TL;DR: Just look at the bolded stuff in the Flow Section if you don't want to read everything.

Background: I debated 4 four years in high school in Public Forum Debate (2016-2020). I dabbled in Extemp.

Lay Stuff:

Don’t be a jerk, otherwise I'm going to give you low speaks and a low point win if you happen to win by flow. If you are any type of -ist in round or has an argument that is- you are dropped. Be inclusive and kind

Speed = fine, but I will say “clear” and stop flowing if too fast.

Speaks: high avg speaks if you do everything right- 28. Ill drop speaks if you are not civil, have an abusive argument/fw. If u make me laugh/snicker +.5 speaks. Also if you do key voters right +.5 speaks.

Clipped or Falsified Evidence = drop, be ethical, stop clipping

Time yourselves and hold each other and your opponents accountable.

CX: it’s for you guys to clarify things/poke holes (it's ok to use it to clarify, don't feel bad). I may listen I may not, I'm still not gonna flow it either way. Whatever you or your opponent says that is important in CX better be brought up in speech otherwise it doesn’t count. Don’t be abusive with follow up questions.

Flow stuff:

I really don't care for Rhetoric heavy debate, just get to the point. I want clash and clear warranting.

I expect 2nd rebuttal to respond to the first rebuttal responses. (The fact that some people don't do this is weird to me).

SIGNPOST WHEREVER YOU GO, it’s a basic skill every debater needs to do.

In general I prefer the Quality > Quantity of responses. Please Don't Card Bomb Me.

Don’t flow through red ink, I will likely catch you and what you say won’t be counted in round. Additionally I have a pet peeve of saying “flow through contention 1” or "flow through smith 19" and then moving on, u better explain to me exactly how your contention/warrant/card actually flows through and what the argument/content is.

I like Key Voters but if you don’t know how to do them I’m fine with down the flow as long as u signpost and condense/collapse well. In Summary since it’s now 3 minutes, I want some weighing analysis at the end, but there should be more weighing in FF.

In your final speeches (esp Summary): Extend your warrants otherwise I am not giving you access to your impacts. If something is brought up in FF that isn't in Summary, it doesn't count- don't flow through red ink, and be consistent with your partner.

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING GOOD WEIGH IN YOUR FINAL SPEECHES. If you don’t weigh you essentially leave it up to my opinion on what I value the most. If you guys can use and talk about multiple weighing mechanisms like the probability, scope, time-frame, magnitude of your impacts in relation to each other, and which mechanism should be preferred over the other- you'll catch my interest. Alongside any logical fallacy names like; “slippery slope”, and “straw man”.

Also you can definitely talk about cards and methodology in your speeches. Just don't let evidence debate be all that the debate boils down to. I may ask for and read for critical cards after the debate too, regardless of evidence debate.

Ill probably disclose at the end if you made the debate clean and easy (and if I am allowed to) but if not I detail the ballot.

Framework/Nontraditional stuff:

Don’t ever give me a “framework is utilitarianism” in case because that is inherently what Public Forum debate is (you can use it as a response in rebuttal and so on). This also goes for "Cost Benefit Analysis" if it is in the resolution. That being said I welcome non traditional frameworks and interpretations of the resolutions that have a rational basis that you can explain well and have cards to back up. I really enjoy and love fw debates. Also shouldn't be an abusive fw.

Please respond to your opponents framework if they have one, cuz that could ultimately cost you the round.

I'd rather not judge a K/theory/plans in PF please (don't really know about them in depth anyway). Although I would rather not judge it, I am open to hearing these Kritiks/Theory but you will need to be able to explain VERY clearly and how it works in round not only to me but your opponents, because if they don't know what you are doing it kind of ends up being abusive cuz they can't or don't know how to respond to them. If you end up using progressive debate techniques in PF I hope it is supplemental to traditional debate cuz as I said above I have a very loose understanding of this stuff and would likely be a time waste.

Plans are not allowed in PF (NSDA Rule). You can have a advocacy (NOT A PLAN- difference is in a plan you specify how you are going through with it, advocacy is just a general recommendation) as long as u can explain how it makes sense under the resolution in round (not after when u are trying to persuade me). Also make sure its not overly abusive to your opponents and puts them in a corner where they can't get out, that ties into being a jerk.

Feel free to ask me questions about any of this or something not here.

UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

Roadmaps and signposting are important to help me organize your argumentation and not having them will only hurt my ability to follow your points.

I despise spreading, and you can expect me to take points off if you spread all of your arguments. If I cannot understand what you're saying, I will not flow your arguments. Branching off of this, If a contention has 7 subpoints, I'll miss two or three in the middle. Focus on delivering quality arguments and analysis over simple quantity.

Eye contact and actual persuasion are critical to speaker points and winning the debate. If you never look up from your notes or computer, then to me you're no better a public speaker than a audiobook. Furthermore, evidence is not an argument in it of itself. Evidence should SUPPORT an argument. Don't just read me a statistic and expect me to make links for you. Tell me about why the evidence matters and the impact it has on the round.

To me, rebuttal is where debates are won or lost. If you can refute an opponents argument itself (rather than just clashing statistics) that will earn you major points. Crossfires should be used to tear down the logic of an opponents argument or undermine their evidence/examples. Don't just use CX as a opportunity to re-explain your own case in the form of questions.

Finally, attacking evidence is necessary but not sufficient to win an argument. Focus on the core of the argument itself, rather than trying to peel it apart card by card. It is not only stronger from a rhetorical point of view, but easier to flow.

Civility during your rounds is very important. Rudeness and disrespecting your opponent is the easiest way to lose points. Also, don't lie about evidence. I don't want to have to request your cards, but I will if I feel there has been any form of manipulation or other dishonesty.

Any post-round questions can be directed to my email: kahnwiley@gmail.com

CX:

My background: the last time I debated (academically) was at the college level in parliamentary debate about ten years ago. I was very competitive, regionally, in policy debate in high school.

My general preferences/skills: I can flow fast enough to keep up with you. I will provide feedback if I can't understand you; this isn't meant to be disruptive but to ensure that I actually catch everything you're saying. I am probably not familiar with topic-specific arguments. I have worked in the legal field and politics, however, so I probably know a little more about how the justice system works than your average individual. Academically, I have a background in political theory, analytical and continental philosophy, and psychology (specifically cognitive biases). Go nuts about the K's; I get down with the social/critical theory and I'd love to learn some new stuff (explained well) from y'all. Procedurals are cool, too. I'll totally pull the trigger on some cheap shot independent voter if it is extended through the debate and articulated well in the rebuttals.

Oh, I also tend to like wacky arguments. Not bad arguments. But I loved going for arguments like de-dev and wipeout when I was debating. Don't take that as carte blanche to go completely off the rails, but it's nice to have a little levity in this event, and not hear the same generic econ or politics disad in every single round.

I'm willing to disclose my decision as long as it conforms to the rules of the tournament and I'm willing to provide extended verbal feedback to competitors if so desired, whether immediately following the round or later on. Some judges don't like this, but I would prefer you ask me questions before the round: "how do you like this type of argument," "what's your threshhold for voting on a procedural," etc. This is more as a favor to you because I can't possibly cover every contingency in this paradigm.

