General

Respect your judges and competitors.

Follow the rules, as I read them and will ask Tab staff if there are any issues.

Be timely to your round.

Debate

I judge mostly on the content you provide and how you approach your opponent's speeches. However, your delivery is important in order for me to hear and understand you. I do flow the debates and will use my flow to do a majority of my own deliberation. Please use signposts, it will make it far easier for me to focus on your content, rather than where you are in your speech. I will prioritize certain points if you provide evidence or backing as to why they should be prioritized.

DO NOT SPREAD! I will not be able to keep up, it will not be an instant loss, but your points are far more likely to slip off (or not even appear) on my flow.

If you are to use theory, rather than evidence, please make sure you have adequate support as to why I should care (it’s the same for the vice versa). You may discuss general points, but show me impact. No non-topical kritiks.

For LD, your CV and VC are incredibly important as to why you win. However, you can win through other means if the values and criteria are a wash.

Online: Normally I would use a check and x system on my ballots. But due to online functionality, I will use :) and :( .

Congress

I judge your score based on a combination of how well it is written, the content of the speech, the delivery of the speech, and how it applies based on what has happened thus far in the chamber. I will rank you based on your scores, your questioning, and what your impact was on the chamber.

I want to see rebuttals and new content.

I do not want to see repetitious points or speeches with all words, no content.

I want questions that influence the flow of debate.

I don’t want gotcha questions that are only for making your opponent look bad (If it otherwise influences debate it is okay, but don’t do it maliciously).

Some level of purposeful blocking and vocal inflections during your speech would be recommended.

Speech

I will judge you based on a combination of vocality, movement, and content (these will weigh differently based on your respective event [this is not to say the ones weighed lower are unimportant]).

Please stand out in your event, it will make you more memorable when I am ranking you. Do not be monotone or use minimal blocking. Appropriate vocal pacing and emphasis are key to making it high on my ballot.

Please be respectful of other speakers, when they are presenting. Please stay attentive (or at least act like it). I know many of you will see the same script up to 4 times a day, but remember you want your judge and audience to give you attention, so do the same for them.

Your event has recommended guidelines for the judge, but they are also for you. Make sure you excel in each of them and you are more likely to rank higher. If you are unable to locate this, please read your league’s website or ask your coach, not your judge.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good luck and have fun! :-D

I debated for 3 years [LD] in High School for Pine View School in Florida, and I debated policy for NYU. I was the assistant debate coach at Collegiate School. I'm currently a criminal justice researcher / data scientist.

PUBLIC FORUM:

I'm a flow-focused judge and am more concerned with the argumentation that happens in a round, with clean extensions and a focus on providing the highest quality debate. I really look for, aside from well thought out and developed positions which tie back to a core thesis or framework, an understanding of debate as a platform and respecting the structure and underlying nature of how competitive debate works. I've seen a lot of people in PF try to extend through ink without addressing arguments, or picking up long-dropped arguments in their final speeches, and I'd really prefer that didn't happen. A good round, for me, shows a cohesion of thought and argumentation between partners whose roadmaps for winning the round are aligned.

Personally, I have very few feelings about what Public Forum is "supposed" to be, and I encourage a wide variety of voices and styles in all debate events. Coming from a more progressive debate tradition, I am fine with types of arguments that have not traditionally been seen in Public Forum, however, those non-traditional arguments often require frameworks and set ups that are often implicitly baked into events like Policy, and are not present in Public Forum. It's incumbent on you to, if you're planning on making those sorts of arguments, be prepared to provide theoretical backing or compelling argumentation for including them.

CX: My only other note is that I have an extremely strong preference for cross-ex to be a cross-examination, and not some sort of vehicle for evidence presentation. Asking your opponent "if they're aware" of some evidence you want to use later on is a poor use of time that could be used to ask clarifying questions or to set up argumentative traps. Watching someone get flustered or making someone upset because you're making arguments in CX rather than in your speech accomplishes little. While I don't flow CX, I will take notes on things that are admitted, and cross-ex is binding. Grand CX shouldn't be a yelling match, and I will fully tune out if you guys get too heated and I can't understand what you're saying. I'll give a few "clears" before then, though.

If you want more detailed stances I have on debate, you can read down for other events.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS:

I try to intervene as little as possible in the round, but I actively try to counteract how I feel. Here's what I specifically look for.

