Currently serving in the United States Navy in California. Honored to participate as a judge and watch young Americans practice one of the fundamental skills of Democracy. He/Him/His are my preferred pronouns. Unless preference clarified by participants, I will use initials and gender neutral pronouns when referring to specific participants.

Judging is based on participants' ability to clearly state their position, lay out supporting claims in an organized manner, provide insightful questions that diminish strength of opponents' claims, and defend their own position when questioned by opponent. I will do my best to provide comments that help explain reasoning and give feedback for improvement.

Key points:

I will always look negatively at responses that rely on straw person attacks, cherry picking data, unsupported slippery slope, and the greatest offender of all being whataboutism- derailing debate with unrelated issues.

Most importantly, be respectful to each other.

I like a nicely structured debate. Making the framework and definitions clear is important. However, I do not like for this to carry on. Make the structure clear and move on. You should not still be debating what the framework is in your last rebuttals.

I look for quality sources, not quantity

Debates that build off each other are the best. Don't debate at me, debate with your opponent.

I also look for speaking style. Since I am primarily a speech judge, I take speaking skills into account. Mumbling, speaking monotonously, over using hand movements, and stumbling will rank you lower.

Lastly, I just want the argument to make sense. Don't give me a convoluted, overly complex argument. Make it make sense.

Experience: I debated Policy and competed in OI and DI in high school back in the dark ages, coached a team in New York at Rome Free Academy in the late 80s, judged for Cary High School in NC for 3 years, and then founded my own team at Research Triangle High School, where I was the coach since the school opened in 2012 until I left to become a principal in 2019. I'm not currently coaching, but I enjoy the opportunity to stay connected to Speech & Debate by judging. Pronouns: she/her

PF and LD In Rounds: Do not bore me and do not confuse me. I’m comfortable with speed and will raise my hand or put down my pen if you’re going too fast-- If I can’t find your argument because of your speed, I can’t flow it and it won’t exist in the round. I like storytelling and analogies that show you understand and can communicate complex topics, not just read lots & lots of cards. I find a framework and definitions at the top of the case useful, especially if you continue to clearly link to your framework all the way through to FF. Roadmaps and signposts are helpful. Sometimes concessions are a good thing-- please do not continue to argue points you have clearly lost; support what you can win and don't keep beating a dead horse. Don’t take up valuable time in a round with minor or side arguments that are not linked to your impacts-- I will admire speakers who can stop chasing a unicorn and bring the round back to the main contentions. Despite my experience and the fact that I flow rounds, my style is more of a lay judge-- I will know the topic well but will be a tabula rasa for the round, so convince me.

Decision: I am looking to give a W to the team that can concisely compare both sides of the argument and explain why your side outweighs based on clear links to your framework, can deliver clear voters in the Final Focus and can cleanly extend through summary and FF. I want to be able to succinctly defend my RFD to both you and the opposing team, so clear claim-warrant-impact for the pro world or the con world is important to me.

Speaker Points: I have a strong IE background, too, so I value speakers who make excellent eye contact and speak with clarity & expression. However, I will reward good thinking-on-your-feet in the rounds more than just a well-delivered 1C. Your courtesy and professional demeanor will also play into speaker points. Do not talk over your opponent. You can be reasonably aggressive, just be courteous to your opponents' need to question you and don’t wander into rudeness. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points. Do not play dirty, take cheap shots, make faces or talk while your opponents are speaking. Keep your cool and remember this is a conversation, a communication event, and a sport. Professionalism and control will win you more speaks than angry tirades and emotional outrage or complaints about your opponent. Be excellent, or at least be striving for excellence.

Speech Events: I look for a presentation that makes me forget I'm judging and takes me directly into your scene or your argument.

