I will find it very hard to vote for you over somebody else who is winning the rest of the round. Not that I won't evaluate the argument at all it will just be weighed against the rest of the round and if someone else is winning the rest of the round I will vote for the person winning the majority of the round. In simpler words if you go for an a priori, go for it hard. I'm not going to buy it simply because it is dropped.

- Metaethics. Basically, meta-ethics cannot be used as a "magic wand" to get out of framework debate. You still need to provide an ethic to meet your meta-ethic. Just saying my meta-ethical util comes before your ethical deont haha! is not enough. Language might be indeterminate but that doesn't mean we default to util (or deont) unless it's justified.

Since everybody asks me about how I evaluate theory here it is:

I don't mind theory, I will vote on it and I will vote on it in cases where I think no actual abuse has occurred or even times where the argument itself is patently non-abusive. But before you rush to pull out your three theory shells, I really don't like voting on it. Moreover, of all the decisions where people have argued with me after the round, 2/3 of them are because of theory. My paradigm seems to be different than other judges so I would say run theory at your risk. Now of course you're asking why is my paradigm different? Simple because I don't default to a monolithic competing interpretations framework, you don't need a counter-interp/RVI/etc. to win theory (though it is helpful and in a case of offense vs. no offense I'm going to default to offense). I'm not as technical on theory as other judges, simply saying my argument is not abusive, drop the argument not the debater, or even talking about reasonability will probably be enough to convince me to not vote on theory. In other words, I default to reasonability, though will be persuaded otherwise. Also, in a round between two equal theory debaters or even a round where both debaters have competent theory blocks, theory turns into a crapshoot (which, by the way, is most theory rounds) so while I will do my best to sort through it that doesn't mean my decision won't be somewhat random.

Also, I guess most LD judges don't evaluate theory this way so I should point this out. If you only go for theory in the NR/2NR or 2AR then the affirmative/negative does not need a RVI to win the theory debate because the only offense at the end of the round is on theory which means that I am merely evaluating who did the better theory debating and not worrying about substance at all. The RVI only comes into play if there is a contestation of substance AND theory at the end of the debate.

Policy Paradigm:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. My main philosophy is it's your round not mine so do what you want. I think a lot of how I judge policy is probably transferred from LD so look there for good stuff. One caveat to that, if there is something that seems very specific to LD (like saying "we" for example) do not bring that into a policy context.

Obviously I have some caveats for that:

First and foremost is that LD is most of what I've debated and coached. Though policy kids have this outdated version of what LD is, there is now every argument in policy in LD also with extra stuff too! I am fine with speed etc. Don't worry about that but I'm still a LDer at heart so be prepared. I've been mostly coaching policy since 2018 or so meaning that I've caught on to a lot more of the nuances of policy debate. At this point I coach more policy than LD so this is changing.

The other important take away is that social conventions of what you can and cannot do in LD and policy are slightly different. For example, RVIs in LD are not joke arguments but made in almost any theory round (though I don't like RVIs in policy). LD does not have the concept of overviews in the same way as policy and what is considered "line by line" is very different. I've been able to figure out most of these biases but occasionally I'll mess up. Just be aware.

I default to reasonability on T and theory issues.

I don't know why this has become a thing but apparently people don't say AND or NEXT after finishing cards in the 1AC or 1NC. You still need to do that so that I know when to flow.

I just learned what this term means but apparently I judge kick if that matters to you (and I think I'm understanding the term correctly)

Utilitarianism is moral philosophy that evaluates the morality of actions based on the consequences. This means that small scale/structural violence impacts are utilitarian because we care about the consequence of structural violence. Stop saying these arguments are not utilitarian or answering them as if they are not utilitarian. They are.

Jacques Johnson Milton High School 4 rounds None

Morry Kolman The Harker School 4 rounds

Miranda Le Mission San Jose High School 4 rounds

Calen Martin Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 20, 2015 at 4:25 AM CDT

Debated for 4 years in highschool for Caddo - Am now debating at the University of Kentucky

Argument preference - I am open to hear whatever strategy/arguments you think can best be executed to win the debate. I think that flex is important and dont particularly prefer hearing one sort of strategy over the other. That being said, I primarily went for critques in highschool but am now tranistioning to a heavier policy focus. Feel free to read either in front of me. Ill vote for Heg good just as quickly as ill vote for the death K. Win the flow and the substance of the debate and ill give you my ballot.

Conditionality - two is pretty safe, anymore and im more sympathetic. This doesnt mean that you cant read more than two in front of me, but if you do and the AFF extends condo be ready to have that debate.

CPs/DAs - I like them, especially when they are case specific and deal with the AFFs mechanism. Im more sympathetic to AFF theory vs Word pics, consults, and mores generic process cps. If your go-to counterplan is more generic, thats fine, just be ready to answer theoretical objections.

Ks - your links need to be specific to the AFF. Even generic link cards can be bolstered by some quick analytic application to what the plan actually does. If you dont explain to me why the plan links, its hard to win a turns case argument. Additionally, I need reasons as to why the alt would be able to resolve at least some of the link arguments.

T - I judged a few debates at camp over the summer so I have a rough idea of constitutes the topic. T requires concise explanation. I think that limits (for policy affs) is likely to be the largest impact.

I wont call for cards that you have not properly explained in the debate. You need to be clear. Debate is about effective communication and persuasion. Delivery is important. If you want high speaks in front of me, CX is the place to earn them.