Framework: I'm open to any framework format, be it just a "standards", a burden analysis, value / value criterion, and everything else under the sun as long as I am given clear reasons to evaluate the round using that. I like both substance reasons and theoretic reasons. Make sure to weigh back to your framework though. If you're going to have framework clash, make sure that that you give me substantive weighing.

Impacts: I'm fine with most impacts as long as they link back to some evaluative standpoint, but make sure that if they're particularly big-stick impacts like extinction that you have well warranted internal links in your scenario. I'm receptive to analytic takeouts of poorly linked impact scenarios, so make sure that your link story is coherent and consistent. I really like impact calculus debates -- I also know I have a predisposition to weigh scope and probability over magnitude, but I actively try to counter-act that bias.

Philosophy: These are just pet peeves and won't really influence my decision, but there are very clear distinctions between ethics, meta-ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. Namely, the last 3 have very little to do with what is ethical. Please keep this in mind when you're writing your arguments or trying to make analytic arguments. That being said, I am a big fan of analytic philosophy and much less of a fan of continental philosophy. What that means is that I will totally on board if you use people like Chalmers, Street, Osuka, Hare, and so forth. I have no problem evaluating arguments out of the continental tradition, but please make sure you're actually using the internal warrants found in the cards to advance those views rather than just relying on the cite. Just like with impact analysis, I'm receptive to analytic takeouts of internal link stories for philosophical frameworks.

Kritiks: Even though I'm not the biggest fan of continental philosophy / PoMo, I think that Ks are interesting and would like to listen to them, and even encourage them, especially if your opponent says things in the round that warrant K. That being said, there's a thick line between a securitization K or a non-violence K and a psycho-analytic Jungian K where you have to battle your Shadow via in-round poetry slams. I don't like vague alts on Ks, so "reject" alts don't do a lot for me unless they provide explicit mechanics by which rejection actually happens and pre-empt why you can't perm. I, personally, encourage running theory on these sorts of alts.

Theory: I don't default to any specific weighing mechanism if it isn't brought up. I think "strategic theory" is ok when there are some arguments that might be abusive, but if your violation is "her font is size 12 and not size 14" then I'm just going to auto-gut check on it, but that's really rare. "I meets" which are uncontested are terminal defense. A new application of "spirit of the interpretation" which is not brought up when the shell is presented will not be listened to. I don't default to competing interps or reasonability. I prefer drop the argument but if it is not clarified I will default to drop the debater. If you want to say "drop the argument" for strategic reasons, I'll be receptive to it. RVIs are fine, but have a higher standard to meet than other sorts of theory arguments; I will vote on potential abuse on theory, but not RVIs, which must demonstrate actual abuse. You don't need to warrant most standard theory voters, but in the event of theory weighing, it's useful to have them.

AFC: Please don't. I will not vote on it.

General notes:

- Speed is fine.
- I heavily penalize new arguments made in the last speech. It will generally cost you massive amounts of speaker points, and if the entire 2AR is new arguments, it will cost you the round.
- I don't vote on who speaks better, since this is a debate event. Don't try to go for speaking better or out speaking your opponent, because it won't work, please focus on substance.
- I evaluate speaker points on the criteria of originality, adaptability, clarity, and as a last ditch, persuasive ability.
- I don't care if you curse, as long as it is kept to a moderate amount. Make sure that you're still respectful to your opponent.
- You get two free "clears", after which I stop flowing and start docking speaker points.
- I don't really like pref or narratives, but as long as it's topical, it's fine. If you read a non-topical narrative, you need to have to have very compelling reasons to vote on it.

- Debate is fundamentally a persuasive event. Even though I prefer to always vote on the flow, and will absolutely give low speaker wins for people who are worse at persuasion but are technically more competent, some rounds ultimately ask judges to make adjudication based on impact calculus or weighing which isn't presented by the round. Ultimately, these rounds end up in whichever competing narrative the judge buys, which has a lot to do with the persuasive capacity of the debater. Make sure you avoid this pitfall; give clear breakdowns, weight your impacts, and provide the strategic decision calculi that you think will win you the round.







POLICY:

Paradigm:
I'm pretty tabula rasa, and you can pretty much run whatever the hell pleases you, in any framework of interpretation of what debate is. I generally default to legislator or some sort of cliche; I'll vote like the plan is actually going to passed. I love me some simulations.

