don't go fishing for my paradigm preform as you would and I'll judge as I will

don't go fishing for my paradigm preform as you would and I'll judge as I will

Experience: Three years high school debate (Raymore-Peculiar, Peculiar, Mo.); two years NDT/CEDA (Missouri State University)

Topicality:

I will vote on T if the negative is able to show a clear violation and win the argument. I don't like when teams run a T violation as a time suck but I won't punish a team for doing so, nor will I vote on reverse T. Affs should show they are an example of the resolution.

Ks:

I lean policy more often than not but feel free to run kritiks if that is your style. I am partial to more traditional policy methods of responding to Ks such as turns and if the negative isn't able to respond to a K turn, or ignores it completely, then I'm more likely to lean to the side of the aff.

Speed:

Feel free to go as fast as you want but understand that clarity is more important. Some of the best debaters I've ever seen were slow but they made the most of their time by simply presenting good arguments. Giving me one outstanding argument over a hundred weak arguments is preferred. You won't win any favors with me if you read 20 cards that all say the same thing instead of focusing on the central issue.

Overall, just don't be a jerk. You can make jokes and whatnot but you don't have to be rude. Debate is supposed to be an activity for intellectuals and being a jerk just ruins it. Use your CX time wisely and don't try to hurt feelings.

He/Him

Experience: Former Missouri State NFA-LD debater for 4 years. 3rd in NFA-LD at NFA Nationals in 2019. 2ish years of judging college debate. Now work in think tank world.

TLDR: Do what makes you comfortable. Make sure you are keeping the debate accessible and educational for everyone involved. Be nice. I’m more knowledgeable and comfortable with policy debate than K debate but I want you to do what you feel good about. Go fast if you want. Condo is good and your theory argument probably isn’t going to be on my mind at the end of the round. Quality and depth of arguments > multiple shallow arguments. CP + DA =personal favorite type of debate.

A quick note about online debate

I would implore you to remember that we as a community are weathering this storm together and doing things that help make this process easier for everyone (including maybe going a little slower than normal because of low quality computer speakers). Keep your camera on while you debate please.

General thoughts:

At the end of the day, debate should be a game built around clever technical argumentation that enhances your education on the topic and relevant critical literature, while remaining open for as many people as possible. Tech>truth I think is key to preserving said game. I think speed is generally good but you should ask yourself if you are doing it because it is necessary to win or if you are being exclusionary. I do not think my ballot determines anything other than wins in losses in a casual game. Things that I feel are intentionally done to exclude people from the game will be held against you and could be a voter if bad enough (i.e. you made a racist/sexist/ableist/transphobic argument). You should disclose to your opponent before round and on the wiki.

Notes on different arguments:

Disads:

Disads are good. I don’t know what else to say really. I hope you spend time weighing the impact from the DA and contextualizing how it interacts with the aff rather than just saying “it outweighs”. I don’t think that should have to be said really but too many debates in NFA don’t contain that broader story and contextualization. I like a good politics DA a whole lot.

CP:

CP’s are very good for debate and your personal education. I think judge kicking a CP is pretty intuitive and I haven’t seen a great argument against it. PIC’s are generally good for debate and holding the aff to a reasonable intellectual standard. I tend to think that theory arguments are a reason to reject the arg not the team, BUT I can obviously be persuaded otherwise.

K’s:

I’m all for K’s...more so on the negative than the affirmative, but I’m open to both. I do have a few thoughts on what I need out of a K debate though. The first thing I want to specify here is that I really would prefer your alt to be more than a mad lib full of philosophy 350 jargon. I want to be able to walk away from the round with a fairly clear understanding of the action of the alt and a pair of contrasting worlds for me to evaluate. It’s fairly easy just to say “thing bad”, so I would hope for a little more substance than that. Second, I am familiar with the basics of a lot of K arguments (some more than others, I probably have a bit more background knowledge on islamaphobia or feminist theory than I do queer theory for example) but I was not a K debater and I have less and less time to read critical literature now that I am out of school. So while I am not entirely out of touch with the literature, I may need some high level contextualization at the beginning. Third, if you want to run K's on the aff I think that is fine but you still should find someway to contextualize your critique within the topic. I think this at least partially nullifies concerns over accessibility and education. I think people within NFA-LD have mostly gotten better at this over the last couple years but you occasionally still see a K aff that is so generic it feels like it was recycled from 3 topics ago.

T:

My general stance is that if you know deep down in your heart that your opponent's Aff is topical and you still want to go for T… you’ve chosen probably the least intellectually interesting way for this round to go. That aside I think T debates can be ok when done right and I'll vote on both proven and potential abuse. But would highly prefer proven abuse.

Theory:

I think theory arguments can serve as important guardrails against genuinely game breaking behavior but I also believe they are very abused by some debaters. I really dislike cheap, obscure two line theory arguments used as gotcha techniques. I think they are often used as crutch and end up harming the educational value of a round. That being said, I have voted for different theory arguments many many times over the years. I just need you to spend time on them and actually flesh them out into real arguments.

Speaker points:

Something I think uniquely plagues the NFA community is the lack of standardized and agreed upon speaker points. Some judges will hand out a 29.5 to anyone who strings a sentence together and others will give you a 28 for a round they said "blew them away". While I don't think I am necessarily going to solve that myself, I wanted to be transparent and clear about how I think this should work. So here are my breakdowns for speaker points in NFA-LD

25 or below: You said something offensive or mean to the other debater. Booo

25.1-25.9: You filled up less than half of your speech time or seemed to struggle to grasp the fundamentals of debate. I'll hand these out pretty sparingly.

26-27: You made some pretty significant mistakes in this round, conceded a major impact, and could use a fair amount of practice. You probably couldn't quite figure out how to utilize the arguments you were making or made a bunch of blippy arguments with no contextualization and they were never expanded upon later.

27-28: You did pretty ok. If I was tournament god I would not give you a speaker award, there were some clear areas of improvement that could be worked on, but it was a pretty solid performance otherwise.

28-You did pretty good. You had a solid path to victory at one point or another in the round and deserve a low speaker award.

28.5-29: I left the round with a very clear understanding of exactly what you were going for and why you deserved to win. You know what you had to do to win, and even if you ultimately lost, you were never truly out of the game. You contextualized exactly how your impact or framing interacts with your opponent's and pulled a few clever tricks.

29-29.5: Fantastic job. You deserve a high speaker awards and I would very much expect you to be in deeper elims. Not only were your final arguments well developed and weighed, but you were able to give me a legitimately deeper understanding of the competing worlds with specific warrants from each card and demonstrated you genuinely knew your stuff. You pulled out something neither me nor your opponent expected and had excellent round vision.

29.5-30: This speech should be shown to future novice debaters as an example of what to do.

Updated: November 2023

Former 4 year debater at Olathe South High School (Graduated 2020; US-Sino Relations, Education, Immigration, Arms Sales)'

Current Asst. Coach @ Olathe South

4 years of policy and 3 years of LD

tylerboutte4@gmail.com

TLDR: You do you, I'm just here to evaluate your perspective of the topic. I have my own preferences but ultimately if you provide a warranted model of debate I'll vote for you. Feel free to add me to the email chain and ask any questions for clarification.