Kirsten Nash Hendrickson High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 6:56 PM CDT

I think that public forum is, at its core, the melding of sound argumentation and solid speaking. You should present not only well-structured, rational, strongly warranted arguments, but you should also do so in a way that can be relatable to whomever is in the back of the round.

That being said, I don't mind some speed - but be sure you are articulate and clear, especially with tags and authors. Sacrificing quality for quantity is a poor choice if you cannot handle (or your judge cannot handle) the speed. Make wise choices.

In terms of 'atypical' arguments. I think that it is very hard to run a K argument well in PF. I don't believe that it cannot be done, just that it is very rare. If you are running theory, then you better have extremely solid warrants and you should have it explained to the level of access of understanding fitting to this style of debate. DO NOT just read cards that you got from your Policy friends/teammates and call it a day. ALSO...YOUR ADVOCACY SHOULD MATCH YOUR ACTIONS. Do NOT use theory arguments as a cheap tool to surprise unwitting opponents and get the ballot when you have engaged in no actions that match the advocacy of your theory arguments. If you are running disclosure theory, there better be a history of you disclosing at EVERY round and you engaged in multiple forums, workshops, discussion boards where you are ACTIVELY engaged in increasing disclosure in a way that promotes education and fairness. If you get up and read disclosure in front of me and do not have this, it will be an automatic loss. I am not joking.

I think that framework is a solid strategy - if there is a purpose. Frequently teams have f/w just to have it and then don't touch it for the rest of the round. If it is there, then you should extend.

On the issue of extensions, be sure that your arguments are carried through the debate. Do not read at the beginning and then bring back up in the final focus and expect me to grant them to you.

Finally, there should be a clear advocacy in the round - and a clash between teams. I hate debates that are like ships passing in the night - no clash.

Adam Nelson Taipei American School 6 rounds None

Theo Noparstak Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:09 AM CDT

Niles West High School '14

University of Kentucky '18

Chicago-Kent Law School '24

Northwestern University Coach '18-21

University of Kentucky Coach '22-23

Put me on the chain theonoparstak22@gmail.com

GENERAL THOUGHTS

I decide debates by re-organizing my flow around the issues prioritized in the 2nr and 2ar, going back on my flow to chart the progression of the argument, reading the relevant evidence, then resolving that mini-debate. Tell me what I should care about in the final speeches. Use the earlier speeches to set up your final rebuttals.

I try not to consider personal biases when judging policy or k debates. Debates hinge on link, impact, and solvency questions that have to be argued whether its plan/cp, perm/alt, fw/advocacy.

I believe the most important skill a debater should have is the ability to do good comparative analysis.

I'll read evidence during and after the debate. Evidence quality influences my perception of the argument's strength. Bad evidence means there's a lower bar for answering the argument and vice versa.

When trying to resolve questions about how the world works, I defer to expert evidence introduced in the debate. When trying to resolve questions about how the debate in front of me should work, I defer to the arguments of the debaters.

The debates I enjoy the most are the ones where students demonstrate that they are active participants in the thinking through and construction of their arguments. Don't be on auto-pilot. Show me you know what's going on.

Have an appropriate level of respect for opponents and arguments.

SPECIFIC THOUGHTS

I would strongly prefer not to judge debates about why death is good that may force an ethical debate about whether life is worth living.

K Affs: There is a place in debate for affirmatives that don't affirm the resolution. I will not vote for or against framework in these situations based on ideological preferences alone. I wish the activity had clearer rules for what we consider fair game in terms of links to negative offense/competitive advocacies against affs that don't affirm the resolution/read a plan text because I enjoy debates over specifics more than rehashed abstractions. But I am sympathetic to neg arguments about how the aff precluded those good debates from occurring, depending on what the aff defends in the 1AC.

T: I would prefer neg teams only go for topicality when the aff is very clearly attempting to skirt the core premises of the resolution. Going for silly T arguments against super core affirmatives is a waste of everyone's time. Having said that, T debates have the potential to be the most interesting and specific arguments in debate, so if you feel really good about the work you've put into developing your position I encourage you to go for it.

Theory: I feel similarly about theory. It's hard for me to take theory arguments seriously when they're not made in specific response to some seriously problematic practice that has occured in the debate at hand. Debate is supposed to be hard. People are way too quick to claim something made debate 'impossible'.

K: When the neg is going for a kritik, I find the framework debating from both sides largely unnecessary. The easiest and most common way I end up resolving framework debates is to allow the aff to weigh their advantages and the neg to weigh their kritik. You'd be better served spending time on the link/impact/alt.

CP: When judging process counterplans, I'm most interested in whether there are cards a) tying the counterplan to the resolution b) tying the net benefit to the plan. This is what usually pushes me aff or neg on theory and perm arguments.

DA: I usually think the link is the most important part of an argument

Oliver Parker Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 4:04 AM CDT

Experience: 2004 - Present - Speech and Debate director for Spain Park High School, Birmingham, AL

Events I Enjoy Coaching and Judging: Public Forum / Limited Lincoln Douglas / Most IE events

Major Concerns: If I call for a card and determine it is miscut, I will immediately drop your team. I will also report the violation to the tournament director and your coach or sponsor. All evidence should have a clearly defined DATE, author, and credentials. Sourcing on your card should be clear and wording of the text should not be altered. I should be quickly able to determine the veracity of the information presented in the round.