T: I don't really care what argument you make on T as long as it actually makes sense. Extra-topicality is fine too, but just make sure you're clear where the AFF is being extra-topical. I don't care much for topicality being the only thing debated on the flow, however. If you're going to go for T, make sure that there's something else to try to keep me interested, as I find T kind of stale. I generally won't pull the trigger on T unless you can actually prove a violation.

K: I'm a philosophy major and I find hearing different philosophical-type arguments very interesting, however, make sure you know what you're actually saying. I might be familiar with some of your authors, but because there is always more to read, I can't be sure. Don't assume I know what you're talking about, and more importantly, don't try to misrepresent what the author is saying. If you're talking about Otherization, make sure you identify who is being Otherized. It's pretty annoying to hear a long ramble about how the plan Otherizes and then there's no impact calculus defining who is being Otherized and why I should care. Kritical Affs are kinda weird sometimes, but I'm cool with them. Finally: When you extend your K, make sure you explain it in terms that I'll be able to flow. I don't care what it says in your pre-written overview or on your tagline, make sure I instantly know where you're going with the extensions.


CP: Any type of counter plan is fine with me, just make sure you clarify how it competes with the plan. I think PICs are fine as long as you don't read 3 and then make bad "condo good" arguments.

Theory: I'm open to all theory, and I'm fairly receptive to abuse stories, as long as they are clear. However, theory still needs to be explained coherently, and you need to say why your interpretation is better than your opponents. Saying why your theory is good is fine, but make sure to explain why theirs is bad.

Performance: I like topical performance, but when you're reading a non-topical narrative, I don't really know what to do and probably won't evaluate it without very compelling reasons to do so.

My name is Denise Lamboley, from Sarasota, FL. I am a Congress judge, and have been judging Congress regularly for 3 years. I have extensive knowledge of how a chamber should be run, and I have the expertise to judge a National tournament. In addition to judging with the Sarasota Speech & Debate team, I recently was a Congress judge at the Blue Key tournament at UF, and have judged at Extensive National qualifiers, and I have judged some of the best congress competitors in the country. I would call myself a "flay" judge. I value the argumentation throughout the round as well as the personality and speaking talent you also have in the round.

About me:

Update January 2024.
Whew. Been a long ride since I last updated. If I'm in the back of the room for you, it's because someone drafted me into judging a tournament as a fill-in for somebody else. My work has gotten increasingly busy, and now I work close to 12 hours a day. I also have a baby on the way (due April 2024!) so there may be some elements of sleep deprivation. I have stopped actively coaching debate, and probably will not pick it back up until the aforementioned child is in middle/high school and has decided to join the debate team.

As a result, a few things to think about.

My ability to hear speed hasn't gone away - I listen to debate rounds online from time to time, and fast spreading still sounds like conversational speech to me. What has gone away is my ability for my flow to keep up with speed. I can pretty much guarantee that if you spread anything except the text of evidence itself I will miss arguments on my flow. It's a sad state of affairs, but that's what happens when I don't judge regularly.

I will not be familiar with the topic beyond what I follow in the news (though admittedly, I read a lot). It might be beneficial to think of me as a well informed person, but someone whose knowledge is much wider than it is deep. As I've stated in past updates, it's to your advantage to read deeper piece of evidence that you can explain well. Keep in mind that any narrative you build based on that evidence is vulnerable to disruption by the other team, and so be prepared for that.

If you want to read T, theory, or framework, that's still fine. It's my general perspective that framework debates have changed as the community has started embracing a lot more Ks, and given my unfamiliarity with that literature base, I'd spend some time explaining it if I was in your shoes.

I'm a lot more flexible, however, on what I'm willing to judge. I used to have a strong preference for reading a plan text. Judging so much PF and LD, where plan texts are less common (especially in PF, where it's usually a bad idea to read one), pulled me away from that preference. I'm more concerned with the central thesis of the debate more so than I'm concerned about plan action. That's not to say I don't enjoy the whole plan text + advantages structure which dominated my time as a debater, because I do. It's just that I recognize that affirmative solvency isn't necessarily dependent on the implementation of a plan. Most plan-less debates still have the concept that you need to present an alternative to the status quo and solvency for it, but that doesn't need to a plan implemented by a government entity.

