Background: Hello, my name is Lorelei Bailey (she/her/hers) and I am a past student judge. I competed in LD for 6 years and have judged debate tournaments ranging from middle school, novice, and varsity. I am currently an NPDA college debater at Tulane University. Debate is something I have enjoyed for the more significant part of my life, below I have some things I like to remind competitors about before rounds. Please do not hesitate to clarify any questions about my paradigm before the round begins.

Competition preferences (LD):

Please put me in the email chain- email: lorelei.e.bailey@gmail.com

I competed as a traditional LD debater but I know progressive/tech well. Please off-time roadmap/signpost because I flow during every round I judge. Please keep time, I do time during the round but also prefer competitors to do the same, and use your prep time.

Basic stuff:

• Don't drop args.
• Weigh.
• Consider organization.
• Use prep time effectively, same for the cross.
• If you're going to spread, make sure you actually can- don't attempt to if you can't do it "correctly"
• Unpopular opinion: tech and truth are equal and it is better to have a bad response to an argument than no response.
• AFF has the burden of proof.
• I'm more familiar with trad but am fine with progressive

Speaks: No clear formula, but here are my main consistencies

• I am fine with spreading as long as it is done well if you're able to speak clearly
• I like cross-examination and it does affect speaks during rounds I judge.
• A general rule of thumb: don't be rude
• Organization = higher speaks
• Time unused = lower speaks
• Fluency, clarity, etc = higher speaks

Cross-examination:

• I was told that CX is where the round is won which I think is generally true. CX takes organization skills, strategy, and direction. The intent of your questions is more obvious than you think...asking clarification questions (i.e "what is your V/VC") tells me that you are unprepared and did not listen to your opponent, you should be able to ask better questions than that.

K's:

• EXPLAIN your argument. If it is not relevant, I will not flow which could negatively affect you.

Tricks:

• Unpopular opinion, but tricks can be very useful, but only if the debater does it right.
• Substantive tricks: hijacks, determinism, and moral skepticism are the types I'm most familiar with.
• Theory tricks: not preferred at all, they're usually messy and just bad.
• Responding to Tricks: 1) Underplay, 2) line-by-line response, 3) generate turns

Disadvantages:

• Perfect DAs need to consist of 1) Uniqueness, 2) Impact, 3) Link, 4) Internal link
• How I like to respond to DAs/how to respond to a DA:
• Answer the link/ turn the link- When you make a “no link” argument, you are contending that the first step in the disadvantage will not result from supporting your plan.
• Answer the internal link/turn the internal link. When answering the internal link, you are essentially arguing that “A” will not produce “B.”
• Answer the impact/turning the impact. An impact answer says that the impact is false. An impact turn says that not only is the final impact not bad, but it is also good.
• Strats: 1) Use your affirmative to non-unique the disadvantage. 2) Use your affirmative to solve the impact. Think of a way that voting for the affirmative can prevent the impact. 3) Maintain an apriori claim

CP's:

• Make sure your CP applies and is realistic to the topic. I think only topical CPs should be allowed in a round, but that is just my opinion.
• Responses: P.O.S.T
• P- Permutations (PERMS): These are the most common, I do not have a preference
• Severance permutations—Severance permutations attempt to do part of the plan and all or part of the counterplan and thus "sever" out of part of the plan. When done as a counterplan, it is often called a plan-inclusive counterplan or PIC.
• Intrinsicness permutations—Intrinsicness permutations attempt to do all of the plans, all or part of the counterplan, and something in neither the plan nor the counterplan. Their rationale is that the counterplan is not intrinsically competitive with the plan because the added actions make it possible to achieve the benefits of both the plan and the counterplan.

Competition preferences for Congressional Debate (CD):

If you need time signals, I will provide them but clarify how you would like them done. Eye contact is vital so I know when you are ready to begin speaking, this helps tremendously with timing.

