LD- I’d like to see a value and a criterion

Judging Philosophy

Hannah DeLeon

Alumni from Skiatook Highschool

Hello Students, Teachers, and People, I am Hannah DeLeon, I have been in Speech & Debate for 4 years and Drama for 3. I have won 1st place in poetry, also 1st place in Cx Debate as well as some 2nd and 3rd places. I have also performed on stage 3 times with drama. I have also been apart of the crew in musical performances, one of me being the stage manager. I consider myself well educated on both debate and drama.

I view judging as a responsibility and one I take very seriously. I have decided to try and give you as much information about my preference.

Drama: Have fun, be confident, and just keep working hard!

Debate: I expect a lot from debaters to always be prepared and ready so if your reading this good job for researching your judge.

Pro-tip: FLOW---don't stop flowing just because you have a speech doc, and make sure when your speaking your partners flowing.

Topicality: is an outdated mode of thought with tries to put up fences in our brain about what we can and can not talk about. I'd prefer this not to be used but if so please run it successfully.

Style issues: Civility is important to me. Open CX is fine as well as closed CX. I allow speed as long as words are audible. Numbering your arguments or saying next is very helpful in keeping up with the debate. Detailed roadmaps are Great and preferred. Prep time doesn’t continue for 2 minutes after you saying stop please Flash evidence faster and within your prep time.

Affirmatives: I still at my heart of hearts prefer and Aff with a plan that's justifiably topical. But, I think it's not very hard for teams to win that if the Aff is germane to the topic that's good enough. I'm pretty sympathetic to the Neg if the Aff has very little to or nothing to do with the topic, or decided to drop key arguments.

Disadvantages: I like them. I prefer specific link stories (or case-specific DA’s) to generic links, as I believe all judges do. But, if all you have is generic links go ahead and run them, I will evaluate them. The burden is on the Aff team to point out those weak link stories. I think Aff’s should have an offense against DA’s it's just a smarter 2AC strategy.

Counterplans: I like them. I generally think most types of counterplans are legitimate as long as the Neg wins that they are competitive. I am also fine with multiple counterplans. On counterplan theory, I lean pretty hard that conditionality and PICs are ok. You can win theory debates over the issue of how far negatives can take conditionality (battle over the interps is key). Counterplans that are functionally and textually competitive are always your safest bet but, I am frequently persuaded that counterplans which are functionally competitive or textually competitive are legitimate.

Critiques: I like them. I think they should have an alternative or they are just non-unique impacts. I think there should be a discussion of how the alternative interacts with the Aff advantages and solvency. Impact framing is important in these debates. The links to the Aff are very important---the more specific the better. Some K lit bases I'm decently familiar with: Capitalism, Security, but some I am not So if you are running Critiques make sure you understand and are able to explain.

Things not to do: Don't run T is an RVI, don't hide evidence from the other team to sabotage their prep, don't lie about your source qualifications, don't text or talk to coaches to get "in round coaching" after the round has started, please stay and listen to RFD's, and don't deliberately spy on the other teams pre-round coaching. Please, don't read things overtly sexual if you have a performance aff--since there are minors in the room I think that is inappropriate. Also, I will not tolerate, racist, homophobic, sexist comments made in arguments or in general.

About Me: I'm an attorney with a court of appeals. My job is basically to draft opinions in civil and criminal appeals for my judge. I competed in CX debate for 4 years. I also competed in DEX, FEX, and most drama categories at some point. I went to nationals in CX. I was the 2012 Oklahoma CX District, Regional, and State Champion.

TL;DR: I consider debate to be a game, which to me means two things: (1) I will not do your work for you, so tell me why you win; and (2) I will consider and vote on abuse-type arguments if you give me a good reason to do so. I prefer when debaters' arguments are intellectually consistent throughout the round.

I judge extemp using the standards on the ballot, which identifies several broad categories for evaluation. I score each category 0-10 and add up the total score. I also add a category for entertainment value, which I use only as a tie breaker. Highest score wins.

