About me: I began coaching high school debate in the US in 2017, after coaching 2 years in Japan. In that time I have judged PF and LD debate from local novice rounds up to the final round of LD at NCFL Grand Nationals. While not a high school debater myself, I learned the value of debate in college, where I publicly debated my thesis on a potential war in Iraq (this was shortly before the 2nd war). A poll of the lay audience suggested that I "won" on my solid arguments, evidence and impacts... But the poll also showed the majority disagreed with my proposed course of action. So could that really be considered a "win"? Turns out, I had barely touched an underlying value debate that neither I nor the lay audience had recognized was needed. This is just one reason I find great value in both impact-oriented PF and value-oriented LD debate (the two styles I have most experience coaching and judging). Below are things I value when judging a round.

What I value as a judge:

Do the most important work for me. I expect to debaters to do the core work of linking claims to evidence to framework, etc., highlighting key points of clash, and weighing. If reasoning seems to be vague or missing, I will not fill it in for you. For example, don't tell me to cross-apply an argument and assume that I will know how you expect me to cross-apply it--explain how it applies and why it matters.

Speak so I can flow. Debate is a speech event. Do not expect me to read your speech. If debaters speak too fast or use too much jargon, I cannot flow it. When I make the final decision, I refer to my flow. You want your arguments to be on my flow! PF is aimed at educating the public, so make sure a layman can follow along. Even LD should be flowable for opponents and judges. There is no excuse for obfuscation.

Be clear and concise. Use signposts to refer to framework, contentions and sub-points. If a debater has to speak fast to fit all the arguments in, they likely have not distilled their speeches down to the most critical issues. Puns are fun, but my RFD is based on argumentative powers, not added "flowers".

Use Cross-Ex/Crossfire to clarify. Ask questions to reveal and clarify key issues, and answer opponents' questions in good faith. Be sure that both sides get the opportunity clarify the key issues. CX is not an opportunity for one side to extend its own points according to its own prerogative. I frown upon cases that blatantly expect Side A to use their CX time so that Side B can finish laying out a case that Side B couldn't fit within their own allotted time.

Maintain decorum. Be careful not to lose temper in the heat of the round. Do not abuse CX by excessively cutting off or talking over the opposing team. Avoid gestures and comments that would be considered offensive in an academic or professional setting. I may down-vote teams that break these rules.

Don't linger on rule violations. I do appreciate teams letting me know when they think an opponent has violated the rules, but don't spend too much time on it. Summarize how the rules appear to have been violated and then move on. Lingering too long on a rule violation runs the risk of leaving other important issues unaddressed, which I may weigh more heavily than the perceived violation.

Hi!

My name is Kelly, I use she/they pronouns.

My main event was LD, but I've competed in many different speech and debate events. I coached LD while I was in high school and now. 

Across the board, no matter what type of debate you do, I expect you to be respectful to your fellow competitors, audience, and judge(s). Even if you make the best arguments, if you are disrespectful, it is unlikely that I will vote for you or I will deduct speaker points. A good and fair debate can still happen while maintaining respect. 

Be aware of your time. You should be keeping track of your own time during speeches. I will also be timing for official purposes, however, I should not have to stop you. In order to manage your time better, I would suggest signposting and using your prep time wisely.

I'm fine with spreading, I tend to be a fast talker myself; however, if you are speaking so fast that I cannot understand you then I won't be able to judge the round...So keep that in mind. It is better to say less and speak slower than to say more and speak so fast that nobody can understand you. 

While I do try to do my research about the topics so I have a general understanding before judging, I am definitely not doing the level of research that I used to when I was a competitor. It would be a good idea to avoid jargon or complex ideas unless you are going to explain them. Generally, most of your judges won't know much about the topics you're speaking on. It is easier to convince the judge if you are speaking in terms and explaining to them in ways that they can understand. You are trying to convince your judge and if your judge doesn't understand what you're talking about then they're probably not going to vote in your favor.