Judge Philosophy: Policymaker. Debate rounds are won with offense vs. defense. Do with that what you will.

*Online Debate*: I participated in the online format at Nationals and didnt have any issues other than the other team having bad internet. If you're gonna go fast make sure, your doc says everything you say just in case someone's internet decides to cut out.

Tech>Truth

Speed: Go as fast as you want just slow down for tags, authors, and theory. Speed rounds are fun. If you can do it well, please do.

Topicality: Over time I've come to care about this type of debate less and less. I find the threshold for me to vote neg on T to be pretty high, but if that's what you're gonna go for do it. Please do not just read a T block and precede to reread that block throughtout every speech for the entire round. Keys to this debate are explaining to me why the aff's model of debate as a whole is bad, not just this round specifically. Aff arguments about reasonabililty are pretty persuasive for me especially when the rebutalls come down to what is "fair." Recently teams have been opting to debate t on the surface level. That's 1) really boring and painful for everyone involved and 2) not helping win rounds. Good work on the standards and voters level of this flow looks like debating about the impacts of the aff's relationship to the resolution.

DA: Obviously the more specific your link, the more likely I am to weigh the DA but generic links work too if you make them. I feel that lately debaters have been treating these types of debates as separate piece from the case flow. Both teams should articulate how/why the DA interacts with the case. This includes impact calc which is severely under utilized. I'm most likely to vote on this flow if its connected to the aff case instead of being a floating argument for me to evaluate. Aff teams should also be looking to turn disads into advantages for the case instead of only playing defense.

(2023: I'm not a huge fan of most DA's on this topic. Generic links and impact scenarios are not very persuasive unless you do the work to make it make sense. The more specific/realistic the better.)

FW/K: I have the most experience with critiques of security, set-col, militarism, and afropess but I'm willing to listen to anything and have probably read/looked into other popular critiques. These debates I find to be the most fun as a debater/judge but that also means they're the most frustrating. To me it seems that too many debaters are scared of actually debating the critiques they're running and instead default to framework debates. While I have no problem with these debates either, they tend to get incredibly sloppy and thus difficult to evaluate. In terms of how I evaluate the K itself, in levels of importance I think Link>impact>alt. Quite honestly, I dont care about the alt as much as I do how the critique itself impacts the aff. If you want to go for the alt, GREAT, but I'd prefer if you spend most if not all of the 2NR/2AR on powerful rhetoric about how me voting for you is going to reshape the world. Good k teams are giving great analytical arguments about the k's relationship to the aff instead of reading tons of cards of obscure theory.

Counterplans/Case: This may be the most underutilized aspect of debate now. Cases should be built with offense and defense embedded as part of the aff strategy. The neg should actually interact with the aff case and produce turns or deficits to the aff impacts. All CPs are fine, Ill let the debaters sort out what is and isnt fair. I do find that my threshold for condo is extremely high, I believe that debate is ultimately a game and the neg has every right to take advantage in this game and run as many off-case positions as they want. That doesnt mean I wont vote on condo though, the aff just needs to have an argument explaining why this model of the game is bad for debate as a whole.

I am fairly new to the judging game, so reminders if I forget something would be much appreciated!

The only thing I have a hard line on is spreading. Please do not attempt to do that if I am your judge.

CX:

I love CX, but I am not a fan of the tactics (such as spreading) that debaters seem to think are advantageous. That said, I can handle kids speaking quickly, and I can handle reasonable amounts of tech and policy jargon.

I would encourage students, especially in the Negative, to adopt a less-is-more philosophy. Consider me a “flow judge” with heavy “lay judge” standards, meaning that I can keep up with the flow, and I will pay attention to dropped arguments, but at the end of the round, I will still ask myself whether I was truly persuaded that the proposed policy is a good idea. I would prefer fewer cards with more thorough, genuine argumentation. Quality over quantity is key.

For NEG debaters, I prefer on-case attacks, and am usually not compelled by strange dis-ads. I am also highly skeptical of link-chains/impact calculus that leads to nuclear war, though I won’t dismiss them categorically. I tend to be persuaded by Inherency and Solvency attacks more than T’s, and with dis-ads, quality over quantity. I will also tend to give NEG the win if they win on ANY stock issue, though sub-points within those attacks might go to the Aff. I am always down to hear counterplans, but I’m highly skeptical of K’s.

For Aff debaters, I prefer more thorough argumentation regarding Harms, Inherency, and Solvency, especially as the round goes on. Make sure to cover the flow and don’t drop any Neg attacks. Having said that, I’m open to logical refutations of Neg attacks as long as the logic is air tight. In other words, you don’t need a card for every word that comes out of your mouth.

Experience things:

Graduated from College Debate. 4 years NDT, 4 years NFA-LD, 4 years HS, coach HS CX too

He/Him

yes email chain, sirsam640@gmail.com

Please read an overview. Please. It will only help you and your speaks.

Speed is fine - please be clear

Tech over Truth always - the debaters make the argument, not what my preconceived notions of what is truthful/real arguments are.

1. I was frequently in policy v K rounds on both sides. At the 2022 NDT 8/8 rounds were K rounds for me, and 2023 2/8 were K rounds. I read a K aff with my partner one year, then an extinction aff the next year. I went for FW/cap the other half of the time. I am a clash judge and vote for K affs as much as I vote for FW versus them.

2. k affs justify why your model of debate is good impact turns to T are fine

3. 2nrs need a TVA (unless the aff just shouldn't exist under your model which is rare but can happen)

4. condo is good but fine voting that its bad

5. judge kick is probably bad, but if neg says its good and aff doesn't reply I'll judge kick

6. I went for impact turn 2NRs/1ARs a significant portion of my rounds

7. win that your reps are good affs

8. I think perms are a little bit underrated - they probably overcome the link and shield any residual risk.

9. Judging more and more I realize how awesome impact calc is in 2NR/2AR - I definitely think about debate in offense/defense paradigm and often vote for whoever's impact is bigger and accesses the other teams

Theory

CPs need a net benefit in order to win. The role of the neg is to disprove the aff, not just provide another alternative that also fixes the aff. "Solving better" isn't a net benefit. I have voted aff on CP solves 100% of the aff but 0% of net benefit.

PICs are good vs K affs. Pretty strong neg lean on this. It rewards good research.

Don't read death good in front of me.

T

I have come around a lot on T. I think that affs get away with too much in terms of being resolution-adjacent.

Competing interps > reasonability (as law school goes on, I am reverting back to reasonability. This is probably 55/45%ish)

Ground is probably the biggest impact in T debates IMO, I think specific links to affs is the largest internal link to good debates.

I think that community norms is very unpersuasive to me. I do not really care what the rest of the community thinks about T, I'm judging the round, not the community lol

PTIAV is silly but gotta have a decent answer to it.

Affs need to just have a large defense of "no ground loss" and "aff flex/innovation outweighs"

Likely the best way to win T in front of me regardless of side is to just impact out whatever you think is your strongest standard, and make it outweigh your opponents. I spend less time thinking about the specific definition of words and more time about what the models of debate look like (though if debaters tell me to evaluate interps in a specific way I will definitely spend time on it).