Finally, a general thought. I do make a point of trying to keep up with developments in the debate community, especially in the policy and progressive LD domains. There is a lot of public pushback against both activities as exclusionary because of the various Ks that get read, and it creates an image that debaters are trying to push out people who don't agree with them. There are people outside of debate who will cherry-pick judging paradigms, or streamed debates which are K-heavy, and then present that as evidence that debate is broken. As someone who has been around debate for a long time, and as someone who has a lot of friends still coaching and judging who have informed me otherwise, I really don't think that's the case. Unless I see something which really leads me to believe otherwise, I will defend and advocate for debate as much as I possibly can. I only ask that you help me in this goal by being the best version of yourself - do deep research, constantly refine your speaking skills, practice flowing, and always do redos after your tournaments. Just like you need evidence to win your debates, I need it too.

Thanks for letting me be your judge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update for Harvard 2022

I am super tired at this point in time, largely because I started a demanding new job in the middle of a pandemic while remote coaching a 10-person LD/PF team by myself (though my older debaters are finally cutting their own evidence, so that helps.) Please consider slowing down. I'm fine with all your tech, but maybe focus on reading deeper pieces of evidence and explaining them to me instead of going fast. I just wanna hear a good debate at this point, but not a fast one.

Rest of my philosophy is below, nothing has changed in the macro sense except the speed stuff.

My email is zoheb.nensey@gmail.com

Feel free to ask me any questions post round or put me on the email chain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I debated for four years at Miami (FL), took a year off to coach for the Chief at KCKCC, and then returned to school to coach at Florida State. I then spent 5 years in DC, where I worked with Oakton HS for like a year or two, and then with the Washingtion UDL for 3 years. I've since moved back to Florida and work with Jesuit (Tampa) on the side. We do a little bit of policy, and a lot of PF/LD (good locally, mostly a bunch of pretty bad 1-5s, 2-4s on the circuit).

Short version:

1) Speed's fine - I'll let you know if you're going too fast. Sorry if I miss it on my flow, but my local circuit is not very fast.

2) I have an ongoing love affair for T. You can turn it with your K if you want, but know that I'll evaluate the T flow before I evaluate anything else (including any turns.) Please slow slow slow down on these debates as I rarely judge T (or theory, for that matter) anymore. For 2018-9, I am not as familiar with the topic and what is normally considered topical as I would like. So keep that in mind when you're arguing about what the core of the topic is.

3) Arguments I consider outlandish but will still vote for (but warning - high threshold here):

a) Must define all terms - only if the aff somehow drops it.

b) nuclear malthus, spark, wipeout - only if the neg goes all in on it during the block and the aff doesn't win any offense against it. Feel free to bust out your turns, affirmatives.

c) ASPEC - only if the neg asks who the actor is in the 1AC cross-x, and the negative can justify loss of ground based on that actor choice.

4) K debates - go for it. Please provide real world examples of the kind of logic that the affirmative is using and why that logic is a bad idea.

5) Framework debates - go for it. But please let me know you're reading framework in your roadmap - I flow these separately, and much like a T debate.

6) Disads - have fun. Read them. I'm still skeptical of political capital being zero sum after having lived in DC for 5 years, but read it anyway if you think you have a good argument. All other disads are fair game, but don't make your internal link chains too contrived.

7) Counterplans - these are cool too. I'm skeptical of consult CPs from a theoretical perspective, but handle the perm debate and you'll be good. Also - if you're the aff, don't go too fast through your perms, and make sure you explain them in detail. If you're the negative, slow down on your counterplan text - I need to write it down.

8) Theory - I only really vote on super egregious violations (except as outlined above, like on consult CPs), but please avoid reading conflicting worlds.

Longer version:
Theory
I always read theory in debates as an answer if I didn't have anything else. My past experience has been, though, unless its a really egregious violation, I'm not likely to vote on theory. If you're reading more than one counterplan or alternative, AND they conflict, that's a pretty sure way to get me to pull the trigger on theory. If you’re saying “condo”, and then read conflicting positions which can function as offense against each other – you have another thing coming if you think I won’t let the affirmative make you defend both. If, however, they don't conflict then I see no real problem with multiple conditional positions.

T
I like T. I've won debates on T. I think that affs should have a clear link to the topic. For me, its always been a question of competing interpretations. I do think a lot of critical affs can still be run with a topical plan. That's not to say I won't vote for an affirmative that doesn't have a plan text - I've done it before - but you have to have a really good reason why doing your plan through a personal advocacy rather is a better idea then having the USFG doing the plan.

