My paradigm for judging:

Decorum required at all times.

Do not yell at me- We are in a small room and I don't need you to yell to get your point across. I have been involved in Speech and Debate for 20 years- I competed in debate and interp in middle school, high school, and collegiate level. I have been coaching this activity for 8 years. I tend to like cool, calm, collected- not loud and chaotic.

I will flow the round- if I don't look up often, I am not ignoring you- just listening and checking the flow.

Your job is to present ideas, arguments, and rebuttals in a professional manner. Debaters should educate the judges, and have thorough background knowledge of the topic. You should also have fun- show off your hard work and represent your school/state well!

Please do not use full prep time if you do not need it! It is a waste of time to run out the clock if you are ready to speak.

Excited to judge your round!

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.

Lets make sure we are slowing down for analytics and tags because I sincerely need to be able to understand you to flow you.

Hi I'm Sunday! Nice to meet you! Here's my email: odeloss1@binghamton.edu i want to be on the email chain

I'm the coloring book person

I like Ks

But I'm not against policy arguments!

i think they are both viable strategies

all i really care about in the round is clash please engage with each other substantially i don't want to watch a debate where two teams are just talking at each other because thats boring and i dont want to be bored believe it or not. the point being anything is up for debate and i'm down to hear any of it as long as you arent being fucked up. dont think that if you say something antiblack or anti queer youre going to get away with it. i believe in people making mistakes and i believe that you can learn from them so if you say something that is blatantly violent and you know it is then don't double down on it. TLDR: don't spew out violent rhetoric but if you do then apologize

okay stuff yall care about:

i went back and looked at this and realized i have something to say beforehand so first first first of all. i think yall can tell me what to do. im here to facilitate the debate the way yall want and to deliberate. im not going to tell you that you cant play music or that i wont flow a poem. if you want me to try to a handstand while i listen to the 1ac i will try to do it. obviously im going to need to know why youre making me do things... but i think that debate isnt just about what you say but how you say it and how you present it. TLDR: sucker for judge instruction

onto the good stuff:

first of all yall need to actually explain your arguments to me. youre all very smart and youre all very persuasive but you can't just get up and start saying to extend every single card you read because that is not persuasive. you dont have to explain every single card but i need something to write down. a warrant perhaps :) if i dont understand something i wont vote for it. and you will know if i dont understand something because i probably wont be flowing it TLDR: make it make sense

T: i will vote for it. like seriously. you should have UQ links i/l and impacts. i dont think that going for just fairness as an impact will win you the round. i like clash, in depth debates, education, etc. as impacts and fairness can be an internal link. also i would like it if you had a persuasive TVA that actually tries to encapsulate some parts of the aff. I don't think you have to solve the entirety of the aff but you have to access their lit base. TLDR: win an impact

t against policy teams: cool

t against k teams: i like it better w a fw arg

for the aff: don't just say fw is bad and don't just say the state is bad. explain why doing the aff the way you want to do it is important for education for you for other debaters. you have to win your model of debate is good. or win that models of debate are bad (i went for that a lot :P) explain your counterinterp i don't think that you have to win that you solve the entire world. but you have to solve for something by reading the aff. read disads to their model. read disads to the TVA... answer the TVA. TLDR: actually answer t

the K! (im grouping the K and K affs together)

i don't know everything so don't expect me to know what you are talking about even if it seems likely that i would know what you are talking about. at some point in the debate just slow down and be like "here's the K/aff. here's what it does. here's why its good" i think that should be at the top of all your speeches but i just need one clear moment in the debate where you tell me what is going on. TLDR: i am lazy and do not want to do extra work so do it for me

For Ks I think that you don't need an alt but it doesn't hurt to have one either. You have to win your alt if you are going for it though I'm not going to kick it for you.

For K affs. win that you do something

misc: I love presumption. i love the case debate. neg teams: i will vote on the aff doesnt do anything the aff doesnt make any sense the aff is bad for debate. also you can read CP to K affs. shake it up. dance emoji

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

Hi,

I'm Daniel, here's a few things about how I judge rounds:

1) Don't make bigoted arguments or do bigoted things. Even if the other team doesn't respond effectively, I'll discount those arguments to improve educational outcomes.