FOR ALL DEBATES:

In your last speeches, you should always make a big-picture argument why you should win the debate. If you can't tell me why should win, you probably shouldn't. I will not vote for a side solely because an argument was dropped or unanswered. The team making an argument has a continuing responsibility to explain (1) why it is true and (2) why it matters. If your opponent drops an argument, you may note that failure to respond and extend the argument through, but you should still make an argument that you're right and that I should care. For example, if an affirmative has two reasons why universal child care helps the economy, and the negative provides two reasons why universal child care is bad for the economy, and the aff never answers the negative's points, the negative still needs to explain why their two points are more persuasive than the aff's two points. The fact that the aff didn't respond gives your points more weight, but only if you say so.

FOR ANY DEBATE WITH CARDS:

Remember that I am judging how persuasive your argument is. Cards can provide some support for your argument, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a winning argument. Unless the card is providing hard data, all it proves is that someone said something that you are now saying. It may be more or less helpful, depending on its credibility. For that reason, I AM NOT PERSUADED BY THE ARGUMENT, "WE HAVE A CARD, AND THEY DON'T, SO WE'RE RIGHT." Always justify the reasons why your argument is correct. If you can't explain your argument, I won't accept it. AND PLEASE DO NOT REFERENCE CARDS BY THE AUTHOR/DATE. Reference the claim (Heg is good/bad, universal child care works/doesn't work, Space Force good/bad, sneezing to the left causes nuclear war, whatever). I may have missed the author or not cared enough about the argument to write it down.

I'm also not a fan of judge intervention. If you feel that your opponents have been dishonest or have provided an incomplete card (either with text missing or an incomplete citation), make that argument in your speech, tell me why I should care, and I will review the card after the round if necessary. The only other circumstance where I will read cards after a debate is if the debaters dispute their contents. Please do not ask me to read a card after the round if you did not read it during your allotted speaking time. I will not read it, I will consider that an attempt to increase the amount of your speaking time, and I will dock your speaker points.

FOR PF DEBATES:

I'm looking for strong initial arguments that will be crystallized as the round goes on, and I expect your final speech to contain an explanation why you should win. I am looking for big picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position and the impacts. I don't mind speed as long as you are clear; I hate speed if you're bad at speed.

FOR LD DEBATES:

I prefer traditional framework, with clear contentions and sign posting throughout the round. Remember that LD is value-based, so I will be looking for you to carry your Value/Criterion through the entire round and link all arguments back to this value. Your argument should have a solid framework to support it and it should be topical. I am looking for big picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position and the impacts (and please name these clearly).

If you run counterplans (I guess counterplans are a thing in LD now?), remember that the neg's job is to negate the resolution. If your counterplan gives me no reason to reject the resolution, or if the aff makes a persuasive argument that adopting the resolution and the counterplan is possible (a perm, in policy debate), I probably won't vote neg on the counterplan.

FOR POLICY DEBATES:

You should slow down (a little) for taglines, authors, and important quotes in your cards. If you maintain a constant speed throughout your speech, I (and any other judge) will likely miss something.

Although I generally will let the debaters establish their own rules for the debate, here is some information on my voting history:

One-Off Negs: I typically do not vote for negative teams who make no effort to respond to the affirmative. If you ignore the 1AC, you'll probably lose. I emphasize "probably" because I have begrudgingly voted for one-off negs when the affirmative has responded poorly.

Topicality: Topicality debates should focus on standards and voters, which should be specific to your definition. In the past, I've voted negative when they've shown that the affirmative plan falls outside any definition that is fair, predictable, and flexible enough to accommodate a variety of topics. In those rounds, the negative has shown (1) their interpretation is reasonable, (2) the affirmative falls outside that definition, and (3) the affirmative's interpretation is unreasonable/bad for debate. I have never voted neg when they use a definition that is too restrictive (e.g., only x is topical) or when both teams have reasonable definitions. In other words, when the negative's argument came down to "our definition is better" rather than "our definition is good and their definition is bad," I have not voted negative on topicality.