PF specific

You do you and I will evaluate to the best of my ability! Any questions feel free to ask pre-round!

You don't need to ask for x amount of prep, just take "running prep" unless you specifically want me to stop you when that time ends.

Last speech should start out with "you should vote aff in order to prevent structural violence which comes first in the round" or something like that. Write my ballot for me.

I find it very hard to vote on something that I don't understand, so while impacts matter a lot I need to understand the story of how we reach the impact

Key Takeaways

Signposting and organization is critical. Be polite to each other. Extend your arguments, and delve deeper into the analysis by explaining the interactions between arguments.

CX

Theory and Topicality

I default to reasonability on topicality, and while I enjoy a good theory debate, you must clearly explain the harms done and significance of your opponent's argument.

Kritiks

I'm open to any kritik, but don't assume that I'll understand every argument out there. Clearly explain the philosophy backing your kritik, and create a compelling story about how the aff links to it. Also, if you run a kritik, make sure your alternative is clear and actionable outside of the debate round. While in-round education is important, I prefer to see alternatives that can be creatively scaled up.

Counterplans and Disadvantages

Love these! I especially enjoy counterplans paired with a disadvantage that believably acts as a net benefit.

Side note

Don't use theory or kritiks for the express purpose of confusing your opponent. I have much more respect for debaters who clearly explain obscure terms to make sure that all in the round have a full understanding, compared to those who attempt to make the debate inaccessible.

LD

I judge both on value criterions and contention level arguments. If you are going to read a passage explaining your value/value criterion, make sure it contributes to your argument meaningfully and you actually have an understanding of what you are saying.

If you and your opponent have the same value and value criterion, you should dedicate a portion of your speech to expressly explaining why your contentions allow you to better achieve that value criterion and value compared to your opponents.

Speed

All speeds are fine. If you're spreading, just slow down on the taglines and any particularly important points within the card.

Speaker Points

25 - terrible round with massive flaws in speech.

26 - bad round. Glaring clarity, time management, or fluency issues.

27 - average. No large mistakes but persistent errors nonetheless.

28 - above average. Few mistakes. The quality of speech made the argument more compelling.

29 - well above average.

30 - fantastic.

Cross Examination

All arguments brought up during CX must be extended and developed in actual speech time.

Debate is foremost education in speaking well, an exercise in communication. I despise spreading. If you spread, I will not flow. Slight speed is only justified in the 1AR and final PF speeches.

In PF, I do not like Blippies (although he's wonderful with children). I want arguments responded to in full. Summary and FF are there to pick and choose which arguments you will focus on - make the case for why the arguments you chose are more important with Voters, and ignore the rest. XFire should be about Q&A, not about arguments- XF is not binding unless brought up in a subsequent speech. A dropped argument is only important if the other side made a convincing case that this was a key argument. As with PD I want roadmaps and signposting, always.

In Policy, SHIST Stock Issues, weigh Advantage/DAs after that. But of course if another paradigm is raised and not responded to then I will vote on that. Prefer closed Cross-X and DAs in the 2N- old school. Will accept Kritiks and CPs, but not preferred. Will vote on T. XX should be about Q&A, not about arguments- XX is not binding unless brought up in a subsequent speech. Want ev-> fully sourced, good clash, signposting, road maps, and Voters.

In LD, I expect a Values Debate Round to be actually about values and philosophy. I am interested in the Value and the Criterion being argued. A value should be more than "morality", which is just another word for "values".

XD: I've judged XD at Nats before. Give me roadmap, signposting, Framework in Constructives, Roadmap in Rebuttals. Sources should have author/date.

As a student I participated in every IE and Debate form at AHS (save LD). My favourite events are IX, POI, INF, and PD. Created the Moroccan debate league and trained the coaches and judges from multiple schools there, beginning in '12; took teams to Nats multiple times and coached six schools in Morocco, Mongolia, and China.

I am a parent judge judging my 3rd NSDA Nationals. I try and read all of the guidelines for an event and judge accordingly. I am college educated and work in education, but I do find that sometimes speakers at this level speak in a matter that is difficult for the average person to understand. I truly appreciate speaking intelligently using layman's terminology and not making it difficult for those who are not as intelligent as the students competing. Using debate terminology can make in more difficult to understand as I did not compete in speech or debate. I have judged many different debate and speech events including OO, Prose, IX, DX, and Congress at NSDA Nationals. I apologize if i do not smile a lot during rounds. I find I look very serious when listening intently. I hope everyone enjoys the experience and feels like they did their best.

4 years HS debate

Missouri State '24

Assistant Coach- Springfield Catholic

Pronouns- She/They

Email Chain-

danicolvin2@gmail.com

I will be flowing, even if it doesn't seem like it.

Aff

I prefer for the affirmative to have a dependable topical plan of action. Be ready to tell me why the affirmative matters and have the proper evidence to back that up. Please don't wait till the 2AC to explain the plans actions.

Topicality

Not a fan of unnecessary topicality debates. Although if the affirmative is not topical you should prove it. That being said, please bring it up in a constructive and follow through with it. If you throw it in during a rebuttal I won't vote for it

Neg

I'm really okay with any strategy. Just give me evidence, I won't vote on arguments without solid evidence to back it up.

Pet Peeves

Be kind. There is a difference between debating and arguing, so please be respectful and make this educational. Being rude will not win you the round and I will take off speaker points.

Please give roadmaps, so I can flow your speech correctly.

Don't try and talk over each other during cross.

I don't care about speed- I don't love spreading, but if both teams are comfortable with it I'm good. Just make sure that you're at a pace that everyone can understand.

Don't go over time, there is no 15 second grace.

Bottom Line

I will leave comments on your ballots, I want to help you get better at debate. Don't read to much into what I say.

At the end of the day, debate is meant to be fun and educational. The more you put into it the more you'll get out of it.

Don't go too fast. Be clear and concise.

Be respectful to your opponents. It goes a long way! I do not tolerate homophobic, racist, or sexist comments.

Email Chain: traviscornett16@gmail.com

Remember to have fun!

Please put me on the email chain if you're using one - josephfreedotcummings@gmail.com

These are just my basic thoughts on debate. If you want the short and sweet, I would call myself a tabula rasa judge. I do my best to go into a round with no preconceived notions about how you all should do the debate, I would like you to explain why I should vote on arguments, but I don't have a lot of preferences on arguments you make.

I am a former policy debater and current policy coach.

Affirmatives

I prefer for affirmatives to have a topical plan of action. I have little to no experience with non-plan based affirmatives. If you can argue and explain it well, I have no problem voting for it, but I do not want my lack of understanding of the argument to harm your chances in the round.

The plan and its actions should be in the 1AC.

Topicality

I enjoy topicality debate, but not when it's used exclusively to waste time. I would love to vote on topicality if you can prove that the affirmative isn't topical. Even if I personally believe the affirmative is topical, I will vote negative if I believe they are winning the topicality argument.

My biggest frustration with T is when people do it half-heartedly. Don't use it to waste time, don't halfway do it in hopes I'll give you the benefit of debate in the end just because maybe there's a tiny shred of doubt that the affirmative is topical.