How I weigh PF: Standards should be clearly established. I find a framework at the top of the case useful. Please make an effort to argue your framework/standard. I will weigh all arguments based on the winning standard. Clearly compare both sides of the argument and explain why your side outweighs based on clear links to the framework. Deliver clear voters in the Final Focus. Usually, I only consider arguments cleanly extended through summary and final focus.

Kritiks/Counterplans/Theory in PF: Different tournaments have different rules on these matters. I will abide by the rules or philosophy in the tournament handbook. Public Forum should be accessible to a general audience. Please make certain that your arguments are comprehensible. If you feel like your opponent is running an argument which is unfair or against the rules, be prepared to define the violation and explain why to discount the argument in your rebuttal, summary, and final focus. If you are running these types of arguments, be prepared to establish why you are departing from the norms. Your rationale should be clear so that your opponent can adequately address your points.

Crossfire: Do not talk over your opponent. Follow up questions can be useful, but be courteous to your opponents' need to question you. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points.

Speaker Points: Your level of courtesy is my primary concern here. BUT ALSO - Dress professionally. Be self-aware of your demeanor. Enunciate. Signpost your arguments/rebuttals. Each speech should have evidence of organization. Use all your time.

Joe Perretta Walt Whitman 4 rounds

Sherri Perry St Agnes 4 rounds

Judy Pillinger Hunter College 4 rounds None

Jim Poyner Summit High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 8:19 AM EDT

I describe myself as a "flay" judge. I flow a round but I rarely base my decision solely on flow. If a team misses a response to a point, I don't penalize that team if the drop concerned a contention that either proves unimportant in the debate or is not extended with weighing. I have come to appreciate summaries and final focuses that are similar, that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I like to hear clear links of evidence to contentions and logical impacts, not just a firehose of data. I prefer hard facts over opinion whenever possible, actual examples over speculation about the future.

I ABSOLUTELY DEMAND CIVILITY IN CROSSFIRES! Ask your question then allow the other side to answer COMPLETELY before you respond further. Hogging the clock is frowned upon. It guarantees you a 24 on speaker points. Outright snarkiness or rudeness could result in a 0 for speaker points. Purposely misconstruing the other side's evidence in order to force that team to waste precious time clarifying is frowned upon. Though I award very few 30s on speaker points, I very much appreciate clear, eloquent speech, which will make your case more persuasive.

I have seen a trend to turn summaries into second rebuttals. I HATE THIS. A summary should extend key offense from case and key defense from rebuttal then weigh impacts. You cannot do this in only two minutes if you burn up more than a minute trying to frontline. If I don't hear something from case in summary you will lose most definitely. Contrary to growing belief, the point of this event is NOT TO WIN ON THE FLOW. The point is to research and put forth the best warrants and evidence possible that stand up to rebuttal.

When calling cards, avoid distracting "dumps" aimed at preoccupying the other side and preventing them from prepping. In recent tournaments I have seen a rise in the inability of a team to produce a requested card QUICKLY. I will give you a couple of minutes at most then we will move on and your evidence likely will be dropped from the flow. The point is to have your key cards at the ready, preferably in PDF form. I have also seen a recent increase in badly misconstrued data or horrifically out of date data. The rules say full citation plus the date must be given. If you get caught taking key evidence out of context, you're probably going to lose. If you can't produce evidence that you hinge your entire argument on, you will definitely lose.

The bottom line is: Use your well-organized data and logic to win the debate, not cynical tactics aimed at distraction or clock dominance.

Jacinda Rivas Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 8:10 AM CDT

Whitney Young ‘15

University of Kentucky ‘19

Cornell Law '23

Former WY and UK coach; Officially not coaching anymore. This means that I have less topic knowledge than normal and you should not assume I know what your aff is or will know what those acronyms you just threw out stand for. When in doubt, invest more time in explaining your argument.

Top Level

Add me to the email chain- Jacindarivas@gmail.com

My name is Jacinda (Juh-sin-duh) so call me that instead of judge.

I will reward smart teams that can effectively and efficiently communicate their arguments to me. Engaging with your opponent, having a well-thought out strategy, and demonstrating that you’re doing consistent, hard work is what this activity is about.

Please be nice. I am not very responsive to raising voices/yelling.

Clash debates

No one ENJOYS clash debates but I end up judging quite a few. I really do believe that affs should have a tie to the topic and should be in the direction of the topic. I am not the judge for an aff that has a couple cards that say a theory and then pretend to say something about the topic. I also believe that debate is an inherently good activity so indicting the entirety of the activity we participate in is not great for me. I think this matters a lot for the way some teams answer framework so be cognizant of this. The only thing that my ballot decides is the winner.

Links should be causal, specific and about the plan. They NEED to be contextualized to what the aff actually did. I have too often judged debates where a team presents a theory of the world but have not explained what the aff has done to implicate that. Explanation is key. That applies to all Ks cause if you are just spitting jargon at me and the other team, you aren’t gonna have a good time. I am not persuaded by arguments that the aff just doesn’t get fiat.

CPs/DAs

Love them. Obviously better the more specific to the aff they are. I default to judge kick unless expressly informed not to.

There can be zero risk of a DA

Theory

Conditionality is good.

Random Things

You can insert a re-highlighting of a card- you shouldn’t have to waste time re-reading a card if they suck at research

Ethics violations (ex. Clipping, a card being cut in the middle of the paragraph, etc.) should just have the debate staked on it. It is a bad form of education and should be rejected. No point in drawing it out.