*For interp events (OI, DI, DUO, POI, DEC, etc), I look for a structured cutting from a piece that is worth our time-- that has a message or a storyline that has literary, entertainment and/or social merit, whether classical or contemporary, serious or light hearted. I reward fully developed single characters more than multiple characters attempted without as much polish. Cross gender casting is fine; however I am not a fan of cultural appropriation so be respectful in the selection of your cuttings-- a mixture is fine but be sure to give credit where it's due and choose material that works for you. Accents should make sense for the character and not just be an artificial way to distinguish your characters. I look for a solid performance arc-- what is the climax of your presentation, and how do you build to take us to that emotional moment? Use the physical space and all the elements in your toolbox-- vocal, facial expressions, gestures or movement as allowed by your category. Do not illustrate-- not every word or phrase in your selection requires a gesture-- be natural. In deciding between otherwise equally impressive presentations, I look at the source material and who had the heavier lifting to bring the selection to life-- who really had to excel at original interpretations of the selection.

*For platform events (Extemp, OO, Info, etc) I look for structure: a creative, attention getting hook for your intro, good signposts so I can follow your argument, well placed and tagged evidence to back up your thesis, and a conclusion that ties everything together. I reward fresh insights into topics more than lots and lots of quotes and warrants.

*For Congress, I reward speeches that have a creative hook or analogy that shows your understanding of the topic, especially when it is extended throughout your speaking time. I look for arguments that move the debate along with fresh insights rather than rehashing points that have already made in the round. I give higher points to speakers who can use eye contact and sound fresh rather than reading directly from their notes, and who can refer to arguments already on the floor in ways that either concede good points or help refute what previous competitors have said. I will place speakers higher who ask insightful, cutting questions rather than those who just rise to speak at every turn; think quality vs quality in your participation in a round.

Background

I debated Lincoln Douglas for four years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, where I placed 9th at NSDAs and attended TOC.

Paradigm (LD)

The most important thing to winning my ballot is weighing. I try to evaluate the round as objectively as possible, so in your 2AR/NR you need to explain the layers of the debate and why I should prefer your arguments. If you don't adequately extend or impact an argument, I will have a tough time voting for it. Besides that, I evaluate all arguments on the flow. Below are some considerations:

Substance
I read all types of arguments in high school (philosophy, plans, disads, meta standards, etc), so feel free to read what you feel most comfortable with. That said, I especially enjoy nuanced and non-traditional positions (post-modernism, obscure-yet-topical authors, etc) , and will reward them with higher speaks. I award speaker points primarily based on organization and strategy. Please don't ask me to disclose speaks.

Speed
I am more than comfortable with speed, so long as you are clear (and I will shout "clear" or "slow" if you aren't). Please slow down for tags, plan texts, interps, etc.

Theory / Topicality
I see theory as a response to legitimate abuse, and have a very low tolerance for abusive arguments (multiple a prioris, PICs, abusive definitions, etc). I default to reasonability on clear-cut abuse, but can be persuaded to evaluate competing interpretations, assuming the abuse is not clear. That said, I do not enjoy watching theory debates, and would much prefer you point out the abuse to me as the judge, and get back to substance.

Kritiks
Kritiks, like theory or topicality, are a way of questioning the pre-fiat implications of your opponents' position. As a result, Kritiks must link to a practice your opponent performed, and there must exist a relatively predictable/reasonable way your opponent could have anticipated or predicted that this practice was bad. For example, I will not vote on an argument saying "the aff doesn't address black feminism", because it is unreasonable to expect the aff to read black feminism every round. For that reason, I am most willing to vote on stock, topical kritiks (like neoliberalism, colonialism, biopower, etc).

TL;DR

Talk Fast. Weigh. Don't be Abusive.

Hi all! I am the Head Coach of Speech and Debate at Pinecrest High School in North Carolina. I am a former extemper with pretty deep knowledge of the happenings in the world.

LD & PF

--I am fine with speed, but remember with speed comes the risk I won't get it on the flow. If you see me stop typing/pen is no longer writing/I am staring blankly at you, consider that your cue to slow down.

--Make sure to differentiate your sourcing. Authors' last names are great, but tell me where the source comes from first. John Doe from the Council on Foreign Relations in 2022 sounds better than Doe 22. After that, you can refer to the source as CFR or Doe and I'm good on what you are referring to.