Open CX is fine (as long as it conforms to the rules of the tournament).

I'm tabula rasa but I will default policymaker in the absence of framework analysis.

Impact analysis/comparison is clutch. Timeframe, probability, magnitude, yo!

On speeding through analytics/procedurals: in debates where the teams are speeding through a lot of analytical arguments, I find it helpful to get a little pen (keyboard?) time to both flow and comprehend these arguments. If it just one one-sentence argument after another, I sometimes have difficulty adjusting to the sheer volume of arguments being made. I may flow them all but I do not think I will be able to do adequate analysis of these arguments if you do not provide sufficient explanation of each point. For instance, if you want me to flow your procedural voters, just rattling off that something "is a voter for fairness, education and ground" might be detrimental, if there aren't individual explanations as to why fairness is a voter, education is a voter, ground is a voter. Obviously if time is tight in the 1AR you will have to make a strategic choice how to allocate your time, but I don't think it will be beneficial to you if the coverage is superficial and the import on an individual argument is lost in the shuffle.

Addendum about K affs: I have noticed quite the disparity between the circuit-style "K Affs" (usually performative) that have proliferated, vs. the traditional style of policy debate that is still practiced at the other 95% of tournaments. I am okay with kritiks and critical literature, but I have very little tolerance for these cases that are essentially being formatted in this manner for strategic (rather than ethical or educational) purposes. Do not expect me to clap my hands with glee because you read a poem during the 1AC, had a moment of silence, didn't read a plan, etc. I think it's squirrelly and exclusionary. I understand the strategy: it does really limit the options the neg has. But that also means that I, as the judge, have to hear a bunch of rounds where the 1AC is performative, and the neg runs T. Does this mean you shouldn't run a K aff? Not necessarily. . . But it will probably elicit a deep sigh from me the moment you read a poem instead of a plan. I will definitely be leaning neg on presumption when their strategic options are reduced in this (or any similar) manner.

On speaker points: I attempt to assign points according to a rough bell curve distribution between 25-30 (or whatever the range is for your tournament). If you understand how statistical distributions work, you know this means you will not get a thirty from me. If you receive anything above 29, you should feel very good about your performance.

Also. . . have fun?

LD:

I competed in LD briefly in high school. My primary background is in policy debate, so I'll be flowing. Obviously, speed is fine, but make sure the other judges are cool with it, too.

Questions? Feel free to ask before the round.

Be excellent to each other.

PF:

I did this the first year they tried it out as "Ted Turner Debate" (sigh). It's definitely improved since then. I'm a policy judge so don't worry about going over my head. PF is very much about style and presentation, so I'm going to be placing a lot more emphasis on speaking skills, tone, nonverbals, etc. I view it as kind of a speech/debate hybrid: less analytical than policy but slightly deeper than StuCo. Not to undermine the value of argumentation (you will probably lose if your arguments suck), but I find that these PF topics are often politically loaded so as to be heavily biased toward one side or the other. I usually am aware of this and will not vote against you simply because you got stuck arguing for something that I absolutely morally abhor. Jokes are good. Politeness is good. Actually knowing what you're talking about is best. Above all, have fun!

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have before the round starts.

WSD:

I judged this for the first time at nats in 2021 and rather enjoyed it. My related background: I competed in policy, LD, PF, extemp, humor and student congress in high school; in college, I was a member of the student government and competed in parliamentary debate (not British Parliamentary, which is the norm now, and much closer in format to WSD). At this point I have judged a far greater number of rounds than those in which I ever competed.

I will be "flowing" your arguments in a loose way but I will pay a lot of attention to delivery and presentation; I care less about a neat flow than getting a cohesive "story" from both sides. Answering arguments is important, but providing a solid case and returning to that original structure throughout your speeches is going to make your team look stronger overall.

Parli:

I debated in parli briefly in college. My paradigm for parli is roughly the same as my CX paradigm except you won't be reading cards to support your positions. Badgering your opponents with POI's is kinda a jerk move, but IMO, POI usage is a big part of the strategy of this event; honestly, it will reflect more poorly on the team being badgered if they do nothing to shut it down and allow their time to be monopolized by incessant interruptions from a more dominant team.

Email: mccsong8@gmail.com Updated 3/9/24

About Me

I did LD and Extemp 2014-18, coached LD 18-22, judged occasionally since then.

3/9 edit: I haven’t judged in a while, so I’m not as quick with jargon and speed. I’ll attempt to update the rest but if I miss anything, please ask before round.

LD: I still think LD is supposed to be more philosophical/morals based, but I also enjoy policy, theory, and K debates. I don’t feel as though I judge performance rounds very well. I also expect good evidence, and will include the whole card and not just the highlighted parts as part of your evidence. I expect engagement on the actual merits of arguments. Debate is a game but at all ends of it are real people, so be kind.

Oh, also, if you say anything clearly racist/homophobic/sexist/etc., I will likely vote you down on the spot and give 0 speaks. That doesn't have any place in the educational space of speech and debate. Outside of being xenophobic, hateful, or spouting hate speech, say whatever you want, I guess.

If you have any further questions, feel free to reach me atmccsong8@gmail.com

MC

Hi,

Please be aware that this is my first tournament judging. Please speak slowly and enunciate slowly (no spreading). Please "sign post" your arguments where possible. Please don't make progressive arguments since I won't be able to understand and hence not give them due credit. Please time your self and each other. Good luck!

I expect all competitors to be respectful, know the rules of their format, and follow the needed order of the debate. I appreciate if people are clear with their arguments and enunciate their words. I appreciate concise, informed debate and will not stand for any disrespect. I am looking forward to judging all of you.

Hello :)

I’m Faizaan Dossani. He/Him. Add me to the email chain: faizaan.dossani@gmail.com

Westlake (TX) 2017-2021, I also coached here for the 2021-2022 season.

General/Introductions

I don't really have any disposition to any particular style of debate and will simply vote for whichever argument is winning the highest layer of the flow. I also have a low tolerance of being disrespectful to your opponents; just be nice please.

I competed in LD on the local and nat circuit in which I cleared at TFA and a sizable chunk of nat circuit tourneys. I also taught at ODI for its past two sessions. I think debate is a game with educational value and freedom. This basically means that I am tech>truth, but still care about maintaining the pedagogical value and accessibility that debate should have. I try to do everything possible to not intervene in my decisions, so navigate my ballot for me.

Kritiks + K Affs

I primarily read these arguments, as my go-to strat junior and senior year was 1-off K. I mainly read Settler Colonialism, Baudrillard, Wynter, Anthro, Berardi, Derrida, cap stuff, and Islamophobia lit but am extremely familiar with a lot of k lit (disability lit, most black scholars, and most identity politics). I have an extremely basic understanding of high theory (Deleuze, Nietzsche, etc.), but as long as you do the proper explanation, I can probably evaluate any literature you throw at me.