Further questions- email me at jacindarivas@gmail.com

marcel roman Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Tue December 1, 2015 at 2:48 AM UTC

***Pretty much stole this off Ava Vargason's judge philosophy. Credits to her.

*I have not judged on this topic, nor do I coach. I don't know the main affirmatives, important acronyms, etc. Explain your arguments and do not assume I know anything about what you're reading.*

I will vote on any argument, but you will lose if I catch you cheating (clipping cards, fabricating evidence). I will default to my position being a policymaker, but it will not be difficult to convince me I should evaluate the round through another lens.

Framework - you are much better off in front of me either (A) defending an example of the resolution or (B) debating there is an alternative discussion that is more productive to have. If the 1AC is 8 minutes of specific criticisms of surveillance, including a plan that the US should reduce surveillance, and you do not defend that plan, you will likely lose on framework or topicality. I tend to see this as a way to avoid debating disads and counterplans.

Critiques - my default position is that doing things is better than not doing things. That means the explanation of the alternative is important. I'm better read on gender and race-based arguments. If you start reading white French philosophers, you should have a hefty explanation of your critique. If I don't understand your critique, I'm much more likely to vote aff on the perm or alt fails.

Theory thoughts:

-Conditionality - it's good. It's infinitely good. That doesn't mean aff teams won't win on conditionality bad, but it will be difficult. Interpretations are generally silly, especially on the negative. For example, what is the real difference between 2 and 3 conditional advocacies? If you want to read an interp, make sure you spend time thinking about why it solves your offense (on either side).

-Judge kick - I will kick counterplans for the negative unless an argument is made in the debate about this. Proving the counterplan is a bad idea does not prove the plan is a good idea.

-Perms as advocacies - that being said, I like the argument that perms are advocacies and, if strategically forwarded, will prevent me from kicking the counter plan after the round. This argument should be started in the 2AC or 1AR (perhaps on conditionality).

-Counterplan competition - I err affirmative on the permutation for process counterplans.

-Politics theory - a thumbs down is sufficient to answer everything except non-intrinsic. This goes for no negative fiat, too.

Ethics challenges: I won't vote on clipping unless (A) I noticed it or (B) you have a recording. If you notice clipping in the speech, start recording on your laptop if you want to stake the round on it.

Aarron Schurevich Millard North HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 12:49 PM CDT

LAST UPDATED: NOV. 4, 2023

My previous paradigm preferences are four years old at this point and likely outdated. I have deleted them for now.

I am likely much, much worse at flowing these days than I was when judging all the time. I have been a tournament tab resident for years on end now, and that likely means I'm not as up to date on new progressive developments in rounds.

Here's what I'll say:

- Don't treat me like I'm a dummy, but don't presume I understand everything you're saying. I need you to do the work of explaining arguments, articulating impacts, and explicitly weighing within the round.

- I expect that a PF team going 2nd will have a rebuttal that both answers the opponent's case and rebuilds their own. Any argument not addressed in the 2nd team's rebuttal is a conceded argument, and if the first team makes it a voter, that's likely ballgame (assuming there is offense on the argument for the 1st team).

- I'm watching everything, but if you don't make it matter, it doesn't matter.

- In PF, I'm not going to break my back to follow you at a thousand miles an hour, so if you're fast, I'll give you one verbal "CLEAR" in the round to let you know you're leaving me behind. I will not feel at all responsible for what you might think is a bad decision if the way you're speaking disregards my ability/inability to follow and flow you.

- I expect clear and explicit voters in the final speeches.

- I'm not at all impressed by debaters who are jerks to opponents. This is a community, and everyone in it should be a steward of that community. Decorum, in extreme cases, is a voting issue for me, and I do consider my ballot my greatest means of discouraging outlandish and abusive behavior.

- I want full text reading of evidence, not paraphrasing. Upon the request of the opponent, cards not provided in a reasonable timeframe will be disregarded as if they don't exist.

If you have any specific questions, ask them pre-round.

Daniel Shatzkin American Heritage 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 15, 2024 at 6:22 AM MDT

They/Them

Programming & Operations Coordinator for Denver Urban Debate League / Editor-in-Chief Champions Brief LD

For online rounds please put me on the chain. Email: DSSQ62@gmail.com

Been around debate for 20 years (4 years as a competitor the rest coaching). I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. I can understand spreading at high speed unfortunately time is catching up to me and I can’t write/type as fast as I once could so I'll say clearer or slower a few times as needed in order to make sure I can actually flow what’s necessary.

*Slow down a bit for online debates. I flow off what i hear. Sound issues inevitably pop up and while I may have the doc just in case; this isn't an essay contest.

Lincoln Douglas

I'll evaluate the round based on how I flow it so run what you want for specifics see below. Please ask me questions if you want to know more.

Framework

I judge a lot of util debates which is fine but I'm up for any kind of framework debate. I like a good complicated Phil heavy round. Skep debates are sorely lacking nowadays so I'm all for them. Haven't heard a good skep round in awhile. Don't be afraid to run nihilistic frameworks in front of me. If you can warrant it and defend it I'll listen to it (so long as it's not racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic).

K's:

Run them please. Admittedly I'm more familiar with classical K literature like cap, bio power and some psychoanalysis. I enjoy a good postmodern Phil round but that doesn't mean I won't listen to other K's. Identity K's and stuff like that are totally fine but make sure you're really clear on the link and alt level. K aff's are fine as long as they can win reasonability on T.