Being Negative

I will listen to any negative strategy. My circuit is not kritik or theory heavy. If you plan on taking this route, make sure you explain the literature and argument well, don't assume I know as much as you do about your kritik. I guarantee you I know less about your kritik than you do, explain it to me and still do the line by line debate and I'll have no problem voting for you.

I believe it's important that any negative position be explained well and thought out. There is nothing that I will never vote for, as long as the negative team can make it clear why it applies and why they should win the argument. The round is yours to do with as you please, but I shouldn't be in a position where I have no idea what is being talked about because I am not extremely knowledgable about kritiks and the negative did not explain their position well enough. That's not fair for you or me and it would be a bummer.

Pet Peeves
Please don't be rude or hateful to each other. Being unkind just because you think you're winning easily is a quick way for me to not want to vote for you anymore. I love policy and I've known too many people who have quit doing it because of how rude other debaters were to them during round.

If you are paperless, you need to be providing evidence (whether through email, flash drive, etc) in a timely and efficient manner. If you are taking forever to do such, you probably need to take more prep time. You should be providing organized speech docs.

In a virtual world everyone needs to be efficient at sharing the evidence, remember that comes out of YOUR prep time. I suggest dropping speeches before you begin your speech if not you will have to use your prep if the other team asks for it. There is a difference between prep time and tech time, don't try to steal prep during tech time.

Bottom Line

Have impacts. Weigh those impacts. I love impact calc.

Debate is good. Debate is educational. Debate is fun. Make sure everyone is able to achieve these things in the round.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q- Can I spread?

A- Sure, I won't hold it against you, but you had better be clear. If you're spreading and I can't understand a single word that won't be great for you.

Q- Open Cross?

A- Not my favorite. I'm not opposed to it, but in my experience open cross is almost always dominated by one partner. If you do open cross, make sure it's evenly distributed.

Note about LD theory/T: Read theory or T if it's making a reasonable point about a squirrely aff or a patently unfair practice. In that sense I default to reasonability, not in terms of intervention but rather my gut feeling that you have to meet a high bar for proving your opponent rigged the game. It's absurd to me that people rush to theory instead of doing topic research. I don't think any frameworks are unfair, I don't think the lack of an ‘explicit weighing mechanism’ is unfair, and I don't care if the aff's theory spikes didn't ‘take a stance on drop the debater or drop the argument’.

I will try to evaluate the flow as technically as I can. I care more about the debating that took place than what I think about the ultimate truth of your arguments or relative quality of your cards. I do think you should try to match your opponents cards with better cards, but you first have to convince me that your opponents have dropped crucial warrants and explain why those matter. For example, maybe none of the aff's advantages about space-based solar power come to grips with this one implementation problem; you have cards that speak to that issue, they do not. I'd rather you explain to me these comparative points than present dueling taglines and leave it up for me to wade through.

I am absolutely okay with non-traditional debate styles, but I believe that you should adopt a concrete political project, or explain why you shouldn't have one. This doesn't have to be state-based but I think you need to describe how your advocacy would, if adopted more widely, change things that happen outside of debate. Whether or not fiat is real, I still think you either need to make a normative claim about how other people--not just debaters--should act, or you have to be radically anti-normative (no demands, no future, no change is possible). I personally think it's vapid to just have debates about debate, and given the real-world impacts that people face I think that you either need to expand your vision to the world or explain why the world is irredeemable. In other words, I think that good Left thinking is optimistic unless you systematically justify your pessimism.

My philosophy is to cover, work and win the flow. Argumentation wins, whether debating topicality or DA you want to win the argument and be more advantageous is the general argumentative space than your opponent. This is an educational event, and ultimately the purpose of the very real discourse had between teams, should be to challenge both teams intellectually and embolden the value of debate.

Rather than judging purely off of the number of arguments an affirmative or negative team can proffer, I will base my judging decisions on the merits of those arguments. Therefore, I value the quality of evidence over the quantity.

I want you to effectively communicate what you are attacking and link your attacks. Give me clear voters in the end. Speed- I can handle a 10 of 10 but prefer a rate of 6-8 of 10. Clarity is most important.

Give the performance you think is the best.  That’s all I ask for! 

Persuasion is key. Speaking fast with lots of arguments and debate jargon is not persuasive and will probably cost you the round. Sound reasoning and logic should be a significant part of the round. Evidence should be used as support but not the only the thing to vote on. Referring to the “Smith 16 card" will not tell me anything. Refer to the argument or contention and the evidence used there.

PF: I still think Public Forum should hold to the intended purpose when it was first introduced. Persuasion is key. Speaking fast with lots of arguments and debate jargon is not persuasive and will probably cost you the round. Sound reasoning and logic should be a significant part of the round. Evidence should be used as support but not the only the thing to vote on. Referring to the “Smith 16 card" will not tell me anything. Refer to the argument or contention and the evidence used there.

Topicality/FW vs. Non-T Affs

- Affs probably should be topical, I’m just as willing to vote for impact turns against framework.
- I view most of these debates like a checklist. Affs probably need some answer to the following (and negs should be making these args): limits turns the aff, switch side solves, topical version of the aff. I have trouble voting aff if these are not answered. Similarly, I have trouble voting neg if these arguments are not made.
- The best affs generate their impact turns to framework from the aff itself. A bunch of random external criticisms of framework like just reading Antonio 95 or Delgado and calling it a day is not persuasive to me
- The debater that best defends their model of debate is the one that tends to win. Aff debaters who win their model of engagement/debate/education is better than the neg's will win more often than random impact turns to framework
- Should you read a non-topical aff in front of me? You can check my judging record, I think I have voted for and against these non-t affs about equal amounts.
- If you're going for FW: answer k tricks, don't drop thesis level criticisms of T, reading extensions for more than 3 min of the 2nr is an easy way to lose in front of me
- If you're answering FW: you need answers to the args I listed above, I think defense on the neg's args are just as important as development your offense against T, less is more when it comes to developing offense against T

Topicality/Theory/Tricks

- Defaults: Competing interpretations, drop the arguments, RVIs justifiable, not voting on risk of offense to theory
- Weighing standards is the most important to me
- I will miss something if you blaze through your theory dumps
- I’m probably a better judge for tricks than you might think. I’m just as willing to say “these theory arguments are silly” as I am to say “you conceded that skep takes out fairness.” If you go for tricks, go for tricks hard.
- I will vote on 1 condo bad in LD

Phil

- I think frameworks are usually artificially impact exclusive where they preclude all other arguments for virtually no reason. I'm inclined to believe in epistemic modesty but you can win confidence in front of me.
- I default comparative worlds, but it's not hard to convince me to become a truth-tester. What truth-testing means, you will have to explain it to me.