CPs
I think that counterplans are a necessary part of any debate. I'm fine with most counterplans, with the one major exception being consult counterplans. I don't like consult counterplans because it seems that most of the time the net benefit is pretty artificial and stems entirely off of the counterplan's action, rather than any direct link to the plan.
These debates always seem to be pretty heavy on theory, so when you're debating the theory part of these debates slow it down a little and explain things out, because if you're blippy on the line by line I won't be able to catch everything you write down.

DAs
Nothing's better than a good disad. I'm pretty fair game with almost any disad. Though I have a higher threshold for politics.

Ks
I like the K, but I'm not especially familiar with it. My background is such that I’ve spent a lot of time looking at political science things, communication things, statistics things, and computer things, but I have not had the chance to dig into philosophical literature much beyond the basics. I have judged a number of K debates over the years, so my basic feeling is that if you run into a K Aff, you should try and read a K against it.

If you’re an affirmative and you get a K run against you, try and engage it. I am not averse to the idea that the affirmative can be a step in the right direction. That being said, the negative should spend time highlighting the logic and assumptions of the affirmative – I tend to view the link in these terms, and I am persuadable by arguments along the line that even if the aff is a step in the right direction, its’ underlying logic means that it won’t achieve any sort of long term solvency for the harms that the K expresses. But it’s on the negative to prove that the bias of the affirmative is strong enough to preclude any risk of affirmative solvency or perm solvency at all, and on top of that I need to understand why the K’s alternative will eventually resolve the problems presented by the aff. A change in logic can lead to changes in how we formulate policy, but you need to explain that.

One other thing – on framework. I am not averse to it. I will judge it much like a T debate for the K – it comes first if it’s get read. But my threshold for rejecting frameworks that simply say that we should only do policy analysis is low. Policy considerations are always based on assumptions and ways of looking at the world, and your framework argument should tell me what your view of the world is and why that’s better than whatever the negative is proposing. Make it specific. Also let me know if you’re reading framework (in the form of – you’ll need an extra sheet) during your roadmap. I flow framework separately.

Offense/Defense
Offense is good --> having lots of it at the end of a debate makes me happy. In the case that the other team has lots of offense too, I need a clear explanation why your offense is more important than theirs, because otherwise you're opening the door for a lot of judge interventionism. I don't like intervening, but if I have to intervene I will.
Defense is good too --> I think you can win on an argument purely on defense. If you have some really good evidence that takes out their link or takes out the uniqueness to their disad, by all means, read it and use it to its fullest extent. I need there to be more than just a risk of a link to vote an argument. If you're negative, make sure your link is as concrete as you can possibly make it.

Miscellaneous
Be nice to the other team and to your partner. I once had a partner who was blatantly rude, and it cost us debates and caused a lot of bad feelings. Rudeness will hurt your speaks.
If you don't know the answer to a question in CX, it's far better to say I don't know or look to your partner to answer it than to stand there blankly or try and dodge the question.
I'm fine with tag-team CX.
Jokes about the Florida State Seminoles (even though I went there), the Florida Gators, and the Ohio State Buckeyes will be rewarded with a laugh and a slight increase in speaker points.
Humor in general will be rewarded with increases in speaker points.

Speaker Points Scale
30 - you're the best debater I've ever seen, and your execution was flawless. I don't think I've ever given a 30, but if someone were to get it they would probably also be in late outrounds at the NDT.
29 - 29.9 - You're one of the best debaters at the tournament (in your division.)
28 - 28.9 - You're good, You'll probably clear.
27 - 27.9 - You're an okay debater, you need some work, you didn't drop anything major.
26 - 26.9 - You dropped at least one or more important arguments that lost you the round.
25 - 25.9 - This is reserved for people who were either so atrocious that they answered nothing (an unlikely scenario, no matter the division), or were exceptionally rude to one or more people in the debate.


At the end of the day, do what you do best. If you can run and explain a K really well, then run it. If your pleasure is politics disads, go for it. I've voted against my personal preferences before, and I'll do it again. I'll work hard in deciding the round for you because I know you work hard to prepare. So do your best, keep it civil, and have fun.

Hello,

I am a parent of a LD debaters (my son and daughter), who have been debating for 6 years. I have been judging for 6 years as well. So I can flow some speed and understand the framework debate very well. Please do not use your highest spread with me. I understand the logical arguments if explained well. I like confident debaters. My average speaker points would be 28.5.