• Don't make up your sources
• Don't rely on reading straight from your laptop, impromptu responses make Congress the event that it is, if you know the subject matter that is up for discussion then this shouldn't be an issue.
• POs: move the debate along, that's the essence of your role. Remain impartial to your school

Competition preferences (IE)

If you ask for time signals, I am more than willing to provide time signals. Project your voice and speak clearly. I evaluate characterization, speaking pace, and theme

For all competitors:

Have fun and enjoy competing !!! <3

Hello! I have been judging for about 2 years but much of my experience is limited to locals. Therefore, I do not have a lot of experience in tech, so I would HIGHLY encourage you to read lay. You will not be penalized for reading tech, but there is a high probability that I will end up preferring the lay case. Make sure to always speak clearly and make it easy for me to flow your arguments. Don't read too fast, have convincing and organized rebuttals, and do not be aggressive or overbearing during CX. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me whatever. Happy debating!

I have over 3 years of judging experience of various events including Congress, IE, PFD and LD (traditional) in regional and national level. Lately, I have been judging LD and PFD events.

I have a few preferences that need to be followed during a round in order to persuade me:

· Speak clearly, I understand speaking fast is necessary at times, but I should be able to comprehend everything you are saying.

· I expect civility and respect within the round, there will be no racism, sexism, misogyny, ethnocentrism, belittling of your opponent, or personal criticism of your opponent. If you display any of these actions I will no longer listen to you or your arguments.

· The debate will be weighed and judged on clear and consistent arguments on the framework, which are carried throughout the round.

· Evidence must be presented throughout the round. If your opponent doesn’t negate your evidence, emphasize on it to get the advantage.

· Framework is very important. You must have a clear value and value criterion. You must apply it to all of your arguments made in the round and uphold it at the end. I should be able to relate to the contention you’re speaking about and all of your supporting points.

· Please keep your pace to a conversational speed so I can flow. If I miss something on the flow, I can’t vote based on it.

· Having confidence is a key to effective debate. If you sound confident and bring your arguments clearly, you’re more than likely to convince me.

Quick 2022 update--CX is important, use it fully. Examples make a big difference, but you have to compare your examples to theirs and show why yours are better. Quality of evidence matters--debate the strengths of your evidence vs. theirs. Finally, all the comments in a majority of paradigms about tech vs. truth are somewhat absurd. Tech can determine truth and vice-versa: they are not opposed or mutually exclusive and they can be each others' best tools. Want to emphasize your tech? Great--defend it. Want to emphasize your truths? Great--but compare them. Most of all, get into it! We are here for a bit of time together, let's make the most of it.

Updated 2020...just a small note: have fun and make the most of it! Being enthusiastic goes a long way.

Updated 2019. Coaching at Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Nothing massive has changed except I give slightly higher points across the board to match inflation. Keep in mind, I am still pleased to hear qualification debates and deep examples win rounds. I know you all work hard so I will too. Any argument preference or style is fine with me: good debate is good debate. Email: kevindkuswa at gmail dot com.

Updated 2017. Currently coaching for Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Been judging a lot on the China topic, enjoying it. Could emphasize just about everything in the comments below, but wanted to especially highlight my thirst for good evidence qualification debates...

_____________________________ (previous paradigm)

Summary: Quality over quantity, be specific, use examples, debate about evidence.

I think debate is an incredibly special and valuable activity despite being deeply flawed and even dangerous in some ways. If you are interested in more conversations about debate or a certain decision (you could also use this to add me to an email chain for the round if there is one), contact me at kevindkuswa at gmail dot com. It is a privilege to be judging you—I know it takes a lot of time, effort, and commitment to participate in debate. At a minimum you are here and devoting your weekend to the activity—you add in travel time, research, practice and all the other aspects of preparation and you really are expressing some dedication.

So, the first issue is filling out your preference sheets. I’m usually more preferred by the kritikal or non-traditional crowd, but I would encourage other teams to think about giving me a try. I work hard to be as fair as possible in every debate, I strive to vote on well-explained arguments as articulated in the round, and my ballots have been quite balanced in close rounds on indicative ideological issues. I’m not affiliated with a particular debate team right now and may be able to judge at the NDT, so give me a try early on and then go from there.

The second issue is at the tournament—you have me as a judge and are looking for some suggestions that might help in the round. In addition to a list of things I’m about to give you, it’s good that you are taking the time to read this statement. We are about to spend over an hour talking to and with each other—you might as well try to get some insight from a document that has been written for this purpose.