• Overviews are appreciated but good line by line is usually more compelling for my ballot
• I think reading pess args when you don't identify with that certain group is bad.
• Give trigger warnings. If you forget and remember midway through the speech, pause your timer and just ask everyone; safety is the most important.

LARP

I read/cut many larp positions and it was also the style of debate I hit the most, so I'm pretty comfortable evaluating these debates. I haven't done much research into the topic literature so please explain your positions to me very clearly!

• DO WEIGHING or I won't know which impacts you want me to evaluate first which means I have to intervene :(
• Evidence comparison is a must have in competing claims over the same argument
• I think reading like 6+ off and then just going for the one the aff had like 10 seconds to respond is a lazy strat, but I guess I will vote off it

Tricks

I have a love/hate relationship with tricks. I don’t mind an underview with some spikes scattered in, but I don’t understand most of the paradoxes. (Spark, GCB, Zenos, etc.) I think a lot of the tricks are stupid in nature, but I guess I will evaluate them.

• Don't be sketchy!
• Make sure that all of your tricks are on the doc. Even if you say "im extempting x" in the speech you still should send a doc of whatever analytics you read. In tricks debates, I heavily rely on the doc compared to other debates.

T + Theory

Usually wasn’t an off in my strats, but I think good theory debate can be fun. Bad theory debate means that you are just regurgitating the shell and not actually explaining how I should evaluate the abuse story on a framing level.

• I won't default any paradigm issues; please just make the implications yourself
• The more frivolous the violation, the more likely I will lower the threshold for response
• I think some form of disclosure is probably a good idea, but I also think that can be up for debate

Phil/FW

I barely read any complex framing other than Mouffe. However, I have judged a lot of phil debates so I feel that I can probably handle whatever you read as long as it is properly explained.

- Explain your complex buzzwords to me, examples will boost speaks

- I think framing hijacks/proving why your framework precludes their moral theory can be extremely compelling in these debates

Traditional Debate

I never really partook in any traditional style of debate (VC or definitional stuff) but I did debate traditional debaters a lot and feel that I can confidently evaluate these debates.

• I think the extra attention to ethos is nice in these debates, but at the end of the day I will still evaluate your arguments on a technical level first
• I'd rather you spend more of your time focusing on the substance of the debate instead of value/VC. I often find that most values are kinda the same thing but just worded differently, which makes evaluating weighing between different values kinda futile.

PF Paradigm

I never actually competed in PF but going to Westlake allowed me to drill/prep with a lot of our PFrs so I have been heavily exposed to the argumentation style and evolving nature of PF. The people that I have worked with that I have pretty similar takes on debate are Cale McCrary, Zain Syed, Jawad Bataneih, Jason Luo, and Cherie Wang.

• You can debate as tech or lay as you want in front of me. Doing LD broadened the styles of debate I partook in, so I can handle whatever progressive arguments you throw at me. Speed is fine as well, but be clear.
• I will give both teams plus 0.2 in speaks if yall just flash cases before constructive, we all know your calling for evidence just to steal prep which wastes everyones' time

Speaks + Misc.

I give speaks based off efficiency, argument quality, and just your general attitude in round. I try to be as consistent as possible with speaks, so you will most likely get between a 28-29.6 unless you do something exceedingly bad/good.

• Please record your speeches, especially if you have a history of laggy wifi
• Throwing in jokes during your speeches is always a plus
• For evidence ethics, I'd rather you form the argument into some type of theory shell instead of staking the round and allowing me to decide, but I will try to default on whatever rules the tournament is following

I know debate can be stressful and toxic; just do your best and have fun cause at the end of the day we are just some losers yelling at each other on NSDA campus :)

Experience/about me:

I competed in HS PF my senior year and USX for two years before that. I made top 48 at NSDAs in 2016. I coached HS and MS debate for a year, and this is my 7th year judging LD. I typically have judged local tournaments in Ohio, so not all of my judging experience is on tabroom. If I had to guess, I've judged well over 100 rounds. I competed in collegiate forensics all four years of undergraduate, and I'm now coaching high school ethics bowl, so I've never really left the forensic community. I'm also currently a philosophy PhD candidate at the University of Pennsylvania, so if you have questions about phil or want suggestions, I'm happy to help. My research is in political philosophy, so I'm familiar with the standard FWs.

Preferences:

I'm a traditional judge, and I can handle a bit of speed, but absolutely no spreading or anything approaching spreading (if spreading is 100% speed and normal talking is 0%, I'm probably good with max, 60-70% if it's crystal clear). I'm pretty unfamiliar with circuit debate, so I haven't seen Ks/Theory/etc. to know what my preferences there are. I'm open to anything that's clearly explained and warranted.

I prefer when debaters are able to navigate me through the forest. What I mean by that is: a lot happens in an hour long debate; please help guide me through the end. Tell me how to weigh different impacts, tell me what's important, tell me big picture things, tell me how things are/aren't related, etc. Help me see the forest through the trees (I love that line so much, I have a tattoo to remind me of it).

I'm also really excited when debaters engage with the philosophy. Sometimes this just can't happen, e.g. both competitors use the same fw, but I like when I have to think and pay attention to the arguments.

Make judging as easy as possible for me. This is especially true for key voting issues. Use them to tell me how to vote and why. It's better if I don't intervene, and the best way for me not to intervene is for you to give me a way to vote.

LD uses philosophy. I'm a philosophy phd student. If you get the phil wrong, I will tell you on the ballot, but unless your opponent points it out, I will not use that against you (because philosophy is hard, badly written, and often open to interpretation).

Accessibility is the most important thing for me. If you make a round unsafe for me or your opponent, I will give you the loss. Just be nice to me and your opponents, and you don't need to worry. People come to this activity with a broad range of backgrounds, so unnecessary jargon/technical terms is a knock against you. If you don't understand something your opponent says, ASK!!! Example: It is way better to ask what deontology means if you don't know than trying to fake it or use context clues (this actually happened in a round that I judged)

Please use correct pronouns for everyone, and give TW/CW if necessary. If you're not sure if something deserves a CW, give one anyway. Better to be safe than sorry. Side note, I will always use "they" on the ballot.

Feel free to reach out via email for questions about the round or for philosophy recommendations, and I will always give some solid anarchist philosopher recs: slfritz@sas.upenn.edu

I have been judging and coaching Lincoln-Douglas debate for 5 years. Based on what I’ve learned and my interpretation of the unique aspects of Lincoln-Douglas debate, the following describes my judging paradigm.