LD specifics:

The more evidence you have the better! Although, LD is a philosophical debate in some senses, facts, and evidence can and WILL bolster your arguments (make sure you are using credible sources though). 

Don't forget about your value and value criterion! This is the part of LD that makes LD unique. It should not just be stated at the beginning of your case and then never mentioned again. All of your contentions and arguments should link back to your value and value criterion. Framework debate is a good spot to have those more philosophical debates. Ultimately, your whole case is built on your framework, so if your framework is flawed, your opponent can make a good case against you. 

I love a good cx. This is the one point in the debate where you get to interact with your opponent so use it to your advantage! I want to see good leading questions. By CX I can usually tell who my ballot is going to. 

Ultimately just have fun! I'm excited to see what you all can do!

History: I debated 1 year of LD in high school and 6 years of CX in college (eligibility is a funny thing). I never received traditional debate training, and my college career had many more debates about debate than debates about the resolution. Don't assume I will be familiar with anything, don't assume I will flow in the same way you do, or automatically evaluate your impacts the same way you do.

I believe that debate is at its best when there are no rules. As a community, we have adopted a great number of norms that pass as rules - time constraints, the resolution, frameworks - but those are very rarely capital-R Rules, capital-L Laws. Please, then, as a personal favor to me: do not accuse your opponent of breaking rules unless you are 100% sure that it is a rule (such as no CP in PF).

Everything else can be debated out.

Speed: I don't expect this to be an issue for KY tournaments, but just in case: if you are trying to go fast, you are probably speaking too fast for me to follow comfortably. And, while I do not believe that debate should be first and foremost a persuasive speaking activity, I do believe that it should be accessible. This means that artificially constructing barriers through fast rates of delivery is a big no-no in my book. Many people naturally speak faster when they are arguing, or speaking passionately about something - that is perfectly fine. Running speed drills to cram in an extra card is not.

That's it. That's what I want you to know most. I don't, so far as I know, have much of an opinion as a judge on anything else but are more than welcome to ask me any questions you want once you and your opponent are in the room.

Please be respectful to your opponents. If you need to talk quickly, please make sure you do so with a clear voice.

EDIT: If there is an email chain please include me in the chain ThompsonBillM@gmail.com

In college, I competed in CEDA and NFA LD debate at Western Kentucky University. Since that time I have coached students in every form of HS debate and judged deep outrounds of all three at TOC and NSDA. I think all events have value and purpose and tend to reward debaters who think critically and provide analysis in addition to a litany of cards. As a general overview, I don't coach any more but that may be to your favor. I am not burnt out on any arguments I just want you to explain them clearly inside the round and that will be where my decision is made.

Policy - I typically default to Policy Maker paradigm. I will vote on theory but need to see unique abuse to vote on T. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better your structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end, it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"

- I don't want you to go for everything in last speeches. Pick your battles and pick them wisely. Depth is rewarded on my ballot

- DA's I like specific/unique link stories that also have brightines and clear impacts. Generic arguments are not something I like

- K's are fine and I am open to hearing your arguments but I want a clear idea of how I evaluate the K. I also prefer K's that have specific links to the aff and not merely the world at large. I am NOT saying you can't run those K's, I just find that rounds where you show specific links to the Aff's advocacy have better ground for debate than rounds that argue about the general state of the world.

- Counter Plans - I like them. It may seem obvious, but after 20 years, I only ask you CP doesn't have the same issues you point out with the Aff's advocacy. I am not a fan of conditional Counter Plans and I urge you to be perm proof because I buy perms if the CP isn't Mutually Exclusive.

- T I will vote on it if you show unique abuse but I give Aff resolutional interp rights.

- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy

LD - I will vote on theory but please run it well. I like old school LD but I am also open to K arguments too. I don't go in to a round hoping to see anything in particular except clash. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better you structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"

- In as much as LD doesn't have a standard structure I need some sort of Framework/Role of the Ballot in order to render my decision.