Topicality:

I default to reasonability it's hard for me to say there is an objective limit on the topic when language has multiple meanings. Have good interps. Warranted interps that have an internal justification for why they're true will probably be better than a random dictionary. Random violations that you know your opponents meet but you run them anyway as a time suck are bad. I likely won't buy a contested RVI but a good I meet is probably enough for aff's to avoid any offense on T for me. T violations function as a gateway issue. If the aff isn't topical they likely will lose especially if there is a topical version of the aff. If the aff can give me a good warranted reason why they don't need to be topical I'll vote on it. The standards debate is important if you're gonna go for T you need to go all in and spend time here really explaining why your interpretation creates the best model/the aff isn't debatable.

Theory:

Not my favorite but necessary at times. It's structured the same as topicality and starts with a "T" but theory isn't T. I default to drop the argument in less you tell me otherwise. Theory comes immediately before the layer in which it is criticizing unless you tell me otherwise. Frivolous theory is real, it's when you could easily answer arguments but decide to read theory. This shouldn't be your go to in front of me but I will vote on it if you win it. I'll listen to RVIs on theory but it takes an awful lot of work or the other debater just dropping it for me to vote on them. Better route is just answer the theory quickly and get to substance.

CPs & DAs

Yes please. Make sure you have an explicit CP text with a solvency advocate. Debaters jump from links to impacts really quick nowadays. Don't forget about internal links. They help tell stories in the 2AR/NR. Conditionality is probably fine in front of me but I think anything beyond testing the aff once methodologically and once pedagogically (one CP and one K) is getting abusive.

*Tech over truth only goes so far. If your technically true argument is morally repugnant don't expect me to vote for it. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or transphobic that's likely gonna be an auto loss.

Rhonda Smith Plano West Senior High School 7 rounds

Rhonda Smith Plano West Senior High School

Andy Stubbs Kingwood HS 7 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:25 PM EDT

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Troi Thomas Hire 1 rounds

Ava Vargason Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 1:25 PM EDT

Debated in policy debate for the University of Kentucky (2013-2016), before moving to NC for my PhD. Currently working at UNC. She/her.

I will always reward smart teams that can effectively and efficiently communicate their arguments to me. Engaging with your opponent, having a well-thought out strategy, and demonstrating that you’re doing consistent, hard work is what this activity is about.

My paradigm was written in 2017 for policy debate, so know that I've been out of the judging game for a while. I won't have in-depth topic knowledge, so when in doubt, invest more time in explaining your argument. In general, I think debate is pretty cool, but I think it gets a lot cooler when we all treat each other like human beings. You can be competitive in your speeches and CX, but try to treat each other with basic levels of respect. There’s no need to be rude when someone’s emailing their speech.

Yes, I want on the email chain: ava.vargason@gmail.com

Disads:

I like them a lot. There is such a thing has zero risk of a disad and there can be no link. Do impact calculus, have a clear link to the affirmative. Quality evidence is appreciated.

Theory:

Conditionality is infinitely good and it will be difficult to get me to vote on it.

Most everything else is a reason to reject the argument & not the team. I like counterplans about the affirmative with net benefits that have real links.

I will kick the counterplan unless given a compelling reason not to. Just because the counterplan is a bad idea does not mean the affirmative is better than the status quo.

Critical Strategies:

I am fine for critical strategies. However, I didn’t debate these so make sure to explain your authors to me. Affirmatives that do little engagement with the critique alternative are likely to lose. Critiques that do little engagement with the affirmative itself are likely to lose. Explain your links in the context of the AFF and your AFF in the context of the alternative. The perm is not always the best strategy and that is okay.

I am willing to vote either way on framework. I should be able to tell that you know and understand what the affirmative is if you are reading framework. Framework is best when it engages with the methodology of the AFF and questions the state’s role in activism. I like topic education arguments.

Other:

I won’t evaluate a clipping ethics challenge unless there’s a recording.

I will disregard evidence that doesn’t say anything.

I am expressive when I really like or dislike something, so you should pay attention to that.

Mike Wascher Lake Highland Preparatory 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 5, 2018 at 3:47 PM EDT

Name: Mike Wascher

School Affiliation: Lake Highland Prep

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 10

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 15

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 8

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, extemp

What is your current occupation? Debate coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery As long as it is clear, speed is not important

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Turning point in the debate where the debater should take from the line by line the arguments they envision as being the decision points. Whether it is organized by the same order as the line by line or re-cast in voting issues makes no difference.

Role of the Final Focus Tell me what arguments you win, explain why those arguments, when compared to your opponents arguments, means you win the debate. The comparative work is crucial. If the debaters don’t do it the judge has to do it and that is a door debaters should never leave open.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches While I have no autocratic rule, I would imagine that something you plan to go for would be something that is extended throughout the debate. If argument X is a winner it just seems reasonable to me that it should be included in all speeches.

Topicality Sadly, this argument isn’t advanced much because the time it takes to present it is generally critical time lost on case arguments and the trade off is seldom worth. Having said that, I would vote on a T argument.

Plans Specific plans are, by rule, not allowed. Generic ideas about solving problems necessarily discusses policy options. The general idea of those options is the resolution when were have policy topics.

Kritiks If Public Forum is supposed to be debate about how current events are debated in the real world I find little room for theoretical ideas that are not considered by real world policy makers. If, however, the critical argument has specific links to the topic, (and history suggests that few I’ve heard do) it should not be rejected because it is critical.