2) I can flow pretty well at most speeds but typically spreading isn't as effective as most people think.

3) I like theory, and I'm willing to entertain pretty much any internally consistent argument. I have an economics, history, and political science background, along with doctoral work in Black liberation education and social justice.

4) I get salty if "flash time" becomes egregiously lengthy. I like debate but I'd also like the round to get over with and keep the tournament moving.

5) I have no preferences about your language choices; however, if your discourse discomforts other judges or competitors then it's a problem.

Best of luck,

Daniel

I have been a coach for several years and during this time, I judge often. One of the most important things I look for when judging is that your arguments make sense and are supported with reasoning and evidence. The most unique and crazy argument will not necessarily win over a stock argument if you can't argue it well. But, if it is well supported and explained with solid links, then go for it! If you have a partner, you need to share the work load and have an actual partnership. Always maintain decorum! Do NOT speak so quickly that I cannot follow what you are speaking. I like to flow the round and if I can't write down what you are saying, then something important will be missed. There must be clash but don't get hung up on one point.

I am a 4-year LD debater and an 8-year debate coach. In Lincoln Douglas debate I believe in traditional debating (less policy), but I will vote for a K if done correctly. However, this is a value-based debate and excessive stats/evidence will not be weighed more than value; value and value criterion are essential to the debate. Also, off-the-clock roadmaps are not necessary, unless doing something from tradition.

I value stock issues, communication (speed is okay, but not preferred...unintelligible spreading is strongly discouraged). I value clear clashing on stock issues.

Please don’t spread. Please be kind/polite to your opponent; you can be assertive and confident without being rude.

Value is essential—convince me that your value is more important than your opponent’s, and convince me that your side better upholds that value (even better if you can also convince me your side also better upholds your opponent’s value, too).

Evidence, evidence, evidence. The side that presents and most effectively uses, analyzes, interprets, and refutes opposing evidence will be the winner.

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.

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.

LD and PF: Although I have been coaching for many years, in terms of debate, I still consider myself a lay judge (with judging experience). I am open to different (non-traditional) arguments as long as they are explained well and related to the resolution. I believe we are debating the resolution, not trying to fix society, at least not during this competition round. (I have faith that many of you will do that as you continue through life!)

In terms of speed, to me it's not speed it's clarity. If you are going 90 miles per hour and have to constantly repeat yourself because you trip over words, maybe going 55 is better. If I can’t understand you, I can’t follow, flow, or judge effectively.

Congress: As a scorer, I look for good speeches with good evidence and analysis, but also continuous participation. I believe Congress is an overall package, including activity with questioning, motions, and amendments. PO's should be able to move the chamber along smoothly, and fairly. However, they must also recognize that sometimes this may be a new experience for someone in the chamber, and be sure that everyone understands how the PO is maneuvering the chambers, not just assume that it's just standard operating procedure for everyone. Be good to each other and you will often stand out from the competition.

Hello! I am super excited to be judging for you guys and just wanted to give you all a quick heads up about how I will be judging these debate rounds.

Some of the biggest things that I will be looking at to decide the winner of these rounds are as follows:

1. Respect: You need to respect both me, your opponents, and your partner if you have one. I appreciate assertiveness and bold debaters, but there is a line between assertive and disrespectful, you should understand this line as it is basic human decency. Do not cross it.

2. Flow: I am a flow judge so if you drop questions, contentions, or refutes, I will take note of this and this will effect my decision.

3. Speaking Voice and Tone: I understand that there are going to be tech issues now and then, but for the most part, you should speak loudly and clearly. Answer questions with purpose and just overall conduct yourself effectively and professionally.

I will obviously be adjusting this depending on each round and each situation, but for the most part this is what I am looking for. Overall, make sure that you guys have fun, be polite, and maintain the educational qualities of this program.

You will all do great!

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.