--Please weigh. Please. You have to do this in order for me to be able to determine a winner.

--Respect. Respect your opponents, partner (if in PF), self, and the host school. Competitive debate is a great activity; but you must maintain some sense of decorum throughout your time in the round.

Congress

--When you go to an in-house recess to determine splits, or inquire as to why no one is speaking, you have done yourself and your fellow competitors a disservice by not being prepared. Please avoid this as much as possible.

--I'm fine with rehashing arguments to a point, but you need to add more evidence to support this rehashed point. Something niche and unique that can catch the opposing side off guard.

--Presiding Officers: thank you for volunteering to run the chamber. Please only defer to the parli when you are unsure of certain procedure.

Congressional Debate:

I competed in Congressional debate for four years. I don't think it would be very productive for me to tell you how to do Congressional debate because you probably know how to speak clearly, signpost, and refute. I place a lot of value on clear warrants, impacts, and weighing. I’ve judged PF and LD for years - I flow, and I don’t mind speed. Please do not spread or run theory on me.

I studied Public Policy and Economics at UNC-Chapel Hill. During my studies, I published a chapter exploring the intersection of politics and Islam in France, and an article detailing how the video game Old School RuneScape critically supports the economy of Venezuela.

I have seen every Liam Neeson action movie and have studied this topic very deeply. In 4,000 words, I have laid out the case that all of these movies, from The Commuter and Non-Stop to Unknown and the glorious Taken trilogy, exist in the same cinematic universe in which Liam plays one character. A tragic but brave life it is.

I now work in the tobacco industry.

Do your best. Good luck.

What I'm looking for is a clear, concise argument. Humor is appreciated, but all jokes should be in good taste. I want to see good preparation from competitors as well asadaptability- if you don't have something written, and the splits are bad, switching sides shows dedication. Questioning is an essential part of debate, so you should do that. Zoning out and only speaking when necessary will not do you any favors. Decorum is also an essential part of debate. You should be not just courteous but kind to your competitors. PO's should not just be charismatic but quick as well. The most consistent issue I see across tournaments is PO's taking too long to find the next speaker, whether it be during questioning or actual speeches. Other than that, do your best and pay attention.

I have been the sponsor of the Speech and Debate Team at Apex Friendship High School for the last eight years. This is my eighth year judging. I have taught English for 20 years and Speech for five.

1. Framework is critical. If you don't connect your evidence to your framework, you haven't succeeded.

2. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity.

3. I value strong CX skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case is key to winning the round.

4. Civil discourse is expected.

I have judged Speech rounds from local to Nationals, and I have been included in Debate, Congress, L-D and PF competitions.

The opportunity for me to judge at Nationals several times has been exciting and very rewarding!

I want to be able to understand you, please speak clearly. My expectations for this

event are:

Disrespect is never ok, be fair to each other and treat people as you would like to be treated.

Be kind, to others as well as yourself.

Logical, clear arguments are appreciated!

"Don't raise your voice. Improve your argument." Desmond Tutu

As a former congressional debater, I've been in your shoes. When judging, I take the unpredictability of congressional debate into account but expect the best debaters to remain unphased by the chamber's unanticipated direction. I have listed the key aspects that make or break a debater in my ranks.

1) Refutation. I do not rank debaters (with the exception of sponsorship/authorships) unless they have complete refutations. This means you fully reiterate the previous speaker's argument and offer a clear counterpoint from either a logical or evidentiary basis. Even the first negation speaker is expected to have some level of refutation. By the fourth speaker in the round, refutation should be deeply embedded in a speech. Namedropping does not count as refutation. If you do not fully explain the links in your refutation argument then it was not a complete refutation.

2) Extension. If a previous speaker has acknowledged an argument already and you are choosing to expand upon it, you need to mention that previous speaker. If you do not recognize previous speakers for their arguments, I will assume you weren't paying attention or you are attempting to rehash. Extensions done well are impressive. Ignoring previous speakers to seem original or giving the same point twice is not.