Flowing/note-taking I flow the key parts of the argument and sometimes flow authors. I find myself noting dates when they seem to be old (and possible dated). I listen to cross fire and sometimes make notes when I heard something worthwhile.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I value argument and I especially value warrants (which aren’t tag lines) that explain why your claims are persuasive.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Not a hard and fast rule with me but I can’t imagine why a winner would be left out.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Also not a hard and fast rule with me but strategically it is probably important you get back to some of your case, unless you plan to win offense on turns on your opponents case.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Never!

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. The three things I would like to hear more often in Public Forum debates are:

1) Comparative work. Explain why you win the debate not just win some arguments. You can win every argument you discuss but still not have a better story than your opponent. Take the time to explain why the arguments you win form a better story than your opponent’s offering.

2) Warrants. Claims are not persuasive. Why your claim is true, significant, harmful, etc., make for a persuasive argument. The best claim from the most qualified author is generally useless and it is sad when those “Best” authors write warrants and debaters fail to cut that evidence and read it.

3) Paraphrasing. I recognize that the PF world is at this point. I don’t like it. I believe there are ethical issues when one cites three different authors, for example, and none of the three are working on the same argument but rather writing one line that fits in and is found in a google search. I also find it problematic that some think they can summarize a master’s level work in six words. Paraphrasing opens the world to a lot of potential evil. I read a lot on our topics and do not be the person that is misrepresenting an author by a poor paraphrase. It’s as bad as clipping. Given the power to change the world I would mandate we go back to reading evidence but then again I can’t find enough people, maybe even one other person, willing to give me that power. So we will paraphrase but we will properly represent the evidence.

Trevor Wells Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 28, 2016 at 8:03 AM CDT

Trevor Wells

University of Kentucky / Valparaiso (Indiana) High School

Judging Philosophy

(Current as of 2016 UK Tournament of Champions –PF / IPF Judging Pools)

I’ve been out of the game for a long time. So, I don't know what type of specific information folks want/need to see in Judging Philosophies. So, this rambles. The last section likely contains the most easily digestible and useful information (and even that is a little on the esoteric side).

Introduction

When people periodically ask me what my “paradigm” is, I almost always answer “I’m a hypothesis-tester.” That’s a bald-faced lie. I wasn’t even into hypothesis-testing when that was actually a thing. If you tried to engage me in a discussion on alternative justification or counterwarrants, I probably couldn’t hold my own for even 5 minutes. But the word “paradigm” strikes me as something that should be written in calligraphy on dusty parchment and perhaps spelled with a “y.” And rather than trying to sort me into a particular paradigm box, it’s probably better to think of me as a complex guy who has a lot of different thoughts about debate (many of which are in direct opposition to each other). This judging philosophy attempts to give you a peek at what’s going on between my ears. I won’t be offended if what you read prompts you to turn and run. But if you see something in here that intrigues you, I would consider it a pleasure to judge your debates.

Who am I and what is my debate background?

In middle and high school (Sayre School in Lexington, Kentucky) and in college (Butler University, University of Kentucky), I debated – exclusively policy debate/NDT – for ten consecutive seasons between 1984-85 (the HS unemployment/poverty topic) and 1994-94 (the NDT Commander-in-Chief topic). In high school, we competed largely at a notch below the National Circuit -- mostly at smaller, regional tournaments throughout the Southeast (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri), Midwest (Ohio, Indiana), and upper Atlantic (Pennsylvania). In college, I spent a year learning what college debate was about, then spent a year flirting with the 4-4 /5-3 cut line, and then enjoyed a fair amount of competitive success in my junior and senior years.

After graduation, I lingered around the activity for close to a decade while attending law school and in the early years of practicing law. I continued to judge fairly regularly (as many as 6-7 tournaments a year between high school and college) for several years. Then, as life (marriage, kids, work) started to heat up, my debate involvement started to wane. Somewhere around 2004-05, I stopped having any real tangible tether to the activity and became just a spectator/alumnus with a fair number of close friends still active in debate.

Last fall, fresh off a successful battle with colorectal cancer (go Western medicine!), I started working as a volunteer coach for the Public Forum squad at the local high school and found that I enjoyed that work far more than my rather mundane and soul-sucking professional life. The program that I work with does not compete on the National Circuit. Our state’s debate circuit is pretty vibrant, however – there’s a 4-rounds-on-a-Saturday tournament nearly every weekend from late September through the end of January. The judging pool is conservative and consists largely of parent volunteers. Disclosure is prohibited. If a person had a round off (which seldom happens), watching his/her students debate would be verboten because it would be reported as "spying." There’s nothing resembling National Circuit style judge preferences – I think the tab rooms honor a couple of strikes, but that’s it. (I’m pretty sure a rival school strikes me because they – correctly, as it turns out – believe that I have homicidal ideations involving one of their coaches who I feel fails to respect her role as an educator). The tab rooms assign me to judge everything – from novice LD to World Debate to varsity Policy (which, depending on the teams, might focus on stock issues or might be a CP/Disad debate that is vaguely reminiscent of debate as I knew it). What I’ve learned is that I find intellectually and emotionally rewarding to interact with young people involved in “debate” (however that’s defined) – and, somewhat surprisingly, given a lifetime of unexamined enmity, even some of the folks on the “speech” side of things.