Ks

- I’m slightly more convinced by the state being good than bad, but don’t mind on voting on state bad
- I’m a little better read on identity type arguments as opposed to high theory arguments
- I’m not afraid to say I didn’t understand your K if you can’t explain it to me
- I don’t know why negs don’t have a prewritten perm block given that I vote on the perm a lot
- Specific link analysis is better than generics
- There has to be a lot of weighing done in the 2nr
- Case defense is underrated in these debates
- Case K overviews that aren't entirely pre-scripted are undervalued
- Performance is fine
- There should be more debate about the alternative
- The aff gets to weigh their aff, what that means is up for debate

I am okay with judging anything in round. I firmly believe that debates should be left up to the debaters and what they want to run. If you want to read policy or a new kritik; I am good with anything y'all as debaters want to run. Do not read anything that is homophobic, racist, ableist, or sexiest in round. Debate should be a safe place for everyone. A little bit about me I was a 1A/2N my senior year. I recently graduated from Sac State with a major in Communications and Women's Studies. I am currently applying to Law school and will be attending a law school in fall of 2024. I am currently a policy coach for the Sacramento Urban Debate League, coaching at CKM and West Campus.

Kritikal Affs: I love identity politics affirmatives. They are one of my favorite things to judge and hear at tournaments. I ran an intersectional k aff my senior year. If you run an identity politics affirmative then I am a great judge for you. For high theory k affs I am willing to listen to them I am just not as well adapted in that literature as identity politics. But on the negative, I did run biopower.

Policy Affirmative: Well duh.... I am good at judging a hard-core policy round or a soft-left affirmative. Once again whatever the debaters want to do I am good with judging anything.

Framework: I feel like the question for framework that debaters are asking here is if I am more of a tech or truth kind of judge. I would say its important for debaters to give me judge instruction on how they want to me to judge the round. If you want me to prefer tech or truth you need to tell me that, and also tell me WHY I should prefer tech or truth. The rest of the debate SSD, TVAs etc need to be flushed out and not 100% blipy. But that's pretty much how I feel like with every argument on every flow.

CP/DA: If you want to read 9 off you can.

Theory: I will be honest; I am not the best at evaluating theory arguments. I know what they are, and you can run them in front of me. But if you go for them, judge instruction is a must, and explaining to me how voting for this theory shell works for the debate space etc.

I like being told what to vote for and why. I am lazy to my core. If I have to look at a speech doc at the end of the round I will default to what happened in the round, not on the doc.

On a side note, go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Also, I want to be in the email chain. My email is smsj8756@gmail.com thanks!

Background

I am a speech and debate coach at Kickapoo High School. I have been doing speech and debate in some capacity for 11 years. I am versed in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum mostly, but can keep up in a policy round.

Lincoln-Douglas

You must win the value-value criterion debate in order to win the round. I am a stickler for time management, so make sure you divide your time wisely in each speech to attack each argument with an emphasis on weighing values and value-criterion. I would like Key Voter Issues from both Aff and Neg in their last speeches. I will vote against spreading in an LD round due to auditory processing issues.

Public Forum

I prefer the 1st rebuttal to be fully spent attacking your opponents' case instead of using it to circle back around and re-build. It makes it less confusing. I like clear, offensive voting issues in the final focus.

Policy

I can follow a quick policy round, but warn me beforehand. I prefer analytics over cards and/or explaining why one card is better than another with logic or analytics. No "Refer to author B to cross apply to author C and D." I won't follow that because I don't have a photographic memory for evidence. If you're spreading, make sure to say your taglines very clearly or slow down so I can catch them. Provide a clear roadmap before and during each speech. If you do not tell me where to flow something, I will absolutely NOT flow it or vote on it. I prefer a full document for each speech with each argument typed out. I know that's annoying, but it ensures that I can follow your arguments even if they're fast or confusing because I have trouble with auditory processing. I like out of the box arguments if you have constructed them fully. I'd rather listen to something crazy and mentally engaging than the same old thing. I understand 90% of policy terms, but it is more convincing to me if you can explain them in your own words and explain how they play into the debate. It helps your ethos if I know you know what you're talking about.

Hello! My name is Evan Kirksey and I have been actively involved in forensics for 9 years now, with high school, collegiate, and now coaching experience. I am also a recent Speech Communication and Theatre Education graduate, and am now a coach at The University of Central Missouri, so I am well versed in debate jargon. I can keep up with most arguments easily. However, I appreciate rounds that aren't entirely focused on jargon and tech. I like well developed arguments, clash, and rationale. If you just speed and spread through the round without actually explaining your arguments, you likely won't win my ballot. Be clear and concise about where you are on the flow, your responses, etc. Persuasion needs to play a role in your performance as a debater, or I will not be compelled to vote for you.

POLICY:

Experience/Background

Former high school policy debater at Central High School in Springfield, Missouri (graduated in May 2019). Attended camp at MSDI (Missouri State Debate Institute) in 2016.

Topics I've debated: domestic surveillance, China, education, immigration.

Achievements: Second in State (2019), top 40 in Nation at NSDA Nationals (2019)

Preferences

Overview: Think of me as a flay (flow-lay) judge. I'll vote on DAs, CPs, Ks if explained well, solvency deficits, T, and even inherency if it's made big enough of an issue.

DAs/Case: This is where I'd prefer most of the debate takes place. I like link stories that make sense and can be clearly explained. I think a lot of value can come from the more traditional style of policy (case attacks and stock issues), but I'd like it if most of the clash was centered on impact calc and world comparisons: tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents.

CPs: Totally willing to vote on it if you can prove there's a net benefit.

T: Very much willing to vote on it. Neg needs to do a good job of explaining what the interpretation, violation, standards, and voters are if they want to win on this (not voting on throwaway T in the 2NR), but generally I slightly learn toward reasonability. Neg needs to prove they lost something or something is wrong with the aff interpretation

Ks: I have the least experience here. I've cut a Freire K that I used a few times, but VERY RARELY encountered them. Don't assume I have prior knowledge about any specific K, but I will vote on the K, a perm, a solvency deficit on the alt, significant offense on the K, a de-link, etc. I'd definitely prefer it if you didn't run one unless you can do it EXTREMELY well.

Speed: Around 240wpm is where I'd like a max to be, and even a bit lower if I'm judging online.

Miscellaneous: Structure and order in speeches are greatly appreciated: I'll ask for an order before your speech and all I want to hear is "Solvency, Advantage 1, the DA, then the CP." Don't make arguments at this time. Also, I won't do any work for you, if, for example, one team contradicts themselves, it's the other team's burden to point it out and explain why it's bad/an issue. This applies to drops: if both teams drop something, I'm not going to vote on it with no further explanation.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Don't be mean, hateful, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, etc. I will end the round immediately if I think this is an issue. Otherwise, try to learn something from the debate and enjoy yourself.

If you have any more questions, ask me before the round begins.

I am an informed lay judge who is very aware of debate as an activity. I am able to flow, but not well, and certainly not at speed.

I appreciate all forms of debate, and I don't mind kritical or performance debates, but I am not well-read in philosophy. I also don't mind if things get a little meta, I don't like it when debate lingo starts getting thrown around without explanation to the judge. Debate should be inclusionary, and when parties are using unknown terminology, the activity becomes elitist. I also end up confused, which harms your ability to win my ballot.

I am a firm believer that public forum debate should be done at a normal speaking pace. If you want to speak quickly, do policy. Even with policy, I prefer when participants speak slower and are more efficient than just trying to get more cards in. I understand the reasoning behind speed and spread debate, but it makes the upper echelons of the activity elitist and inaccessible to lay judges and competitors who may be competing in a second language.