3) Logical argumentation. It goes without saying but make good arguments. Consider the context of your contention and the scope of its impacts. I have no qualm ranking a debater who makes great arguments that I personally don't believe in. I will not rank a debater who has a poorly designed argument, even if I love the idea.

4) Engagement. One expectation of congressional debaters is engagement with the room. When refuting or extending upon previous speakers you should make eye contact and face them. During questioning do not give a miniature version of your speech or ask questions completely unrelated. You need to show me that you are engaged in their argument and how it relates to the scope of the whole round. Being passionate in questioning is great, so long as you are allowing the speaker to answer. I understand this is challenging with an online format, but I will still expect debaters to be engaging to the extent it is possible.

5) Speaking style. I don't have a strong preference for jokes versus serious speakers. I do, however, care that you are expressing yourself (while role-playing a member of congress) in your speech. Have passion and be genuinely invested in your arguments. If you are a funny person, crack a joke, in a respectful manner. If not, totally fine as well. I'm not judging you on your personality but no one likes a boor.

6) Moving the chamber along. If the bill is ready to move to previous question and there are five more speakers who will continue what is already stale rehash, it is not insensitive to call for the motion. Unless you are very intentionally screwing over an individual debater, I will not hold calling motions (whether they pass or not) against you.

7) For POs: Run the room. POs, I expect that you keep order in the chamber. Debaters cannot have group conversations unless they are in a recess; don't let them start negotiating sides in the round between speeches. As long as you are being fair, sticking to procedure, and reminding the chamber if they are not, I will reward your sacrifice to preside. I care quite a bit about following proper procedure so if you don’t actually know how to PO don’t expect me to rank you as a PO.

8) Flipping/recess. If you flip sides to save the round and need a recess, I'm totally for it. Adaptability is crucial for a debater. I've been in that position before and understand the pressure. For recesses in general, figuring out splits and avoiding this situation is ideal, but I know that it isn't always realistic. I'd prefer to take the recess and have a debater flip than prematurely move a bill to previous question when there is still valid debate to be had.

9) Have fun! I did congressional debate for four years (and keep coaching now) because I love it! Tournaments are stressful but they are also great places to make friends from around the country and voice your opinions on real-world issues. It isn't hard to tell which debaters love to be in round, even if they are stressed, and which are terrified. I encourage all of my students to let go of the tension and let the moment of their speech absorb them. You are always performing better than you think and I swear judges are not out to get you. Debaters who let loose and have fun are the ones who break to out rounds and feel good about their performance! I love judging because you are all such talented individuals and being part of your competitive experience brings me so much joy.

10) During rounds, I will write detailed feedback on your ballots. That being said, if you ever want more feedback or have questions at the end of a round, I am happy to talk. Just let me know and we can chat about the round and your performance.

Best of Luck! Sorry for the long paradigm but I know I always wished judges were explicit with what they wanted!

Hello

I have been judging for the last 3 years mostly congress. I am a parent judge

What I like are good facts and figures. How you can reach out and convince novice/common people with your speech matters most to me. Be yourself and give your best with your own style.

Hi there,

My name is Alex Gordon -- I competed in Congressional Debate for 4 years at the Dreyfoos School of the Arts in West Palm Beach, FL. I debated a decent amount nationally, placing 3rd in Senate at NSDA Nationals my senior year, and ranked well at a few other tournaments over the years. I am now a sophomore at Yale University, where I compete in parliamentary debate.

I judge congress rounds holistically, preferring the best overall legislator over the best orator, best debater, etc. That said, here are a few things you may want to consider in reference to how I evaluate speakers:

1. If you are disrespectful, rude, or violate decorum, I will refuse to rank you, no matter how good your speeches are.

2. Feel free to use humor, but always make sure you are taking the competition seriously and with respect.

3. Don't be afraid to take risks. I reward creativity and unique argumentation and styles.

4. I am fine with speed, but some judges are not, so check their paradigms, too. Also, make sure your computer can handle speed through Zoom, too. The last thing I want is to not understand what you are saying as a result of the technology

5. Every speech after the first affirmative should have refutation. There is no excuse not to, because that just shows you are not listening to your fellow representatives.