- Please collapse in the NR. If you go for everything your chances of losing increase exponentially.

- Not a fan of tricks

- Unlike Policy, you have a small amount of time. Word economy and decision making (what to go for) is mandatory to win my ballot. I don't like blippy arguments I like developed arguments.

- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy

PFD - I am willing to let the debaters in the round determine how the debate is approached, but please explain your arguments clearly. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

General Experience and Views

I've been participating in debate, as either a coach, judge, or competitor since 2017. Most of my competitive experience is in Congressional Debate, but I have ample experience with PF and LD as well. For all events, I will weigh heavily against students who spread in their speeches. I don't want to be shared on your cases, it should be able to speak for itself and you should be articulate enough for me to be able to flow everything.

Congress

Clash is my number one priority for congress, this is what makes or breaks a round. If you do not incorporate clash with other students in your speech (with the exception of authorship and first negative speakers), then you are not going to do well. You should also be clashing during questioning by asking hard-hitters, not softballs or fluff.

I prefer for there to be some signposting during a congress speech, although you have limited time so I won't be too harsh on this. At the very least there needs to be some organizational structure.

As a congress judge, I DO FLOW. This means that I will be weighing not just on individual speeches, but how you are able to defend yourself in your own questioning period and how you respond to clash with your arguments in other student's questioning periods. If someone clashes with a point you made and you have no response in questioning or in another followup/crystallization speech, this will reflect poorly on your ballot.

A final score for a congress round is not supposed to be equal to your average speech score (though it can be and often works out that way), it is an indicator of your overall performance in the round, including factors like questioning, decorum, chamber presence, etc.

For POs, you do not need to stand out or be the most visible person in the room. In fact, it is often better for you to do your job as unimposingly as possible. As the leader of the student congress, you have a responsibility to uphold all rules and procedures and you should not rely too heavily on your parli or other students to help you fulfill that role. Make sure you are calling out prefacing and not unfairly prioritize certain people during questioning. Otherwise, you should not seek to impress me all that much. If the round runs smoothly and there are no major conflicts or hiccups, you will do well as PO. Finally, I really really really don't want to see any POs state the number of speeches and questions given during the round and I don't want to hear about which bills passed and failed. Orders of the Day is clearly defined in the rule book as a calling back of any tabled bills that have yet to be voted on, nothing more.

PF and LD

These debate events are much more independent so as your judge, I don't want to have to hold your hand or walk you through the round at all. I will be keeping time but I expect you do the same. Don't spread in your constructive, don't be abusive in questioning, be mindful of your decorum while your opponent is speaking, and I'll be happy.

For how I weigh rounds, it will vary depending on the content of the debate. I'm not always going to favor the side that wins on framework if their case is simply worse and they lost on most contentions. Similarly, I'm not always going to favor the side that had the greatest number of contentions extend if that speaker was spreading or their framework was inadequate. Make voting issues clear and convincing in your FF/NR2/AR2 and if your voters match the extended framework, that's how I'll weigh most rounds.

During CX, don't waste your opponent's time by bringing in new arguments. You can make arguments in questioning, but don't sit there and just pre-flow your case during CX, that's annoying.

My paradigm is pretty straight-forward. I believe debate is an educational opportunity designed to promote discourse. While I can handle speed, I do not prefer it as I believe that it detracts from the intentions of the activity. I prefer lots of clash. Having the ability to provide a strong line-by-line response is effective. Use your evidence to your advantage. Don't assume I will make the connections for you. If you want me to flow it, say it.

In Congressional Debate, there is no need to preface how many times you have spoken. It's a waste of time. Your name and your school is sufficient. As a Parliamentarian, I will be as hands off as possible. If you think there is an issue, that is up to you as representatives to ask the PO. Try to be as direct as possible in your questions. Lots of time is wasted in prefacing.