My expectations are:

1. Clear delivery.

2. Citing of sources.

3. Respectful discourse between competitors and toward the judges.

No Spreading

I prefer no Theory and K's but if you're confident in running those arguments logically then that's fine I'll flow it.

You can use CPs but I'm a little less likely to vote for those. 

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

Initially, I expect students to be well-prepared, thorough, and articulate. I expect students to utilize reliable, recent, and relevant sources to the arguments that they are presenting.

Second, I encourage students to provide clash by directly responding to their opponent's case. Clash is extremely important. Clash on the framework/criterion debate is absolutely essential! Put yourself in the best position to succeed by including a framework. If not, I will weigh the debate using my own discretion rather than a judging mechanism provided by your side. Please explicitly state this criterion at the start of the debate AND continue to discuss it throughout the course of the debate.

Thirdly, impacts truly matter. Explain why the arguments that you're making are important. Why should economic stability be preferred over foreign aid? Give good justification for why your impacts have more weight than your opposition. This is absolutely essential to get my vote.

Fourth, this community is centered around inclusivity and providing each student with an opportunity to speak. Please do not speed. This can be EXTREMELY exclusive and prevent your judges/opponents from hearing your arguments. This can disproportionately impact certain individuals. This activity prides itself on dialogue, but spreading/speeding reduces the chance of having a solid debate. If you do speed, I will listen, however, if I miss something, that is on you. I will not evaluate arguments that are not on the flow. Finally, if your opponent says clear and you do not slow down, I will put my pen down until you slow down.

Lastly, I am good with tech. You can run any argument with me. I love hearing K's, topicalities, or any unique arguments, but I need you to explain why it is important. Make all arguments accessible to your judges AND your opponents.

Initially, I expect students to be well-prepared, thorough, and articulate. I expect students to utilize reliable, recent, and relevant sources to the arguments that they are presenting.

Second, I encourage students to provide clash by directly responding to their opponent's case. Clash is extremely important. Clash on the framework/criterion debate is absolutely essential! Put yourself in the best position to succeed by including a framework. If not, I will weigh the debate using my own discretion rather than a judging mechanism provided by your side. Please explicitly state this criterion at the start of the debate AND continue to discuss it throughout the course of the debate.

Thirdly, impacts truly matter. Explain why the arguments that you're making are important. Why should economic stability be preferred over foreign aid? Give good justification for why your impacts have more weight than your opposition. This is absolutely essential to get my vote.

Fourth, this community is centered around inclusivity and providing each student with an opportunity to speak. Please do not speed. This can be EXTREMELY exclusive and prevent your judges/opponents from hearing your arguments. This can disproportionately impact certain individuals. This activity prides itself on dialogue, but spreading/speeding reduces the chance of having a solid debate. If you do speed, I will listen, however, if I miss something, that is on you. I will not evaluate arguments that are not on the flow. Finally, if your opponent says clear and you do not slow down, I will put my pen down until you slow down.

Lastly, I am good with tech. You can run any argument with me. I love hearing K's, topicalities, or any unique arguments, but I need you to explain why it is important. Make all arguments accessible to your judges AND your opponents.

My name is Alexis Morrison.

I spent 4 years debating public forum throughout my time in speech and debate. I love to judge primarily public forum, but I like lincoln douglas and can keep up in policy rounds as well. While I think lay format is important, I will make my decision based on the flow of the round.

In public forum, framework is really important. If framework is brought up, try not to give a speech without bringing it up. I also want to hear the impacts of the arguments you are running. Whether in case or rebuttal, tell me why that argument is important in x amount of areas (ex. environment, humanitarian needs, etc.).

In lincoln douglas, I understand that morality and values are crucial, but I want to hear about the arguments too. Spend the most time in your speeches explaining your arguments and refuting your opponents. My decision will be mainly based on the flow of the round.

In policy, I am a lay judge. I will be flowing the round but I do not appreciate spreading. Evidence is really important here, in each round I want to hear many references to different cards in each speech.

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

I am a stock issue and flow judge. I would like to see a clean, well-organized, and signposted debate where both teams use their ground well and have clear, well-written arguments and cases. I prefer a more traditional debate round, but the biggest thing for me is "can I understand what you are saying." I do not want to just read your flashed case off of my computer, I should be able to hear you quickly reading your case to me and flow the round from your verbal communication.

While I recognize the Kritiques have their time and place, to win my vote on them they have a very clear link and a well-articulated alternative.

my email for email chains: breannaprater99@gmail.com

Updated 9/1/24 for Scottsdale Prep

Welcome back and I am anticipating another engaging year of congressional debate. Arizona has a well earned reputation for excellence in congressional debate and I look forward to continuing that excellence this year.

Congress

1. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Taurasi esque or Clark esque. So, I ballot accordingly. I can only think of one time in the past 10 years that the PO failed to make by top 6 in rank. So, PO and do it well.
2. First AFF/NEG - easiest speeches to prepare and delivery. Delivery should be polished, organization and transitions would be clear, all analysis should be well warranted.
3. Mid round speeches (2nd AFF/NEG to 4th AFF/NEG) are more challenging than First AFF/NEG and potentially will earn higher rankings. These speeches should be extempted, not read and should interact in a clear and meaningful manner with prior speeches.
4. End of round (summary/crystallization) most important and potentially highest ranked speeches if you mee the burden.
5. DO NOT BREAK CYCLE. This will result in a rank reduction to last in the chamber. DO NOT BREAK CYCLE.

BONUS INFO

1. I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos "the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
2. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

3. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

   https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

   http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

4. Members of our community who have taught me a great deal, I strongly urge all congressional debater to review these paradigms from former elite congressional debaters who are now elite judges of congressional debate.

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

simplify your arguments: please don't force me to think.

speak slow: i'm alright with speed, but I'll stop flowing when it sounds like you're wheezing and maybe call for help if you actually are. in other words, speak slowly and clearly if you want to be certain that i'm flowing what you're saying.

make it make sense: one of the most notable traits of mastery is the ability to teach your subject in various (and effective) ways. make sure to explain the logic or coherency of your argument in different ways just in case it doesn't translate well the first time. not only will you avoid sounding like a broken rambling record, but you can also use it to reinforce and emphasize your arg.

weigh: love to see it. don't just tell me that your argument or impact outweighs your opponents. explain how through different mechanisms (scope, time-frame, reversibility, probability, magnitude, etc) and if do it well, you'll incorporate more than one.

Speech Docs: MoStateDebate@gmail.com
?'s: Preeves22@gmail.com
Asst Coach at MoState.
2x NDT Qualifier for MoState, Graduated in 23'.
3rd at NFA Nationals 2021, 4x NFA Nationals Qualifier

Random Thoughts:

- I do not care what you do, Everything is up for debate (besides objectively wrong things).

- Please keep track of your time, I want to keep track of your speech and the docs, not the time.

- You will often do better if you debate best rather than adjusting to this paradigm.

- I'll probably take a long time to decide as I try to be respectful of the time and energy that we put into this game. I really try to invest in debate as much as everyone else does, and love to reward bold strategic choices (no, not spark).

- My decisions are going to be what's exactly on my doc, and speaker points will be how well you articulated the thing from the flow to being understood + clarity.