6. Please have warrants! I should not be left asking "Why" or "How" after you make your argument. Also, please do not rehash.

7. Please do not say, "According to the New York Times" and move on. Provide a name and/or date with sources, if possible.

8. Be passionate. Show me why I should not only care about your side of the debate, but about your particular argument and why it is the most important in the round. Connect to the humanity of debate -- paint a narrative of what will or will not happen as a result of the vote. Make me want to vote for you and your side.

9. Have fun. Show off your personality.

As a final note, I want to say how inspiring it is to see you all still dedicated to the activity and willing to put the time into competing this weekend. I know there is a lot going on in people's lives, and debate can oftentimes be a stress-inducing activity. If at any point you just need a break, or need to leave and get a glass of water, always feel free to take care of yourself first.

Be well, and be kind to one another.

Alex

Please feel free to contact me at alexgordon003@gmail.com with any questions.

I am a head coach and have been coaching for thirteen years. I thoroughly enjoy all of the events that our organization sponsors and deeply appreciate the critical thinking and communication skills they promote. For debate, I can appreciate a range of styles and approaches. While I don't mind a brisk speed when it is necessary to incorporate a variety of legitimate arguments in case or rebuttal, when it is used primarily as a weapon to overwhelm an opponent with accusations of dropped cards (in particular), I admit my patience can grow thin. You also don't have to win every bit of the flow (or pretend to) to win a round for me. You may even honestly concede minor points and cards/warrants. The important thing is to win the main arguments, wherever they happen to occur in the flow. Therefore, your job is to help me weigh what the most essential arguments are towards the end of the round. That is not to say that I don't value line-by-line coverage of the flow in rebuttal, and that dropped points are of no concern. And it is possible that accidentally dropping major points (usually by poor time distribution) could result in a fairly automatic loss. It's just that all things being equal, I value winning the major points of the debate over thoroughness of coverage.

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech, but RELAX: All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

Hello! I'm a junior at Duke who did PF and Congressional Debate in high school.

Presentation-wise, I prefer clear, enunciated talking with solid eye contact throughout.

With regards to argumentation, I'm looking for the standard claim --> warrant --> impact logic.

If your opponent brings up a piece of evidence that contradicts your argument, don't come up in rebuttal and say "their argument does not stand because my evidence states the opposite" and end it there. Juxtaposing two contradictory pieces of evidence doesn't prove anything from my perspective. Tell me why your evidence is better/more reliable/more relevant than theirs. That way you're proving the legitimacy of your argument and actually invalidating your opponent's.

Also, have fun! :D

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

I am a Coach, and I have been judging for close to a decade now. I am a teacher certified in English & Theatre, so my notes can get a bit technical, and come specifically from those perspectives. I tend to make notes and comments as I view, so they follow my flow of thought, and how I understand your developing argument, as your piece/debate progresses.

I have judged almost every event, including judging both speech and debate events at Nationals.

In true teacher and coach fashion, I WANT you to do well. So prove me right!

Paradigm for Congress

How I Rank: While the ballot on Tabroom only has a place to score speeches, it is not unlikely that room is full of great speakers. To fairly rank the room, I have a personal spreadsheet where I score individual speeches, as well as the categories below, to help separate the "great speakers" from the "great congresspersons". Think of it like a rubric for your English class project. Speeches are the biggest category, but not the only one.

Speeches: Do you provide a unique perspective on the bill, and not simply rehashing what has been said in the round already? Do you back up your reasoning with logos, ethos, AND pathos? Is your speech deep, instead of wide (more detail on one specific aspect of the bill, rather than trying to cover all angles of the bill)? Do you write with a clarity of style and purpose, with a good turn of phrase? Do you engage your listeners? Do you respond well to questions?

Questioning: Are your questions thoughtful and based on listening closely to the speaker, and what they actually said? Are your questions brief and to the point? Do you avoid simple yes or no, gotcha style questions? Does your questioning have a clear line of thinking? Do you connect questioning to previous speeches? Do you avoid prefacing?