Kritiks: If you feel confident in your Kritik, I will listen to it like any other argument. In my view, a winning Kritik is pertinent to the affirmative case and/or the resolution in general and has a clear, feasible alternative. If you run a K with an argument (CP, DA, etc) that contradicts the K, I won't like you. To be honest, I've rarely voted neg because of a K, mostly because negative teams tend not to run them well. If you don't understand the Kritik well enough to explain it, don't run it. Tip: If you've run a K to throw the other team, you've probably thrown yourself as well.

Counterplans: I've voted negative on counterplans that are competitive with the affirmative case and are mutually exclusive from it -- that is, counterplans that prove we should not adopt the resolution. I've never voted negative on a topical counterplan. That said, you are welcome to try.

Theory: Because debate is a game, I'll entertain theory. In the past, I've voted on theory only when one team has demonstrated that their opponent's strategy/argument is so abusive or unfair that it functionally derails the debate. I've voted aff on theory when the negative functionally ignores the 1AC and begins a new conversation. I've never voted negative on theory, but I've considered it when deciding whether to accept or reject a perm to a counterplan.

Hello,

I am a student at the University of Oklahoma. Prior to college, I competed in speech and debate events for 8 years. My main events were LD, PF, DEX (a little FEX), PO, PR, SO and I went to nationals for world schools debate.

What I look for in debate rounds:

Civility. If you can not be civil in the round, you are not truly debating. It is okay to be passionate, but it is not okay to be rude.

Clarity. I do not want to struggle to understand you, your point, or what you are referring to.

What I look for in speech events:

Emotion. I want to feel something. If it's a humorous piece, I want to laugh. If it is dramatic, I want to feel the sorrow.

Quality selection. If you are doing a piece or a topic I have heard a million times, chances are you are not the best rendition I've ever heard. If you are doing a piece and someone else in the room is doing a similar one you will automatically be pitted against each other, so be wary of using common pieces/authors.

Overall, have fun. If you care about what you are doing, I promise it will show.

Best of luck.

I mostly judge Lincoln Douglas, but I have coached all events offered by the NSDA and the OSSAA. I was the coach at Cascia Hall from 2007-2021 and have worked at the Tulsa Debate League since 2023.

I am more comfortable with a more traditional style of debate, but will make my best effort to judge the round in front of me, even if it isn't stylistically what I am most comfortable with. That being said, no matter what style you prefer, debate is pretty much the same. Tell me how to make an evaluation and then tell me why you win under that evaluation.

If you have more specific questions, I'm happy to answer them before the round begins if all competitors are present.

About Me: I'm Bailey McBride (she/her), and I'm the marketing and communications manager for a beverage distribution company. I competed in LD and PF debate for 4 years of high school (Bishop Kelley, OK), and was the 2007 Oklahoma LD State Champion and a top 5 finisher in DEX. I went to Nationals in Student Congress. I also competed in DEX, FEX, and all drama categories at some point in that time. I debated 3 years in college (University of Arkansas).

FOR LD DEBATES:

I prefer a traditional framework, with clear contentions and signposting throughout the round. Remember that LD is value-based, so I will be looking for you to carry your Value/Criterion through the entire round and link all arguments back to this value. Your argument should have a solid framework to support it and it should be topical. I am looking for big picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details or you will lose me. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position, and the impacts (and please name these clearly). Please speak at a reasonable speed for me to flow by hand--if you go too fast, I will miss your argument and can't consider it in my final decision. If you get into a back and forth about "cards" and waste your time on that over the greater issue of the round, I will not consider that compelling. Please have voting issues.

FOR PF DEBATES:

Public Forum debate should be conversational, respectful, and engaging. I'm looking for strong initial arguments that will be crystallized as the round goes on, and will flow through anything that is not addressed by Summary. I am looking for big picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details or you will lose me. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position, and the impacts (and please name these clearly). Please speak at a reasonable speed for me to flow by hand--if you go too fast, I will miss your argument and can't consider it in my final decision.