Lincoln-Douglas DSebate debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to a world “as it should be.” Thus, the debater that proves persuasively that their case would advance the world to a point that is closer to what it should be best will likely win the round. Here are some specific points that I believe are important to help persuade me:

1. Analysis – The debater will clearly present a logical argument and also effectively refute the opponent’s case. A better case will also leave me with fewer unanswered questions about the case and the connections between its evidence and argument. A better case will also demonstrate clearly the debater's thoughtfulness in preparing a well-rounded case capable of sustaining itself in the face of a persistent inquisition about its evidence-based arguments and its ability to persuade me to believe that their case renders the world a better place than the alternative being presented in the round.
2. Proof – There should be a sufficient quantity of high-quality evidence to support the case. More evidence is not always better. Connections between contentions and values should be explicit and clear.
3. Organization - There should be a logical and orderly presentation throughout the round.
4. Refutation/ Clash – The better debater will demonstrate the ability to critically analyze the opponent’s arguments and develop clear and logical responses with the effective use of evidence and examples.
5. Delivery – The speech must be understandable, interesting, and persuasive. An LD debater should demonstrate effective oral communication skills including effective reading; clear and understandable delivery; persuasive vocal argumentation; presence; and eye contact. “Spreading” during rounds is discouraged for this reason – instead of overwhelming your opponent with speed that renders you unintelligible, a superior ability to identify and present the best arguments concisely is a much better representation of analytical acumen and the intent of LD debate.

The above criteria apply to progressive debaters as well. For any debaters who wish to advance a progressive case: please understand that I will likely find it difficult to understand and judge your progressive case as effectively as a more experienced judge. Do not interpret my difficulty in judging a progressive case on its merits as a sign of disrespect or disinterest. Conversely, I am typically quite fascinated by such cases. However, my interest in and respect for well-developed progressive cases does not render my ability to judge them reasonably or adequately any more likely. For any progressive cases, please note, therefore, that while I will do my best to judge your case, there is likely to be much of it that I struggle to integrate into my evaluation, try as I might.

Good luck to all competitors. I look forward to observing, critiquing, and judging your rounds.

Best,

JH

Experience: Former LD competitor and have coached LD, PF, & Congressional Debate and judged LD, PF, Congress, & Policy for the past 7 years.

Speed is not a factor in my decision. Be wary that online live rounds may lead to glitches in audio, so if the faster you speak, the more information is lost during the time period of the audio glitch. I ask that you slow down slightly when reading taglines and oral citations.

Empirical claims require empirical evidence. I prefer a quality over quantity in terms of arguments. You must provide an oral citation (author(s) last name(s) and publication year; pg 29 of 2019-2020 High School Unified Events manual). I will assume that the evidence was not given if no citation is present. I take rigorous notes while judging.

During crossfires, I ask that you be respectful. Being assertive is helpful, but be mindful of your use of it: Are you getting the answers that you are looking for or are you merely cutting off your opponent as a display of power?

Voting issues are preferred. I will not downvote if they are not given. If voting issues are mentioned in the summary speech, please list them again in the final focus.

Feel free to ask questions to clarify anything written above or about topics not covered in this paradigm prior to the start of the round.

Anuj Jain - NYU '26 - ajdebateld@gmail.com - LD/Policy at top, Public Forum/BQ at bottom

Debate is for the debaters so it's better if I adapt to you than if you adapt to me. Do what you want but comparative weighing, framing, and warranted judge instruction about what you are ahead on and why it matters at the top of your last speech, is paramount to getting a decision you want. You should also explicitly flag ever arg you're making and what it responds to. K or Phil debaters should err on over-explaining whatever is happening especially since I am unlikely to be familiar with your literature. Hard policy v policy debates should be explicit about internal links, what makes things distinct and why the perm is impossible since I like perms a lot. I also don't know anything about the topic you are debating regardless of format so ELI5. You should respect your opponent(s) and engage in good faith (ie: disclose, send analytics, be decent in cross-ex).

Cred: 4 years high school LD (1x bid round to the TOC), 2 years College Policy (cleared at some tournaments)

Argumentative experience: Lay, Trad, Plans, Soft-left/K AFFs, Ks (Set Col, Cap), DAs, CPs, T-USFG, T, theory

I'm good for most theoretical arguments/independent voters (especially CP theory stuff), but generally dislike LD style tricks/paradoxes so just know if you go for that I probably won't vote on it since I don't understand it. Unlikely to vote on disclosure theory outright unless totally dropped but I think disclosure is good.

My decision is not a referendum on you as a person, your skills, or your career - just a reflection of who persuaded me to their side better within the context of the round.

PF/BQ specifically:

I didn't compete in these activities and have judged them minimally. You should have your evidence ready to send before the debate and send your cases if asked. Failure to do so will end in a loss. Otherwise - usually whoever weighs with warrants better wins. Also, I think first speakers should probably extend some of case in 1st Rebuttal.

Greetings, I am a senior at LHS, I've debated LD for all 4 years here. Feel free to run any argument. Focus on being clear in speech and argumentation.

As for how I judge, nothing is off-limits, as of me judging while still attending, you're novices so you can run any argument as long as you understand it.

I don't have any biases but it should be known that I was primarily a K and tricks debater, most of the arguments being in relation to my black identity. This being stated I won't stretch the victory to someone who runs a K, especially if they don't understand their argument or if they lose the interaction. Tech > truth.

Send me the doc: 22Jalbert@lexingtonma.org

I am a parent judge from a school that practices traditional debate.

I do not like excessive speed and would prefer a high quality argument over high quantity.

I prefer you time yourself so I can take notes. I will set a final timer that we can all hear, but noting it here so no one is surprised.

I would prefer less theory. Present your arguments and why they are strong in a logical and articulate manner. Please have citations available if they are requested.

Please be respectful: no racial slurs, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia etc will be tolerated.

And most important: if you are enjoying yourself, it will come across, so remember to have fun!

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

I have experience debating policy, and a little bit of experience judging LD. I prefer traditional LD debate, and can understand K's CP's and DA's, but I prefer more orthodox styles and consider arguments of values and criterion. While I can handle speed, I give much more credence to clear coherent argument that doesn't sacrifice any rhetoric for speed. I love philosophy and will give heavy consideration to philosophical argumentation or references to philosophical texts. Absolutely no sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic behavior or commentary will be allowed.

she/her. please confirm your opponent's pronouns before the start of the round

i competed in LD for McDowell high school from 2012 to 2016. my senior year i won the PA state tournament and qualified to out rounds at NSDA. i've been judging on and off since

i'll judge any style of debate, but i prefer progressive. i generally vote on the route to the ballot with the least resistance. k's are my fav, followed by theory/t. i don't judge super often so i recommend going at maybe ~75% of your max speed if spreading, and if this is the case i prefer to be provided with access to what you're reading

i'm fine with trad case structure, theory/t, k's, plans/cp's, performance, whatever. just give me some sort of weighing mechanism so that i can vote off your arguments. please do not make independent voter args

my theory/t defaults include: competing interps, drop the debater, text of the interp, fairness & education, rvi's good, theory/t before k's/substance, meta theory before theory

if you have any questions send me an email at reneelaufer@outlook.com or ask me before round

I have been a coach for about 16 years, working with students in all forms of speech and debate. As an educator, I see my role as a judge in helping you grow.

I usually inform competitors that I can handle just about anything that they wish to try in a round. I have an open mind and have seen just about everything as a coach and a judge. I don't have strong opinions on what debate should be, other than the guidelines provided by the rules for each event. I want you to explain why you should win the round based on the approach to arguing your position that you have chosen.