1. Have some energy, care about the debate. This goes without saying for most, but enthusiasm is contagious and we’ve all put in some work to get to the debate. Most of you will probably speak as fast as you possibly can and spend a majority of your time reading things from a computer screen (which is fine—that can be done efficiently and even beautifully), but it is also possible to make equally or more compelling arguments in other ways in a five or ten minute speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQVq5mugw_Y).

2. Examples win debates. Well-developed examples are necessary to make the abstract concrete, they show an understanding of the issues in the round, and they tend to control our understandings of how particular changes will play out. Good examples take many forms and might include all sorts of elements (paraphrasing, citing, narrating, quantifying, conditioning, countering, embedding, extending, etc.), but the best examples are easily applicable, supported by references and other experiences, and used to frame specific portions of the debate. I’m not sure this will be very helpful because it’s so broad, but at the very least you should be able to answer the question, “What are your examples?” For example, refer to Carville’s commencement speech to Tulane graduates in 2008…he offers the example of Abe Lincoln to make the point that “failure is the oxygen of success” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMiSKPpyvMk.

3. Argument comparison wins debate. Get in there and compare evidence—debate the non-highlighted portion of cards (or the cryptic nature of their highlighting). Debate the warrants and compare them in terms of application, rationale, depth, etc. The trinity of impact, plausibility, and verge analysis doesn’t hurt, especially if those variables are weighed against one another. It’s nice to hear good explanations that follow phrases like “Even if…,” “On balance…,” or “In the context of…” I know that evidence comparison is being done at an extremely high level, but I also fear that one of the effects of paperless debate might be a tilt toward competing speech documents that feature less direct evidence comparison. Prove me wrong.

4. Debates about the relative validity of sources win rounds. Where is the evidence on both sides coming from and why are those sources better or worse? Qualification debates can make a big difference, especially because these arguments are surprisingly rare. It’s also shocking that more evidence is not used to indict other sources and effectively remove an entire card (or even argument) from consideration. The more good qualification arguments you can make, the better. Until this kind of argument is more common, I am thirsty enough for source comparisons (in many ways, this is what debate is about—evidence comparison), that I’ll add a few decimal points when it happens. I do not know exactly where my points are relative to other judges, but I would say I am along a spectrum where 27.4 is pretty good but not far from average, 27.7 is good and really contributing to the debate, 28 is very good and above average, 28.5 is outstanding and belongs in elims, and 29.1 or above is excellent for that division—could contend for one of the best speeches at the tournament.

5. All debates can still be won in 2AR. For all the speakers, that’s a corollary of the “Be gritty” mantra. Persevere, take risks and defend your choices

(https://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit). The ballot is not based on record at previous tournaments, gpa, school ranking, or number of coaches.

6. Do not be afraid to go for a little more than usual in the 2NR—it might even help you avoid being repetitive. It is certainly possible to be too greedy, leaving a bloated strategy that can’t stand up to a good 2AR, but I usually think this speech leaves too much on the table.

7. Beginning in the 1AR, brand new arguments should only be in reference to new arguments in the previous speech. Admittedly this is a fuzzy line and it is up to the teams to point out brand new arguments as well as the implications. The reason I’ve decided to include a point on this is because in some cases a 2AR has been so new that I have had to serve as the filter. That is rare and involves more than just a new example or a new paraphrasing (and more than a new response to a new argument in the 2NR).

8. Very good arguments can be made without evidence being introduced in card form, but I do like good cards that are as specific and warranted as possible. Use the evidence you do introduce and do as much direct quoting of key words and phrases to enhance your evidence comparison and the validity of your argument overall.

9. CX matters. This probably deserves its own philosophy, but it is worth repeating that CX is a very important time for exposing flaws in arguments, for setting yourself up for the rebuttals, for going over strengths and weaknesses in arguments, and for generating direct clash. I do not have numbers for this or a clear definition of what it means to “win CX,” but I get the sense that the team that “wins” the four questioning periods often wins the debate.

10. I lean toward “reciprocity” arguments over “punish them because…” arguments. This is a very loose observation and there are many exceptions, but my sympathies connect more to arguments about how certain theoretical moves made by your opponent open up more avenues for you (remember to spell out what those avenues look like and how they benefit you). If there are places to make arguments about how you have been disadvantaged or harmed by your opponent’s positions (and there certainly are), those discussions are most compelling when contextualized, linked to larger issues in the debate, and fully justified.