LD: I'm pretty traditional. I like values and criteria and evidence and clash. If you read a K or a bedtime narrative, I will stop flowing the round and take a nap. I have a speed threshold of "don't" and if you could please keep the jargon to a minimum, that would be great. Theory is cool, in theory, but it shouldn't be an entire framework. I like long walks on the beach, and a good tennis match. Also, don't shake my hand at the end of the round.

PF: Um....win more arguments than the other team. Go. Fight. Win.

I am a parent and my kid is writing this paradigm. If you have a male judge it's the dad and he's more republican but argue well and you'll be fine. Mom/ lady judge is more liberal and she will also vote whatever. Don't remotely spread or talk heavily about debate lingo unless you explain it lol.

Updated 9/16/24 for Jim Fountain

I am appreciative and grateful to support the Arizona Speech and Debate community. I have tremendous respect and admiration for the time and energy you, your teammates and coaches invest in preparation.

Congress

PO begins the session ranked first. To move above the PO participants must present all three speeches *(authorship/sponsor, mid round and round ending speeches) that are exemplary and delivered with polish and grace. Based upon Scottsdale Prep I would repeat my hope that experienced CDers will PO. Remember never to read a speech and consider speaking throughout the session first, mid and last. Often that strategic decision will be reflected in your ranking. Never break cycle as that will also be reflected in your rankings to your detriment.

For more click here

Debate

No spreading, warranting > evidence, truth > tech, no progressive or critique. LD and PF please click through and skim the detailed paradigm you will find there as my preferences will be reflected in my rankings. Ethical use of evidence!!!

Click here for more.

Speech/Interp

I value a logical narrative over citation and authenticity in performance over technique

For further detail click here.

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.

I prefer speechdrop but here is my email for document sharing/evidence chains if you need it:betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 18 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)

"I may not be smart enough to debate you point-for-point on this, but I have a feeling that about 60% of what you say is crap" - David Letterman

I am the definition of the "citizen judge" in regards to adjudicating PF. I did not do debate while in high school (I focused on DEX as my primary event, but did on occasion do an interpretative event as well). I come to NSDA mainly as an amazingly proud parent who was blessed to watch his daughter shine in PF and DEX for four years. And for those of you that have taken the time to review these paradigms, thank you for your participation in NSDA. You are a rock star and my sincere congratulations for your achievements at any level - whether just starting out to participation in Nationals.

YOU - just as you are - are a rock star. Every one of you is worthy - just exactly the way you are and how you perform. If you take nothing else out of this paradigm, know that you are seen and I admire you for who you are and what you do - exactly as you are right at this moment.

Debate - My judging style for rounds is very simple - make your argument to the best you can. Convince me. Refute your opponents. Present your evidence. Don't drop anything that is truly important in a debate case. I know you know the arguments (and - you know the positions and the arguments better than the judges. We all know. We don't say it - but we know.) Part of what we all need to learn to live in this world is that each side comes at things from a different perspective. We don't need theatrics, drama, all of that - we just need to be able to clearly communicate where we are coming from and convince people. That is the paradigm of how I base my decision.

Extemp - Relax and take a breath. Have a solid introduction, restate the question and then tell us what you know. Cite references. Be clear. Restate the points at the end and have a conclusion that ties it together. The best extemp speeches are ones where I learn something I didn't know about before - whatever you know about the topic is enough, just share it with us.

Interpretative - I'm sorry - I wish I was better at these. Whatever your discipline - be you. If it is HI, show me your joyful side. If it is DI, show me the dramatic version of yourself. I will judge on the requirements of the event as a primary basis of decision - after that, it is how much you put into the performance. The best performances have left me laughing and in tears (both for the right reasons) - that kind of emotion is in each of you. Share it with us during the performance.