- Evidence Quality is under rated. I'll 1000% read your evidence during, and after the round. You should probably tell me HOW to read it. If it does not say the thing that you think it does, things will not go well for you.

Specific ?'s:

Policy v. K ideological divide (the stuff that matters for prefs).

- I tend to like both for different reasons. I think that being strategic is the best thing that you can do in front of me, be bold and embrace your decisions whole-heartedly. My first 2 years of college debate, I debated exclusively the K (pomo, cybernetics, queerness, etc.), and the last 2 1/2 years, I debated mainly policy. With that in mind, that means I don't have ideological underpinnings that assist either side.

- I think that the strongest part of the K is the Link, and weakest part is the Alt. Policy AFF's tend to have more warrants for how they solve things, than why they actually do. I think that it behooves both teams to play to the others weakness. K's are better at why, and Policy stuff is better at how, explain to me which is better.

Policy:

- I tend to think that offense is where I always start, and the place that teams should always spend the most time on. Impacts tend to be the things that decide debates, and make everything else important as they leak out of that.

- Case debating is a lost and dead art, please bring it back. Hyper specific case negs or good impact D debating is the best stuff to watch.

CP's:

- CP Texts for Perms >>>>

- Fine with Judge Kick, if it makes sense. Should be more than a 10 second blurb.

- PICs are cool, and often strategic.

DA:

- Turns Case is ESSENTIAL, and is usually the difference between a Win that can be easily sought out, and a Win that I scratch my head for a while at.

Topicality:

- T should have a case list, of what is and isn't T.

- Reasonability is probably bad, unless you have a good argument about why your AFF is essential to the topic thus -> Competing Interps !

- Quals are better than no Quals

Theory:

- I think there is a sharp divide between the neg being strategic, and just trying to make the 2AC's life hard by not really debating stuff. I think hard debate should be rewarded, and cowards shouldn't. The best strategies that we always remember were never the 12 off with the 9 plank CP, but the 4-5 off with the impact turns etc. With that said, I think 3 condo is probably my limit (each plank counts as 1 unless stated otherwise by the neg), and contradictions are fine until the block.

K's:

- Telling me why your links mean that I should weigh the AFF and how that implicates their research is probably much better than just stating why your model of debate is better. Vice Versa for AFF, telling me why your research praxis is good, and should be debated is better than telling me why it's a pain you can't weigh the AFF. I think that fairness is an impact, but we have been on the fairness spiel for like 20+ years.

- More impact analysis > no impact analysis.

K AFF's/FW:

- I think that teams should probably read a plan text, and talk about the resolution. But if you want to read a AFF without a plan text, go for it as long as you do it well. Usually, negative teams going for framework do so poorly.

- I usually prefer fairness as an externalization of education, and how it impacts the game of debate in terms of making us better people and/or better educators.

- Definitions are under-used, and I think that the best AFF's make us really ponder how we should collectively view the topic.

- I judge in a circuit that debates slowly. I prefer quality of argumentation to quantity.

- My default is to evaluate the round as a policymaker, but I'll listen to arguments about why I should do otherwise. I'll vote on a procedural or critical argument if you give me some good and clear reasons for doing so.

- I did policy debate in high school, parliamentary debate in college, and studied philosophy in grad school.

I don’t have as defined of a paradigm as those who are actively involved in debate or debated in college, but I figure more information is better than less for you all.

History: I debated in high school (2009-2013) and I guess I was relatively decent at it. As a frame of reference, I went to state and nats each year.

Thoughts on some things:

· I haven’t judged much on this topic, so don’t come in expecting me to know what is commonly ran.

· Speed: I can probably flow and understand speed if your clear, but I’ll probably lose you if your super-fast or unclear. There is also the internet connection to consider. I’ll let you know if I can’t understand you and will try my best.

· Critiques: In theory I’m fine with them, but I was not a k debater in high school, most of my experience with respect to critiques is responding to them. As such you probably want to spend a little more time explaining your k than you would with a flow judge.

· Don’t be a bad person: There is no reason to be unnecessarily rude to your opponents. If you feel you are absolutely crushing it consider that the people you might be debating are new and you could be the reason that they quit debate. For sure call people out, but in most cases yelling and being rude is not called for.

· Performative debate: I don’t really know anything about performative debate. I will try my best to adjudicate a round with performative debate, but I have no experience in this. It was not common at tournaments I went to in high school, and I have not been involved in debate since really.

· Evidence: First you should be able to quickly give it to your opponents. Unless your breaking new you should probably be open about your aff and neg positions. I understand this is not a norm at a lot of local tournaments. I also won’t call for evidence normally unless it has been talked about in the debate and I have been told either its super great and answers everything, or that its super bad.

· I want to be told why I should be voting for you, don’t leave this up to me at the end of the round.

· I might flow a few warrants of your cards, and if I think you are lying with the tag of your card I will make a note of it.

In general, my ideal round is probably the aff running a plan with a text and advantages, with some good diss-ads, counterplan, and answers to the case.

This won’t affect how I judge, but I am a PhD student in economics so I guess I might know if you are blatantly lying about something related to econ. I won’t come in thinking one side is automatically correct on an econ issue.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Extinction

I have been a coach for fourteen years. I like debaters to talk slow enough so that I can understand what they are saying and for them to articulate clearly. I also like debates about the topic and not about the rules of debate. I would prefer debaters to "suggest" what I should do if something happens in a round instead of telling me what I now "have" to do. Finally, I want debaters to use excellent public speaking skills such as good eye contact, few vocalized pauses, and no distracting movements.

jtroutdebate@gmail.com for all Speech and Debate related things, including email chains --updated for Stay At Home Classic

Competition History:

Bolivar High School: Policy Debate for 3 years, various IEs (Congress, Informative, Domestic Extemp), also did Big Questions one time. never again. Competed in the Ozark (MO) circuit my entire HS career.

Missouri State University: Currently a Sophomore who has competed in NFA-LD mainly so far, and a couple of NDT-CEDA tournaments as well.

I have judged every NSDA/MSHSAA sanctioned High School speech, debate, and interp event at least once. I generally judge policy-style debates, however I have judged numerous (traditional) Public Forum and (traditional) Lincoln-Douglas rounds at high school tournaments.

General Judging Things:

Don't be a jerk to your competitors. If you were extremely rude to your competitors, I will vote you down, regardless of whether you did better than them or not.

Feel free to time yourself. I'm not a huge stickler on time. I allow a bare minimum 30 second grace period. However, that doesn't mean that I'm going to let you give a 12 minute extemp speech or something like that. I generally use a timer that's pretty loud, so when it goes off you better start wrapping things up.

Policy-style Debate Events:

You can run whatever argument you want. That, however, doesn't mean that I'm going to let you get up there and say something that is blatantly offensive. I even welcome meme-y args as long as they don't violate above rule.

Affirmative:

I really, really, really would prefer that you run a Topical aff with plan text. If you choose to run a nontopical and/or planless aff, you better have really good reason as to why you should be able to read said aff. I actually really enjoy framework debates so if you have good framework answers then you should be fine running a planless aff.