Overall, enjoy yourself—remember to learn things when you can and that competition is usually better as a means than as an ends.

And, finally, the third big issue is post-round. Usually I will not call for many cards—it will help your cause to point out which cards are most significant in the rebuttals (and explain why). I will try to provide a few suggestions for future rounds if there is enough time. Feel free to ask questions as well. In terms of a long-term request, I have two favors to ask. First, give back to the activity when you can. Judging high school debates and helping local programs is the way the community sustains itself and grows—every little bit helps. Whether you realize it or not, you are a very qualified judge for all the debate events at high school tournaments. Second, consider going into teaching. If you enjoy debate at all, then bringing some of the skills of advocacy, the passion of thinking hard about issues, or the ability to apply strategy to argumentation, might make teaching a great calling for you and for your future students (https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_emdin_teach_teachers_how_to_create_magic note: debaters are definitely part of academia, but represent a group than can engage in Emdin’s terms). There are lots of good paths to pursue, but teaching is one where debaters excel and often find fulfilling. Best of luck along the ways.

ABOUT ME: Former Congressional Debater/Extemper/LDer and coach. These days, usually a tournament director. JD, no bar. MLS, lots of books. I've been at this for about 30 years now.

Okay, on to more important things:

SPEED: Keep it reasonable—slightly faster than conversational pace is fine. I can flow faster than that, but I won't, as I don't find value in that form of debate. I won't vote against you solely for excessive speed, but I won't flow anything I can't follow comfortably.

COMMUNICATION SKILLS GENERALLY: They matter and will figure heavily into your speaker points. Proper grammar and diction cut in favor of your credibility as an advocate; the reverse is also true. If your nonverbal communication doesn't bolster your words and show me what's important, you've wasted an opportunity to convince me. With the exception of reasonable accommodations, online rounds, and Grand Crossfire, you are expected to stand when speaking.

RULES LAWYERING: DON'T!

BIGOTRY OF ANY KIND: Perhaps the quickest way to tank your speaker points.

APPROACH TO POLICY: Mostly a policymaker. Stock issues still matter. CPs are fine, but Neg must abandon status quo. DAs are great, but don't neglect uniqueness. T is acceptable but rarely compelling. I'm not such a big fan of Ks and debate theory, but I am persuadable; if you want to try to change my mind, you can. Voting issues expected in the 2NR/2AR.

APPROACH TO LD: Traditional; if you want to debate policy, do policy debate. I favor the value clash over the line-by-line. No "status quo" or plans. For a resolution R, Aff must argue in support of R; Neg, in support of ~R. Interpretation of R and division of ground are legitimate issues for the round. Burden of production is a framework (value operationalized through a criterion). Clash is mandatory; this is debate, not dueling oratory. Voting issues expected at the end of the NR and the lion's share of the 2AR.

APPROACH TO PFD: No plans. For a resolution R, Pro must argue that R > ~R; Con must argue the reverse. Interpretation of R and standard are legitimate issues for the round. Clash is mandatory. Prefer fewer well-developed arguments to a long train of tag, card, tag, card. Voting issues desired in the latter half of Summary. FF should distill the Summaries and Grand Crossfire into one reason to vote either for you OR against your opponents (in other words, it should write my RFD for me).

UNDERSTANDING MY BALLOTS: I write ballots that are meant to (1) explain the basis for my decision and (2) help you do better in future rounds. In general, I will not praise you for doing what's expected. If I don't say anything about it, you were fine to very good. I will identify true standout areas, but I'll mostly point out what didn't work well (including things that I think a better opponent would've seized upon).

If I quote or paraphrase something you said: The more exclamation points I put after a statement, the more impressed I was with it. The more question marks I put after a statement, the more of a blunder I thought it was.

A black box (on paper) or ***a ton of asterisks*** (in text) around a comment means something your coach needs to discuss with you. Please don't make me do this.

I've judged LD and PFD earlier and had been a debater myself in a different format.

I'm open to the various formats and delivery of speeches. Content matters more to me, the speaker has to maintain dignity about other speaker, any type of Abuse to any person, religion or culture is absolutely unacceptable.

I understand lay the most but larp is also fine.

I prefer speech delivery at a rate which has words clear to understand. Fast pace is ok, as long as words are clear.