Congratulations for being a member of the speech and debate family and I look forward to seeing you soon.

Brian Welborn

I vote for the team that debates the best. That's my paradigm.

If forced to pick a point of view I would call myself a policy maker. I debated for 8 years in high school and college (NDT style) and am open to just about any argument so long as it is debated well. This includes critical arguments, performance, theory, etc.

Other points that may help you adapt to me:

Speed. You can go as fast as you can read, but be clear. Most debaters try to sound fast without actually being fast. Be clear. You get more points if I can understand you, less if I don't. Did I mention to be clear?

Make arguments: Provide a claim, warrant and evidence for each argument. Number them. Explain why I should prefer yours to theirs. Help me evaluate competing claims, show me how they interrelate and how your version of the world is preferred over theirs. Help me write my ballot.

Show me you understand the chess match: Explain cross applications, contradictions, interrelationships, etc. Indict evidence and explain why yours is preferred. ARGUE THE INTERNAL LINKS. Kick out arguments you are losing to spend time on arguments you are winning (and know the difference). Grant arguments that help you. Be strategic.

Evaluate scenarios and explain how yours is more probable, happens first, or has a bigger impact than theirs. Explain the thesis of your critical or policy scenarios, and why they force a choice for you. If you are running a critical argument be able to clearly explain the philosophy and why this is a reason to reject your opponent's worldview. I consider this activity policy debate, so even if you are making a critical argument it is best to explain its impact as if I am a policy maker.

CX: Be nice. I'm OK with open CX, but I get annoyed when the two debaters who aren't supposed to be doing the CX are the only ones talking. Let your partner try to answer before you jump in. A solid CX can get you better speaker points and earns credibility, especially if it is used strategically to set up your upcoming arguments.

T: It is a voting issue and I like good T debates. Most of them are not good. If you plan to go for T on the negative you have to commit. Explain why your interpretation is better (abuse is not a reason unless you can show how they are actually abusing in this round). I like to hear examples of cases that meet/don't meet or examples of how the interpretation impacts limits specifically.

CP: I guess I'm a dinosaur but I believe a CP needs to be a reason to reject the topic and not just the plan (i.e. it should be non-topical and competitive). I could be convinced otherwise if argued well, but that's where I start. You also better have a solvency advocate if you want me to take the CP seriously.

Theory: If you are just reading a brief don't waste your time. If you want me to vote on theory you need to explain why the other team's abuse is a reason to reject. I probably won't vote on this unless you really commit and explain why the abuse in this round justifies voting on the theory argument.

I did PF for three years, becoming a state champion my senior year. I'm currently a sophomore at Princeton.

Just some general rules

Don't be mean. There's a difference between being aggressive in cross-fire and being mean, don't be mean.

Don't lie or misconstrue your evidence. I'll probably read evidence if you ask me to, and if I feel like you're stretching something then I'll probably call for the card at the end of the round.

About cross-fire: I generally don't flow cross-fire, but if something spicy is mentioned I'll jot it down. If you're witty you'll get some speaker points, but there's a big difference between being witty and being mean. Mean bad, Witty good.

Truth over Tech any day of the week, especially in PF. Something that will really help in clarifying how you win in that regard is by weighing your arguments in the context of magnitude, probability, and time-frame. I loooove impact calculus, really gets me up in the morning. That being said, don't just tell me that your argument is more probable, rather tell me why it is more probable.

I think PF is at its best whenever it is focused. Don't bring up some argument that has been ignored the whole round back up again in final focus. If it really is an important point then bring it up continuously in your speeches.

There's a lot of value in telling me why your evidence is better than your opponents, especially whenever they say opposite things. Also if you have a DOPE piece of evidence tell me why its a goldmine.

Overall I think debate is a fun time where we should learn a lot from. If I walk out of a round and don't learn anything, then there's a problem. If you can provide some unique analysis that provides an impact that makes me really care about the topic, then you've done a fantastic job.