With all that being said, you have about a .0001% of winning the round if you run something that is barely related to the topic. Please run something at least semi-topical and you will have no problems.

Negative:

DAs: I prefer non-generic DAs if possible but I understand why generic DAs exist and I have no issue with them. Politics DAs are cool. Make sure DAs have a good link story otherwise it's gonna be really hard to convince that the aff actually causes the impacts.

CPs: Whatever is fine here, you just need to prove that either the CP is mutually exclusive or that it's not possible to perm in order to win on it.

Ks: Kritiks of any kinds are fine. However, I'm not super experienced so you will have to explain it if it's not cap or an identity-based kritik.

Ts: Fine. I think T debates are generally overblown. Prove they are untopical, don't just say "they're abusive" and move on.

Framework: Framework debates are good. Give me a good reason why your framework is better.

Other Things: Condo is generally good, but a reasonable amount. I think kicking planks of CPs when you have multiple CPs is bad. However, I could be convinced otherwise.

Non-Policy Debate Events (Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Congress, etc.)

Progressive debate is a-ok. I come from a policy background and progressive debate is basically policy in most circumstances. See the policy section for specific argument things.

I did congress for a couple years in high school so I have a pretty good idea of how things are supposed to go. If you are going to run for PO, make sure you know what you're doing. Otherwise I'm going to have to keep track of things and I really don't wanna have to do that.

Speech Events (Extemp, Inform, Oratory/Persuasive, ADS, etc.):

Being a good speaker is the main thing that I care about for these events. Also, humor is great. Some people take these speeches too seriously. Have fun.

Interp/Acting Events (HI, DI, POI, DUO, Duet Acting, Prose/Poetry, etc.):

I never have competed in any of these events, but I have seen/judged enough rounds to know what's going on. Make sure different characters have distinct voices and/or postures. Make sure said voice/posture is appropriate for that character as well.

I really enjoy humor in all of these events, especially in scripts that are really depressing (most DIs and POIs that I've seen). I don't want to be sad during your entire performance. Even if you are dealing with a serious topic, I want there to be a least a couple lighthearted moments throughout the performance. Dramatic does not just mean serious and depressing, it means an array of emotions, including humor.

I have been a speech and debate coach since 1969 and am a 2018 Hall of Fame Member. This was my last year coaching at Central High School in Springfield Missouri before going into retirement.

I view this activity as a persuasive debate. You focus on going fast, you lose my ballot. You need to talk to me as the judge and use speaking skills to convince me of your side. I vote on well-developed arguments. I appreciate signposts but no roadmaps as that will be included in your speaking time. There is no "off-the-clock" and that is not recognized, when you start speaking, your time will start. Reading directly into the screen at top speed, no matter how clear you are, is still nearly impossible for anyone to understand. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. All claims and statements should be backed with evidence that is presented clearly and efficiently.

Going fast in a debate doesn't make you a better debater, and yelling doesn't make you more powerful. In a debate you should speak clearly and articulate what you are trying to persuade me, as your audience, to vote on.

Off the clock roadmaps should be used for Policy debate and Policy debate only. I understand what you do in each speech.

I follow the rules and appreciate the students who do as well. Stand for speeches, have an appropriate attitude, and play fair.

About Me

she/they

Broken Arrow HS ‘19 (LD 4 years)

Mo State '23 (NDT/CEDA + NFA LD 3 years)

GTA @ Wichita State

Conflicts: Broken Arrow, Tulsa Union, Pembroke Hill, Maize South, Missouri State

yes email chain: lilwood010@gmail.com

Overview

These are just my random thoughts about debate collected into one place. If you do what you do well, you will be fine. I am down for almost anything.

Policy first, NFA LD next, then HS LD at the bottom -- if there is no specific section for either LD format assume it’s the same as policy or ask me questions pre round! :)

yes open cx - yes you can sit during cx - yes flex prep

!!:) please send out analytics :)!!

Please provide trigger warnings if there is graphic descriptions of violence against fem ppl included in your arguments

K Affs/Ks

I prefer K affs that are related to the topic OR the debate space. I enjoy watching performance K affs that incorporate parts of the topic.

I believe fairness (procedurally or structurally) is not an impact. I believe it is an internal link.

I love a good TVA - but I would prefer it be creative to the aff and carded to demonstrate that it could solve the aff's offense.

I believe perf con is bad.

I'm starting to believe I prefer movements / material alternatives over reject / thought project alternatives. I find myself easily persuaded by arguments that alternatives lack the means to resolve the links and impacts. I like when alternatives are specific in what they accomplish in the block.

I LOVE perm debates. I am a sucker for creative perms that are specific to the alternative. If you execute this strategy correctly, you will be rewarded.

CP

I think condo is good to an extent. The extent is up for debate.

I default to judge kick.

T

I LOVE T!

In round abuse should be present, but I also believe that setting a precedent for the community might be more important.

I think grounds and limits are both good arguments, but I find I am more persuaded by limits. Going for either is fine.

Misc.

I LOVE ptx.

Impact turn debates are super fun.

NFA LD

NFA LD has some norms that are different than policy so I will try to establish my thoughts on some of those in here.

yes spreading - yes disclose - yes email chain - (sigh) yes speech drop

Disclosure

Will vote on disclosure theory IF it's egregious. I think empty wikis are probably bad after attending 2 tournaments. I think if every aff they've ever read is uploaded, even if not every round is, zeroes the impact. I think not disclosing an aff 15 minutes prior to the round is probably bad if no wiki entries or multiple affs on the wiki. TLDR: nondisclosure has to actually inhibit your pre round prep.

Theory/Procedurals

I think mandating an inherency contention is silly, UQ from the advantages can answer this.

Solvency advocate theory is cowardice. If the aff doesn't have a solvency advocate, then... you should... be able to beat it...

Will vote on speed bad due to accessibility concerns.

For condo, my thoughts differ from policy and HS LD. With a 6 minute 1ar, that allows the affirmative more time to answer NC arguments. Therefore, unlike in HS LD, 2 CPs are probably my max. However, if the 2 CPs are polar opposite worlds (ex - US should engage in bilat relations with China vs US should first strike China) I would be willing to err affirmative. Kicking planks is probably bad. Judge kick is probably bad. Basically, make sure your CPs aren't abusive, and I'm good.

Other Thoughts

Stop being scared to put offense across the pages in the 1ar.

Bad DAs can be beat with analytics and impact D.

Update your ptx UQ cards.

Call out people's crappy case cards.

Cut better case cards.

I hate underviews.

HS LD

I prefer 1/2 off in depth debates to shallow 3/4 off debates in LD - I find that by the end of the round if there is more than 2 off I am left doing a lot of work for teams simply because there was not enough time to cover every necessary component in an argument.

T

RVIs aren’t real and I will never vote on them unless there is literally 0 (and I mean 0, not a single word said) arguments on it. even then, I will be extremely sad. please don't go for it.

CP

1 CP is fine - 2 is too many (hint hint: i am very aff leaning on condo)

Theory

Theory in LD is wild to me. I am not the best judge for silly theory tricks. The theory I am most willing to vote on is condo and perf con. Second most willing is any other policy theory arg. If you're wondering about a specific theory arg feel free to ask me pre round.