That being said, I do prefer certain stylistic techniques. Maintain a moderate speed when speaking. If I can't process your argument, it likely won't have much of an impact in my decision. Demonstrate camaraderie with your partner in PF and Parli and politeness toward your opponents, especially during cross. Emphasize the connections within your argument and show how your framework links to your contentions. Provide abundant examples and evidence. As you are wrapping up the round, show clear reasons to vote for your side. Please focus more on the arguments than on why your opponent violated some fundamental rule of debate.

I will not punish you through speaker points. Extremely low scores are only reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior.

Good luck in your round!

Crystal

She/Her

Add me to the email chain please: crystall1663@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Crystal. I am a 4th year high school policy debater. I am a 2N so I will be sympathetic to FW and T arguments. Besides that, I'm open to most arguments. Just try your best and be nice! Be sure to explain things during the debate for the sake of me and your opponents. If you're a novice I encourage you not to run super complicated Ks because you will trip yourself up. Overall, I will give everyone high speaks for a good and engaging debate. Some points that I will be considering when making my decisions are:

General:

Tech>Truth

In my opinion cards are not responsive— that's your job. You need to extend and apply your evidence, just reading them makes the debate stale.

Judge instruction - Tell me why you win. I can't read minds so I might interpret things differently and put together arguments in a way that disadvantages you. If you tell me why you win, then I will be able to understand how you want me to see things.

If you’re pressed for time here’s a TLDR: I am pretty much open to all arguments, if you are running an obscure one be sure to understand it yourself and explain it clearly. I like debates with a ton of clash so if you manage that in a debate your speaker points will be pretty high. Have some sort of judge instruction in your last speeches, it helps make sure that I am not misinterpreting your situation in round. Don't be harmful to other people in your round. If it was unintentional be sure to apologize, your speaker points will decrease but I will not vote against you for accidentally saying it. If you continue to be rude on purpose I will vote against you.

Now onto the long stuff. . .

Aff:

Extending Aff solvency - I think the Aff sometimes gets caught up in the Neg's arguments and forgets to extend their own solvency. Without a good reason why your case solves there is no reason for me to vote Aff. Even if you prove that the Neg doesn't have any solvency either, that just means I buy the squo is better than the world of the aff..

Answering T/FW - If your opponent makes these arguments, answer them because it could cost you the debate.

K Affs - Just know how to run a K well. Don't go for a K you have no practice in and don't understand. Generally I am open to K offs as long as the lit is explained well.

1ar - You can read cards in the 1ar. But I strongly recommend you limit it to one or two. It is better to extend cards you already read or respond to your opponents.

Neg:

Extend Case - Don't forget to answer case. Just because you have other arguments don't drop case. I will vote Aff if they have extended case and proven that they solve. If the Aff solves better than the Neg there is no reason for me to vote Neg.

New 1ar arguments - If you tell me not to consider new arguments in the 1ar I will listen to you. But that’s up to you.

Other general stuff is just being nice during CX and speeches. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, trans phobic and ableist. I'm not a fan of death good. Talk clearly and loudly but don't interrupt others. Be sure to time yourself and don't try to steal prep. Good luck and have fun!

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien-st. lucy's: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ harker: fall 2024 - present

--

Recently rewritten paradigm, probably best to give it a quick skim!

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am good for policy teams that do topic research and aim to not go for process cp backfiles every 2nr. I am also good for k teams that do topic research and answer the aff and go for 2nr arguments that are substantive (not "role of the ballot"). I am bad for ld teams that go for ld-specific things ("tricks"), but am good for ld teams that are well-researched and read policy or k arguments.

More LD-specific notes/thoughts at bottom of paradigm.

--

Topic Knowledge:

I don't teach at a policy camp in the summer. I am involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research, and have vaguely kept up with the camp evidence updates. Most of my early-season topic knowledge is a result of hearing Chris yap at me about how he has a law degree in this field. So, consider my topic knowledge to be a less-smart version of Chris. Will update this section of the paradigm if/when that changes. Independent of this, I am generally a bad judge for arguments that rely on understanding of or alignment with community-developed norms -- I don't form my topicality opinions in July and then become immovable on them for the remainder of the season.

--

email chains:

ld email chains: nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

please include an adult (your coach, chaperone, or even parent) on the email chain if you are emailing me directly -- just a good safety norm to not have direct communications between minors & adults that don't know them!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am aggressively pro-disclosure. Disclosure is one of the elements of debate that is most important for small-school and novice accessibility. If you do not disclose, I will assume that you prefer the exclusionary system where only big schools have access, and I will punish your speaker points accordingly. I am so aggressive about enforcing disclosure with all teams (big and small school) because I believe in the mission of the open evidence project and other similar open source disclosure practices. tldr disclose or lose!

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

--

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

--

Planless affs:

I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.

You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

--

T/framework vs planless affs:

In a 100% evenly debated round, I am likely better for the neg than the aff. However, approximately none of these debates are evenly debated. Either team/side can win my ballot by doing the better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:

The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good in this instance or in general. I have historically voted against aff teams that made arguments along the lines of "vote for me or I'll quit debate."

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

--

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

--

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

--

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

--

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about theory other than that some amount of condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

No judge kick. Make a choice!

--

LD-specific section:

-you might think of cx judges in ld as people who despise judging ld and despise you for doing ld. i try to not let this be true about me. all of my issues with ld can be grouped into two general categories: 1) speech times/structure (not your fault, won't penalize you for it), and 2) the tendency to read unwarranted nonsense, such as "tricks," shoes theory, etc (you can avoid reading these args very easily and make me very happy)

-i am a horrid judge for tricks and frivolous theory. please just go for another argument!

-i am okay for phil. i don't have any personal opposition to philosophy-based arguments, i just don't coach/judge these arguments often, so i will need more explanation/hand-holding. many phil debates recently have involved tricks, which has soured me on this argumentative style, but i would be happy to judge a straight-up phil debate:)

-you don't get 1ar add-ons -- there is no 2ac in ld

-i teach at ld camp every summer, so assume i have some idea of community norms, but don't assume i am following trends super closely

--

Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational

-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc

-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument

-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such

-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc

-a debater's moral character is determined by whether they read policy or k arguments

-evidence ethics should be a case neg, as opposed to an opportunity for reasonable preround discussion and an opportunity to correct mistakes

-"tricks"

-debaters get to make arguments about how many speaker points they should get

-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist

-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar

-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter

--

Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:

-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic

-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies

-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate

-"role of the ballot"

-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate

-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr

-the affirmative may not read a plan because of "bare plurals"

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

La Salle College HS:
Policy Debater 2004-2007
Head Coach of Policy Debate, 2012-2016
Head Coach of Speech and Debate, 2016-2023.

As of September 2023, I am no longer actively involved in coaching, but will still judge from time to time.

I have judged debate (mostly policy, but also LD/PF) since 2008. I no longer judge with regularity and while I am fine with speed, etc. I am no longer a judge who does any topic research.