Decorum: Do you follow the rules of the chamber? Do you follow speaking times? Do you speak calmly and collectedly? Do you ask or answer questions assertively, without being aggressive? Do you respect your fellow speakers?

Roleplay: Do your speeches reflect that you are a congressperson, and not a high school teenager? Do you think of your constituents? Do you consider yourself a representative of your state or District? Do you allow your RP perspective to make your speeches better, and not become a distraction? Do you participate in motions, seconding, etc?

Knowledge of Rules: Do you have an obvious and clear understanding of the rules? Do you follow them closely? Are there any egregious breaking of the rules?

Special Consideration for the Presiding Officer: The Presiding Officer is marked for one "speech" per hour. This score is a reflection of how well they perform the specific duties of PO. It concerns knowledge of the rules (at a higher expectation than the average congress competitor), the efficiency of the room, the fairness of the PO, and the demeanor of the PO (should be calming and welcoming). I also look at them for decorum and RP.

Paradigm for PFD

Construction of Message: Is your argument sound? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logically sound way, that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading? Are you avoiding logical fallacies?

Delivery of Message: Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing?

Evidence of Engagement: Are you actually listening to you fellow competitors? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing? Are you cooperating with your teammate?

Construction of Rebuttal: Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on your team-mate, your coach, your school, and the District?

Paradigm for LD

Construction of Message: Is your argument sound? Is your value interesting? Is your value criterion an adequate measure of your value? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logically sound way, that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading? Are you avoiding logical fallacies?

Delivery of Message: Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing?

Evidence of Engagement: Are you actually listening to you fellow competitor? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing?

Construction of Rebuttal: Are you able to use their Value and/or Value Criterion to support your own argument? Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on yourself, your coach, your school, and the District?

I have judged debate since 2001. From 2014-2021 I coached Public Forum and Speech events. I retired after 8 years as the Co-Director of Speech and Debate at Cary Academy in North Carolina in 2021.

DEBATE: In debate (LD/PF) I look for clear claims, evidence and links to logical, clear impacts showing contextual analysis. I flow each round and look for you to bring your arguments through the round, tell me the clash and how I should weigh.

I judge as if this activity is preparing you for the real world. I won't flow what I have to work too hard to follow or translate (read speed). Asking for evidence for common sense issues won't count either. You can use flow jargon, but tell me why. You want me to flow across the round? cross apply? for instance, tell me why. Don't exaggerate your evidence. Finally - I'm not here to show you how smart or clever I am by pretending to understand some sesquipedalian or sophomoric arguments (see what I did there?)- that means. 1.) do a kritik and you are going to lose because you failed to acknowledge that ideas can conflict and are worthy of discussion; 2.) "the tech over truthers" and other silly judging paradigms don't make you a more articulate conveyor of ideas once you have to "adult". I will know the topic, but judge like a lay judge. Convince me. Have fun and enjoy the activity!

CONGRESS: Well researched unique takes on a resolution are important. Simple stock arguments and analysis is easy. I look for you to look deeper into the consequences/outcome of passage. Don't rehash, not only is it boring but it suggests you needed to listen more closely. Refutation of previous speeches shows careful analysis in the moment and it shows you have more than the case you wrote the night before (even if you did :)). Presentation is also important. I don't like BS for the sake of being a good presenter but a balance of solid research, thoughtful analysis, ambitious and relevant refutation from a persuasive speaker will get high marks!

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

kplunkett@stmdhs.org for cases/cards

Traditional judge, I prefer no spreading or Ks. I won't take off for them, but I encourage you not to! I have judged policy rounds but am by no means a policy judge, if it's possible to debate a little slower that's appreciated, but I understand that you may not have a case cut short enough to make that happen.