Philosophical Musings

Judges are the weakest link in this game. It’s a big responsibility, and doing it right requires hard work. From my perspective, seeking true “objectivity” from a debate judge is a pipedream. Unless and until science develops AI debate judges, the identity, personality, experience, knowledge, etc. of the individual judge in the back of the room will play a role in that judge’s decision-making process. And the best we can strive for is to have a reasonably homogenous judging pool so that the specific person behind the proverbial plate calling balls and strikes doesn’t make a whole lot of difference. In other words, we can hope that most judges in a particular judging pool would resolve most debates the same way.

Throughout my “judging journey,” I’ve tried to periodically take stock with how my personal judging compares to what I perceive to be a hypothetical “ordinary judge” in the pool. In the late 90s and early 00s when I judged a lot, there was a time when I felt like I was pretty well aligned with the mean and made good decisions almost all of the time. Other times, I was average at best – especially when extracurricular at-tournament activity left me sleep-deprived. Towards the end of my last go-round as a debate judge, I felt like I had slipped a little further from the mean. Just before I stepped away from the activity, I came to three conclusions: (1) the debates I enjoyed watching the most (big case-debate/specific-counterplan/solvency-turn card wars) are the hardest to decide, and thus, were the ones where I was least confident in my decisions; (2) I found myself in a couple of debates every weekend where I recognized the likelihood that a significant number of other judges would have resolved the debate differently than I did; and (3) there was a debate every other weekend or so where I felt like I was guessing who won more than deciding who won. Although I felt like I guessed “correctly” the vast majority of the time, that was unsettling, and was one of the reasons I needed to be done.

Since I’ve started judging debates again, I’ve resolved to be less concerned about how other judges might decide debates and focus on being the best judge that I can be. In my mind, that means:

I will give my best effort in every debate I judge. That’s true for every debate for which I’m handed a ballot. Regardless of whether I’m judging a prelim debate between winless rank LD novices at a local tournament in October or an elimination round at an end-of-season championship tournament, I will try hard to make a good decision. I will shut out other distractions and focus only on the debate in front of me. I will make sure that I get the sleep that the middle-aged me needs to focus and think hard.

I will endeavor to be an educator by providing meaningful, useful, constructive feedback to the debaters I judge.

I will respect the activity and everyone at the tournament. I choose to participate in debate because I loved my time as a competitor and I believe that it had the single greatest influence on the person I became and the way I view the world. Other people who choose to coach and compete in this activity are thus extended family. We may not see eye-to-eye on everything, but we have something common in our cores.

Predilections and Subjects Upon Which I May Be an Outlier

I don’t pretend to be tabula rasa. I form mental impressions about arguments and warrants as I hear them during the course of the debate. More broadly, I’m confident that I have ideological limits beyond which I just can’t make myself go. Where those limits are, I don’t even know yet because I haven’t sat in the judging crucible for some time. As I sit here this moment typing this philosophy, I can’t think of anything that I’ve seen or heard about online that I would reject out-of-hand. Everything I can think of seems within the zone of the "debatable." As things get further and further away from my comfort zone (see below), my skepticism is likely to increase. But I’m not categorically excluding anything. If I encounter anything that seems like a no-go for me, I’ll update this philosophy so that folks can make informed decisions about me.

My comfort zone is with late-20th-Century debate practices. But I recognize that the activity evolves and that things are different in the 21st Century. Two decades have passed since I was actively involved in researching debate arguments (and some of my teammates would question how actively involved I was back then). At this point, I have zero institutional memory about many arguments and literature that practices and theoretical notions that students learn in novice labs at summer institutes. Some of them will probably compute. Some of them probably won’t. I consider myself a generally well-read person, but I’m not particularly well versed in continental philosophy or politics-of-identity literature. I’m willing to learn to dance the way the kids dance these days, but you’re going to have to go slow with me and explain the steps because I’m still doing the Sprinkler and the Robot.

My receptivity to certain positions will vary from debate to debate – often depending on how entertained I am. More than a decade ago, I self-identified in opposition to “The K.” But there were a couple of teams out there who let me judge them and were able to win my ballot on critical argumentation with some regularity. I think they did so because they took the time to tailor their argument to me and to explain some of the linkages that they might have treated as “given” in other debates. I’m typically entertained by debaters who are enjoying themselves even in the face of tough, tense competition.

I want to watch debates where folks engage in in-depth argumentation about something – probably anything, really – “substantive” – and by “substantive,” I mean “about something other than ‘the rules.’” One caveat is that I do enjoy a good, in-depth topicality debate – not about whether topicality should be a thing at all, but whether the affirmative initiated a debate for which the negative could reasonably be prepared. In my mind, most debate theory exists as a mechanism to generate meaningful clash and debate. When debates become about theory and “rules,” the train has left the station.

My view on the relationship between students and judges might be out of step with the prevailing view. I don’t subscribe to the view that the activity primarily belongs to the student competitors, who should have free reign to redefine it. Particularly in high school debates, I feel that coaches and judges have a responsibility as educators to participate as equal partners in a dialogue about the activity’s (d)evolution. If that makes me the cantankerous “adult in the room,” so be it. If “the room” in question turns out to be the judges’ lounge because no one wants me in the back of the room, so it goes.