General Debate Thoughts

Policy--------------X------------------------------K
Tech-----------------------------X----------------Truth
Read no cards------------------X-----------------Read all cards
Condo good----X--------------------------Condo bad
States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad
Politics DA is a thing------------X-----------------Politics DA not a thing
Always VTL-X--------------------------------------Sometimes NVTL
UQ matters most--------------------------X------Link matters most
Fairness is a thing----X---------------------------Fairness isn’t an impact
Try or die-------------------------------X----------No risk
Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard
Clarity-X--------------------------------------------I’ll just read the docs
Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground
Presumption------X--------------------------------Never votes on presumption
Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev
"Insert this re-highlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

• You should do what you do best and do it well – I think I am a good judge in that I will allow the arguments to develop themselves, and take the responsibility of the judge being a educator seriously.
• I will not vote on any argument that makes me uncomfortable as an educator. You should ask yourself, if my teachers/administrators were observing, would I make this same argument?
• Speed is fine, but clarity is important. Most debaters could slow down, get more arguments out, and increase judges comprehension.
• Tech>truth; however, when you have tech and truth on your side, it’s hard to lose.

tl;dr: I coach speech primarily and when needed, I judge debate; I don't mind speed and tech, but I should be able to follow the argument without reading along. Evidence should relate clearly to your argument and resolution. Most importantly, HAVE FUN!

You can share cases with me, please go ahead. I may not read the case along with you as you present it, but will use it as a reference.

I am also inviting you and your coach (please, obtain their permission first) to email me for anything you need. I would be happy to clarify my RFD, to answer any questions about my paradigm, or even if you feel unsafe in a round, I will do everything in my power to help you.

On to the good stuff:

________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Clash is LIFE: Don't avoid clashing. Get in there and don't be afraid of responding to your opponent's argument. It is what makes this DEBATE, otherwise, it's dueling Oratories.

2. What is a good piece of evidence? One that is clear. "I have a card" is not clear, nor is it persuasive. Your evidence should connect your arguments to a clear purpose in the round. "Why are you telling me this info" should never be a thought I have. Just saying there is a link does not mean there is one. Prove it with your evidence!

3. Speed: I NEED TO HEAR THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH! I am not anti-speed, but speed for speed's sake is as if the UPS guy drives by my house at 90 mph and throws the package at my head. I'm mad, the package is broken, and UPS just lost a fan. Speed for argument depth is great, but I recommend signaling or slowing down to make the tags and theories clear so I can write them down. I am not a silent judge. I will say something in between speeches if I cannot understand you, but if I cannot write down your argument in the flow, then guess what? The other person wins because I could hear them. I would hate to see a good argument die on the lips of a speed demon.

4. Traditional or Progressive? I'll be honest, I have leaned towards more traditional when it comes to LD in the past, but the past few years I have become more inclined to some fun progressive debates. I do believe that LD at its core is a value debate. If you are going to run a progressive case, be sure it still fits the idea of a value debate on THIS resolution, not the one you wish NSDA voted for, but THIS resolution.

5. To K or Not to K? Why not? Challenge the system, make the debate interesting and captivating, BUT also remember what I said in number 4. This is a value debate and should ultimately be about the resolution at hand. If you want to run a K about how your opponent's shoes are unlaced; therefore, they are unprofessional, I really think you could do better.

6. Finally, be kind. The worse thing in a round is when a bully decides their opponent is inferior. I am immediately turned off and while it will not affect what I vote on, it will affect how much attention I can give you.

Please speak clearly in order for me to hear all of your points, ideas, arguments, creations, and renderings. Watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. There is no need for speed reading any speech. You know your time limitations, and you’ve practiced within them.

If you’re debating, be professional, courteous, and prepared. Your analysis of evidence and application to an argument is more important to me than how much evidence you present during the round. Aggressive is fine, but being rude or dismissive is not…that will lose me every time.

These events are allowing you to hone skills that can take you far in your scholastic and professional pursuits, but without the worry of a grade or a paycheck. Enjoy!!

Style - prefer traditional, but progressive is fine if run well.

Framework - I like value and criterion clash. I evaluate winner of framework first, then use the winning framework to evaluate impacts.

Impacts - Every argument should be clearly impacted. I heavily weigh imminent and highly likely impacts over potential hypothetical slippery slope scenarios. I ask that you provide an impact analysis in your final speech. Show me clearly where your impacts outweigh.

Topicality - I rarely vote for topicality unless opponent is blatantly off-topic.

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.

Put me on the chain: jppiazza3@gmail.com

Topicality

I like good T debates, but they can get messy pretty easily, so clean line by line here is important. Competing interps are probably good. I am most persuaded by predictable limits in that it shapes prep and probably is the best internal link to clash filled debates and education.

Counterplans

CPs specific to the aff are always preferred. Condo is probably good, but if there is in round abuse story, theory can be convincing. Otherwise, I'm fine with cheating process counterplans, but they should probably have solvency advocates/a lit base.

Disads

Read them! I love politics disads, but anything case specific is probably better. I think each part of the disad can be reduced to zero percent. Smart analytics can beat cards. Do impact calc.

Kritiks

I'm familiar with most of the basic Ks (cap, security, fem...). I'm fine with high theory stuff, as long as you make it clear what you are critiquing and the impact to that. Weighing the aff is probably good, so I err aff on framework, but I'll try to stay as unbiased as possible. Good/specific link analysis is a must ! I will defualt to plan focus.

Planless Affirmatives

If you don't read a plan, make your method or advocacy clear in how it functions and what a world post aff looks like. You can weigh the aff against framework. I will be more persuaded to vote for you if the aff is in the direction of the topic, in the case of immigration you advocate less restrictions on immigration, however if you go the other way that's fine as well.

I am a parent judge. I am not well-versed in most types of progressive LD i.e. Theory, Kritiks, and Plans. Please do not spread, I want to fully comprehend arguments in the round. I appreciate well explained arguments with lots of concrete evidence.

Debate the resolution, not something you bought from a college student or topic you find enlightening-the resolutions are chose, voted on, for a reason.

So with that in mind, life is simple, right? Your value should simply win out and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since you slowed doen so I can actually hear them. Yes, I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it!

My strength is as a speech judge, so I prefer debate rounds where strong communication is utilized. I typically go into my first round not knowing background on the topic so I can be prepared to be convinced. All other things being equal, I am likely to vote on impacts. Don't expect to win me over by niggling about definitions. I value: roadmaps, clarity, evidence, and respectful argumentation. Dislikes: spreading, gish galloping (I admit I had to look that one up, I just knew I wasn't going to like it. Yup. Don't do that).

Hey hey I'm Shannon! I competed in Pittsburgh for 3 years in high school in a traditional circuit and have been coaching at Fordham Prep since 2020. I understand most progressive stuff, but if you plan on running high level T's or insane RVI's with wacky interps thought my coffee order is an iced oat vanilla latte and I will need it to dissect what you are saying thank you.

Big believer that debate is a game, I just don't want to have to be the one to determine the rules of the game. Think how the rules of Uno change based on who you're playing with, I don't want to have to decide the rules of the round, every round.

please put me on the email chain, esp if you're spreading: scrodgers22@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Tanisha Saxena (she/her) and I'm a 4th-year 2N varsity policy debater and a senior at Lexington High School.