• The easiest way to earn speaks is to clarify the voting issues and prove how and why you outweigh. I'll weigh the round based on the criteria you give me, so be sure to give me a metaphorical rubric!
• I'm a tabula rasa, so I'll vote exactly how you tell me. Hit your framework/V/VCs early and often.
• I like to see claim-warrant-impact. I flow what you say, not what I think you mean.
• Spreading will not affect your speaks, but I prefer conversational speed and good delivery. Quality, not quantity, for arguments.
• Cards should be clearly cited and available for review should there be a conflict over source validity or context. Clipping will not be tolerated.
• Signpost - reference the contention # or subpoint in speeches and CX.
• CX is for questions, not rebuttals.

I appreciate debate that is intellectually charged with substance and evidence from multiple viewpoints (social, economic, political, international, etc.). Most issues are multidimensional and I appreciate arguments that integrate more than one viewpoint. I also pay attention to your news sources when I think through where your argument is coming from.

I also appreciate it when debaters respond to points made by those who have come before them (e.g. refuting/clash). At the same time, rehash frustrates me, while crystallization helps me sort through the nuance of an argument at the end of a round.

Thank you, remember to have fun and I'm excited to help provide constructive feedback on your performances!

This is my APDA paradigm, just refer to that: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cYPIbMCi1CUjUJU-mEA1FLjQvEsRNDzOaw2Tqw32ijE/edit

Background:

I've completed in the congressional debate circuit for three years in North Carolina, I have also judged Congressional Debate for nearly three years. I'm truly passionate about Congressional Debate and love when the debate comes to life. I enjoy Foreign Policy debate the most based on my personal interests.

Congressional Debate:

Congressional Debate revolves around one singular question, "who is the most convincing and strong legislator in the room?" There is many different ways to achieve this, via strong speeches, debate, or overall control of the room. A truly strong Congressional Debater will understand all of the major characteristic required to control the room, and thus will rank the highest on my ballot.

Speeches in Congressional Debate aren't supposed to be rehearsed multiple times, after the first affirmative and negative speeches there are elements of rebuttal that should be implemented into speech. These speeches should contain sources that connect to your main arguments and have a full flow into your final argument. If you're making points - they should have a reason and an end point.

Controlling the room and POing is one of the most daunting thing for new debaters, but I also highly value these people because the debate would simply not exist without a PO.

I love listening to congressional debate, and if you ever find yourself lost don't hesitate to reach out!

TOC twice in Congress.

I’m currently a first-year student at Duke and I competed mainly in Congressional Debate during high school and have had experience in Public Forum.

In Congress - I will be looking at strong link chains in your argument. Everything has to make sense if you want to be scored well. Argumentation will be valued over presentation (probably around 75% argumentation 25% presentation). Make sure you are respectful to your fellow competitors. I want to see a lot of clash and no rehashed arguments. If you can pull off a strong refutation/crystalization speech that will be scored better than bringing up two new points towards the end of the debate. Make sure you ask lots of good questions and are attentive throughout the debate. POs should be fair, respectful, and efficient. If I consider your behavior or your arguments as anything remotely sexist, racist, homophobic, or along the same lines of offensive will be immediately dropped.

In PF - Please no spreading or talking obnoxiously loud just to talk over your competitors. Make sure your link chains are strong and everything is as clear as possible. I'll want to see you cite from strong sources and are well prepared. If you want me to vote on your side I'll have to see a humanized impact (human reason). Presentation doesn't really matter to me I'll look at your argumentation and how you respond to your opponents mainly. If I consider your behavior or your arguments as anything remotely sexist, racist, homophobic, or along the same lines of offensive will be immediately dropped.

Ms. Weaver is a history teacher, specializing in Civics & Government, and early American History. She has a BS in Social Studies Education from East Carolina University and an MEd in Curriculum and Instruction with a focus in Social Studies from Concordia University.

I am so happy to judge you! In speech - let me know if you want time signals! In debate - please don't spread, if I can't understand what you're saying then I can't get your points. In congress - please please please do not keep extending questioning, it's pointless - also, be sure that you are always trying to keep the chamber moving, avoid rehash, and AT ALL COSTS avoid a one-sided debate.

Lay parent judge. Please speak very slowly and clearly and persuasively explain why you won in your last speech. Refrain from using debate and resolution terminology without explaining. No progressive arguments. I do not disclose my decision.