Ethical challenges: don't make them a part of your competitive toolbox. You don't want me adjudicating them. I'll afford the accused due process protections akin to those enjoyed by a criminal defendant, e.g. a requirement that the allegation be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If I find the challenge valid, I will do everything in my power to ensure that the offending party is shunned from debate society. If, however, I find an ethical challenge insufficiently proven and suspect it to have been cavalierly asserted as a tactical measure (and maybe even if I find the challenge valid, but personally believe that the challenger raised it in a manner that I subjectively view as dishonorable instead of attempting to address the issue in some other means), the challenger(s) can expect to answer for it to their principal and/or superintendent, who will receive a letter from me describing what happened.

I don’t read much evidence after debates. It’s still an oral activity, and I expect you to communicate your evidence in a manner that I can determine the short-form citation and comprehend the warrants expressed in the card. Please understand that I’m not some yokel who uses terms like “rapid fire” and “spread debate.” I talked relatively fast when I debated, and, although I have my doubts about whether 300 wpm speech is the most pedagogically beneficial way to access the critical-thinking skills folks offer as a defense of it, I’m not trying to rewind debate practices by 50 years. Slowing down a notch or two, however, will almost always increase the extent to which I’m comprehending your arguments.

I flow (on a legal pad) reasonably well for a gray-beard. I get grumpy when folks mess up my flow. This seems to happen a lot in PF debates when (1) debaters deliver prepared speeches that are written like polished essays, and citations follow quotations that I can’t always tell are quotations (tag, cite, card/quotation might be clunky, but it's a lot easier to follow), and (2) when multiple speakers on the same side attempt to cover the same ground (which is nearly always a bad idea for other reasons).

I’d estimate that better than two-thirds of the time, I end up voting for the team that impresses me more during cross-examination (and, in PF, cross-fires). That’s a pretty high correlation, and should indicate to you how important you should treat CX or CF. I’m turned off by evasion, filibustering through non-responsive answers, unnecessary rudeness. I want to see those three minutes used to engage in a meaningful dialogue about the issues in the debate.

I try to adhere to prevailing speaker-point norms, but identifying those norms and trying to figure out how to apply them is sometimes a struggle. I don’t go out of my way to give low points, but my guess is that I’ll typically lag a little behind the inflation curve.

That’s what I have for now. Feel free to email me (trevor@hangingbrain.net) if there are specific questions that I can answer.

Jeff Welty Durham Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 2:21 AM EDT

I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.

I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.

I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.

I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.

Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.

As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.

Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.

Keith West Boston Latin School 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 11, 2019 at 10:25 AM EDT

I'm the coach at Boston Latin School, and I've been coaching at the high school and college level for about the last 15 years. I've done most forms of debate at one time or another, including Policy, Parli, LD, and even Congress and Worlds. I'm generally fairly well versed in the topic area, but it doesn't hurt to define unusual acronyms the first time you use them. Also, just because I can follow technical debate it doesn't mean that you need to be a spewtron with a million cards to impress me. Especially in PF I tend to appreciate a slower, more well reasoned case over a ton of carded claims any day.

Specific things to know for me as a judge:

1. Be honest about the flow and extend arguments by tag, not by citation. I like to think I can generally flow decently well. Repeatedly telling me your opponents dropped something that they actually had multiple responses to it tends to annoy me and degrade your credibility (and speaker points) pretty quickly. That said - don't assume I've snagged every card citation you blitzed in your constructive. When you extend carded arguments, extend via the tag - not via the citation. Even if I do have the cite for that specific card it's going to take me longer to find it that way and while I'm doing that I'm paying less attention to what you're saying.

2. Don't be a [jerk]. I don't generally flow CX, though I do listen and may jot down relevant things. DON'T BE A JERK IN CX (or elsewhere). Like many people, I tend to have a bit of a subconscious bias to see kinder and more respectful people as more reasonable and more likely to be correct. So even if you're not interested in kindness for its own sake (which I hope you would be), consider it a competitively useful trait to develop if you're stuck with me as a judge : )

3. Warrants really matter. I generally care much more about warrants than I do about citations. That means that putting a citation behind a claim without actually explaining why it makes logical sense won't do you a ton of good. There are a fair number of teams that cut cards for claims rather than the warranting behind them, and that practice won't go very far against any opponent who can explain the logical problems behind your assertion.

4. Extend Offense in Summary, Defense extensions are optional there. What it says. Any offense that isn't in the Summary generally doesn't exist for me in the Final Focus. Extending your offense though ink also doesn't do much - make sure to answer the rebuttal args against whatever offense you want to carry though. On the flip-side, If you have a really important defensive argument from Rebuttal that you want to hi-light, it certainly doesn't hurt to flag that in the Summary, though I will assume those arguments are still live unless they're responded to by your opponents

5. Explicitly weigh impacts. Every judge always tells you to weigh stuff, and I'll do the same, but what I mean specifically is: "tell me why the arguments you win are more important than the arguments you might lose." At the end of the vast majority of rounds each side is winning some stuff. If you don't directly compare the issues that are still alive at the end of the round, you force me to do it, and that means you lose a lot of control over the outcome. As a follow up (especially as the first speaker) make sure to compare your impacts against the best impacts they could reasonably claim, not the weakest.

6. Collapse down. I respect strategic concession - make choices and focus on where you're most likely to win. By the Summary you should have an idea where you're likely to win and where you're likely to lose. If you try to go for everything in the last two speeches you are unlikely to have enough explanation on anything to be persuasive.

If you have any questions about any of this, feel free to ask.

Good luck, have fun, and learn things.

Login to Tabroom

Tournament of Champions

2016 — Lexington, KY/US

International PF Paradigm List

Judges