Add me on the email chain: tanisha.saxena@gmail.com

(If you are really pressed for time, read the bold parts)

General:

- I'm okay with any reasonable argument (nothing oppressive, hurtful, etc.)

- My evaluation is based solely on what is said in the round, I will believe any claim (even ones that seem incorrect) unless someone says otherwise, I don't impose my own knowledge into the round decision

- Speaker points are based on how well you formulate arguments, and how courteous you are in round

- Tech issues are bound to happen in the virtual world. I won’t dock your speaks or prep for it unless the tournament forces me to

Preferences:

- Please be clear about your arguments, I will follow along with evidence but if you aren't clear when formulating the meaning and link chain of your arguments in cross ex and for extensions, I won't evaluate it as much

- If you read a K be very concise with the explanation of definitions, using buzzwords to confuse your opponent just makes for a weaker round and makes it harder for me to figure out what exactly I would be voting on

- Avoid new evidence in the 1AR, if possible. I can allow new evidence to be read but make it minimal. Try not to bring in new arguments, just strengthen your past ones.

- Write your ballot in the 2NR/2AR, make a laundry list of arguments I should vote for your team on and why. For anyone who hasn't done this before: look at all the off case and on case arguments made and say which flows you are winning on and why. Then, explain why I should value you over the other team. This usually takes like 30 secs at the end of the speech and gives you much more ethos

- Value clarity over speed when speaking. If nothing else then slow down on tags and make sure the tags explain the card well. The most important thing for a debate is that both parties actually understand what the other is saying. I won't stop you if you aren't clear but be aware that it forces me to either miss arguments or rely on what I /can/ hear in the meat of the card to figure out what you are trying to say, meaning your arguments won't be as solid in my mind

- Say which arguments you are answering in line-by-line. This makes it easier to flow and way easier for me to directly compare the clashing arguments

- If you're a novice, I get that you won't have much evidence of a lot of new arguments. In that case, I value reasonability and examples. If you are making a claim, use historical facts you know as proof or explain the possible warrants to best show that I should believe you.

Please send your speech docs to kkufda2@optonline.net

I am a lay judge, don't read anything that can't be explained with ease.

I am not comfortable with anything too fast (i.e. don't spread, keep speeches conversational). Try to keep speeches to a point where I can take notes without feeling overwhelmed.

Please give clear voters!

My primary coaching event is Congressional Debate. Don't freak out, I prefer the debate portion of the event as my high school background is in PF/LD.

For CD: I’ll always consider a balance of presentation, argumentation, and refutation. If you happen to drop the ball on one of those traits during a speech, it won’t ruin your rank on my ballot. I look for consistency across the board and most importantly: What is your speech doing for the debate? Speaking of which, pay attention to the round. If you're the third speaker in the row on the same side, your speech isn't doing anything for the debate. I definitely reward kids who will switch kids or speak before their ideal time for the sake of the debate, even if it's not the best speech in the world.

For both PF/LD: As long as you're clear/do the work for me, I have no preference for/against what you run/do in the round. I'll vote off of what you give me. With that, I really stress the latter portion of that paradigm, "I'll vote off of what you give me". I refuse to intervene on the flow, so if you're not doing the work for me, I'm gonna end up voting on the tiniest, ickiest place that I should not be voting off of. Please don't make me do that. Respect the flow and its links.

PF specific: I love theory. I don't prefer theory in PF, but again I'll vote off of where the round ends up...it'd be cool if it didn't head in that direction as a good majority of the time you can still engage in/ win the debate without it.

I don't time roadmaps, take a breather and get yourself together.

Speed isn't an issue for me in either event.

Avoid flex prep.

I prefer googledocs to email for evidence sharing (brittanystanchik@gmail.com).

Hi, my name is Joel Swirnoff, and I did policy debate at Lexington High School in MA for 3+ years. I TA'd novices at LHS (in policy debate) in my senior year. I use he/him/his pronouns, and it would be great if you could let me know what yours are, as well as your preferred name if it is different than what is listed on tabroom.

I'd like to be on the email chain- please use the email joeldebate@gmail.com

Look to the bottom of my paradigm if you need a TLDR

Overall/if you have time:

Please signpost! Tell me what flows I need and in what order for your speech, and say "and" in between cards.

tech>truth. This doesn't mean you can just make any claim however, you also need a warrant. If you have a sufficient one, I will presume it is true until the other team makes an argument against it.

Framing ends up being really important in my decision. More on this below.

Spreading is fine, but if I cannot understand you I won't be able to flow what you say. If you are more comfortable not spreading, don't! In the end, it's about what you say, not about flexing how quickly you can talk.

Clarity is super important too, for the reasons above.

Make sure you are extending warrants when you make any extensions! If you tell me "extend Swirnoff- that turns the link" I want to know HOW it does that.

Dropped arguments are concessions, but it is up to you to capitalize on them. Like I said above, I want to hear why that concession wins you the debate, rather than you telling me it wins the debate. Say things like "they dropped our Swirnoff card, this means only the plan leads to xyz impact as..."

Organization is key for both you and me. It helps everyone in the round when you tell us you are moving on to another specific part of the debate. This means saying clearly when you are moving to another flow, or even when moving to another part of a contention (for example: "now onto the uniqueness of the disadd")

Big fan of impact calc, especially when it is explained well! In closer rounds, this and framing is usually how you win.

In your last speech, tell me why you win the debate. Outline the arguments you are extending and say what my ballot should say.

Things specific to Policy Debate:

A note: please don't say you "solve for racism," you don't.

Case: Case is your child, so take care of it. If you are on the aff remember that you start with the burden of proof.

Framing: As mentioned above, framing is really important in my decision. I will default to a utilitarian framework unless told otherwise. This means for soft left affs, a lot of what will likely end up going into your win is an explanation as to why we should prefer your framing of the round. For the neg, you will have to defend your framework as well. I've found in rounds that each team can win under each framework, the explanation just needs to be there.

DAs: DAs are the epitome of tech>truth, and I love debates over DAs if the link is thought out well and is contextualized to the plan. Take me through the different parts of the debate: this will organize my flow best. Tell me what's unique, what the link is, what the internal link is, and what the impact is. One thing I've seen a lot this year is that it's really hard for me to vote on a DA when there isn't a coherent link chain. So please, please, in your 2nr flesh it all out for me and weigh it at the end.

CPs: CPs that are contextualized to the aff are super strong, but remember you always always always have to prove that it is mutually exclusive from the aff. As I mentioned before, take me through all the parts of the CP. For the aff, this means going through POSTAL.

Conditionality: If you are running one or two conditional advocacies, it probably isn't abusive (two can be argued). More than that you've got a real debate on your hands, but I can be swayed either way.

Ks: I love Ks like Cap and Security! If it is well thought out and contextualized to the aff, I'll be a big fan. Make sure you prove to me that the world of the alternative is better than the world of the aff and status quo. If your alt is "Reject the Aff" it's gonna be a much harder sell to me than real substantial change (eg communism as an alt to capitalism)

T: The neg will have to win a couple parts of the debate in order to win T, but it is definitely doable if you devote your 2nr to it. You'll first have to win that the aff is violating the resolution. This includes a good definition of the language in the resolution you think the aff is violating. From there, you have to prove that what the aff is doing is bad for debate or is abusive. I think that fairness IS a voter (sorry Kaz), but it can also be used as an internal link depending on how you see it.

Things specific to Novice LD:

Framework: I love debates about values and criteria. If you can win your framework it's much more likely that you win the round. A well thought out criterion that fits your evidence well makes the round an engaging one that will probably help your speaks.

Definitions: These can really be your friend! Later in the debate you might be having an argument over how certain actions pan out in the world of the debate, and having a strong definition (it's helpful to include why this definition is good) can decide whether I choose yours or theirs.

TOPIC KNOWLEDGE: I do not have much topic knowledge.

Random: You don't need to say "I affirm/negate resolved" or "I urge you to vote aff/neg." I'm aware, but it's not a problem if you do, I just think you should be saving time for actual substance.

FAQ:

Open CX- I don't really care

What should you call me- "judge" is fine

Open speeches- I'd prefer not, but it's not the end of the world. I'll flow it but it probably mentally holds more weight if the actual speech giver says it

Cameras on- I'd prefer it if you had your camera on, but if you're not comfortable don't feel pressured to do so.

New arguments from the 2ac on- I'd really prefer it if you didn't. Add ons are okay but it's much better if you just go with the arguments that came out of the 1ac and 1nc. Exceptions are if a team does something within the bold below.

Keeping track of prep- I'll do my best to keep track of prep but I don't always remember to. Consider this a panopticon tho- I am keeping track of your prep and speaks will go down if you steal.

Speaker points- I start out at 28.3-28.5 and will go up or down based on the debate. I consider clarity, respectfulness, arguments made, quick-wittedness, etc.

Lastly,

Be nice! Respectfulness will usually lead me to giving you higher speaks. If there is a lack of respect or if there is demoralization between opponents, it'll likely lead to lower speaks, especially when this occurs from a male team towards a female or other identifying team.

Racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, ableism, or any comments of the like will automatically dock speaker points and may lead to a loss.

Some stuff about me that I might give you plus speaks on: I'm a big fan of soccer (I'm a Man Utd fan) and really all sports, so if you want I'd be down to talk about it before the round. Also, if you can make jokes about Lex Debate or anyone in it I'll definitely appreciate it.

If you have any questions, please ask, and have fun!

TLDR:

- You can run pretty much anything you'd like in front of me

- I am very much tech>truth

- Be respectful

- framing is usually pretty important in my decision

- Do impact calc

- organize your speeches well, be clear, and say "and" in between cards

add me to the email chain- joeldebate@gmail.com

Hey, my name is Justin Thomashefsky and I'm a coach at Truman High School. I competed in LD/PF from 2008 - 2010 and Policy during the 2010-2011 season. I've been judging / coaching debate since 2012 and have circuit Policy/LD experience

General debate things

I'm good with speed.

I'm good with K's (see policy for more info)

Disclosure theory is pretty meh to me. But if you make good arguments on it I guess ill vote for it.

Please analyze warrants in your evidence! This should go without saying.

Policy

I'm much more comfortable judging a policy round but I have a decent amount of experience judging critical rounds.

T - I default to reasonability but you can definetly convince me to evaluate competing interps if you win it on the flow. You need to win in round abuse to get my ballot. This goes extra for theory

K - I'm familiar and comfortable with standard K's (security, capitalism etc.) but you may lose me with high theory literature.

Please frame my ballot in your last speech. It should be clear what I'm voting for at the end of the round.

Open cross is fine but let your partner speak!

LD

For lay rounds: Debate warrants! Don't waste time on the Value/VC (Meta-ethic/standard) debate if you're both functionally the same framework. All the framework debate should come down to is what lens I should evaluate the round through

For circuit rounds: I'm not huge on the squirrel theory stuff that's been going on in circuit LD. I'll try to evaluate whatever you put in front of me but just like with T you really need to win in round abuse to get my ballot. For the rest just read policy stuff

I prefer to see lay rounds in LD. So if you're at a tournament with me that has a weird mix of lay and circuit you might want to default to lay. BUT I'll weigh whatever arguments you put in front of me in any style.

Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to PFD or LD so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is not Policy. Debate the resolution, not something you bought from a college student or topic you find enlightening - the resolutions are chosen , voted on , for a reason.

So, with that in mind, life is simple, right? If LD your Value should simply win out and and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since you slow downed so I can actually hear them. =) Yes I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it!

If PFD, well your contentions and impact better win out too! Good cards everyone, good cards and roadmap please.

Oh wait, almost forgot, remember this is not policy ! If I am judging policy, well that is a whole other matter.

I generally favor evidence based debates with clear impacts, and much appreciate it when debaters can, at the end of the round, synthesize their voting issues and why I should go aff/neg. While I am alright with speed, I do also generally favor more traditional type Public Forum debate.

I debated LD in high school and then debated in college Policy Debate at George Mason University for two years. I have not kept up in relevant topic literature but I do keep up with general news/politics and I still care a lot for debate. Education is good!!!

For LD debate, I prefer the "old school" structure as opposed to bringing policy debate aspects into it. LD is geared towards more of the theoretical and ethical, while policy debate relies on immediate real-world application, so please keep that in mind. I can handle speed but start to dislike spreading and DO NOT clip your cards - I will put it in the RFD. Framework debates are important only if the framework is significantly different; if the competing frameworks are similar enough, I would rather see some time spent on the evidence and argument of the debaters' contentions.

For Policy debate, I can pretty much go either way whether it's policy or theory debates - though I will say that anything fairly high theory will have to be thoroughly well explained for me to grasp it. You probably shouldn't read performance arguments if you're going to speak for others' identities.....I just can't see those arguments holding water. I can handle spreading as long as you are CLEAR, especially with difficulty in these virtual debates, it's harder to hear than normal. I alert all teams that I prefer to have docs on hand so I can better follow along and flow your arguments.

General debate:

BE POLITE unless you don't care about your speaker points and don't care that I won't like you in the round. All pillars of presentation are IMPORTANT and give you real-world practice. How are you going to effectively network and work in teams if you're rude and annoying?

I value evidence very highly - I prefer for there to be discussion of relevance and date of the evidence so there is a better understanding of the context of the evidence. Considering evidence is the backbone of any argument, I find it very important for any debater to investigate the warrants and intent of evidence and how they would apply in the context of these debates.

I do care about how cross examination goes - I will want answers gathered in CX to be brought up in rebuttals, otherwise CX might as well be wasted time.

Some basic information about me

I will not tolerate arguments that are deliberately incorrect and/or offensive.

I am a traditional judge, and

1) I value a balanced approach between speed and clarity.

2) I appreciate a clear and holistic analysis of why you, not your opponent, should win the case.

3) I weigh more on the quality of arguments than on the quantity of arguments.