The 2023 Rushmore Challenge
2023 — Harrisburg, SD/US
LD Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideDebaters in both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum debate need to stay focused on their resolutions. In LD, proving a philosophy doesn't matter if debaters can't prove their resolution to be true. Whether or not a person has a value or a criterion doesn't matter, as long as that person can prove or disprove the resolution. However, looking at a resolution through the lens of a particular value can be helpful.
Remember, the words in each resolution are there for a reason. Aff/Pro debaters need to defend them. Neg/Con debaters need to prove that they aren't true. Debaters also need to make sure they speak clearly.
Speed isn't a problem as long as a person speaks loudly and clearly. If people have any doubts whether or not they can be heard and understood, then they need to slow down. As a judge, all the evidence and analysis in the world are for naught if a debater cannot be understood.
E-mail for email chains and/or questions:Travis.Dahle@k12.sd.us
tl/dr - I prefer old school argumentation but won't intervene - I'm also old and slower on flowing 5/10 - don't waste time on evidence sharing
Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm
I have very little national circuit experience in LD as I primarily judge public forum and policy debate (see more on that below). In LD I am more of a traditional judge as in I like a discussion of the resolution from the standpoint of a value and value-criterion and contention debate. That being said, at Dowling I voted for a Plant-ontology aff, a Counter-plan on the neg, etc. so while I prefer the classic style, I don't intervene into the round either and if you have a good RoB, then I'll listen to it and will focus the debate on that if that's what you make it.
I'm about a 5/10 on speed. I'm old now and prefer to actually hear the evidence of the debate rather than read the evidence on an e-mail chain...
Public Forum Paradigm
Public Forum should NOT be a shorter version of Policy Debate. Meaning, I don't want to see K's, DA's, Topicality, Plans and CP's in Public Forum - nor am I a big fan of speed in PF. I love policy debate, but I also love that Public Forum is not policy and it's an option for people who don't want to do policy debate. This doesn't mean that you can't go a little faster than you would for a lay judge, but don't go crazy.
****EVIDENCE SHARING****
This should absolutely NOT TAKE SO FREAKING LONG!!!!! Seriously people, you should all have your evidence ready to be shared - in fact, I would prefer that people actually share their evidence before they begin their speeches if everyone is going to spend this much time asking for evidence. PF rounds are becoming 90 minute rounds because apparently trying to find evidence and asking about evidence magically doesn't come out of any prep time or crossfire time, but magic time that doesn't exist.
IF YOU WASTE THAT MUCH TIME TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER YOUR EVIDENCE PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR I AM GOING TO START DECREASING POINTS! Have your poop in a group people - this is getting old!
Big Questions Debate - I don't judge BQ a ton, however, I'd look at my paradigm much like the PF and LD paradigms below.
tl/dr - Slow down, enunciate, use evidence and weight the debate at the end - do it all respectfully to your opponent
Extemp Paradigm
I am a mix of content and delivery when it comes to judging. When it comes to sources, don't make stuff up. With the internet available now, if I suspect you are making things up, I will probably check it when you are speaking. You don't have to make stuff up - unlike the olden days where you hoped to have a file on the Togo questions Washington put out each year - you can literally google your info and bring it up instantly.
Also - ANSWER THE QUESTION - don't waffle - pick a stance and tell me why you choose that way. Pretty simple.
Don't overly fidget or dance around - but don't be a robot either.
Have fun!!!!
Policy Paradigm
In essence, I am a tabula rosa judge, meaning that I will pretty much listen to anything and will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round. That doesn't mean I don't have things I prefer or things I think are bad arguments (which I will go over) - but for the most part, I will listen to anything in the round. However, unless you tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, I will default to a Policy Making paradigm. I have been the head coach at Washington HS since 2009.
Speed: I've gotten old here and have grown weary with blazing speed - put me down as a 5/10 on speed. I'd rather have the ability to hear the evidence instead of having to read through everything on an e-mail chain. If you go too fast I'll let you know - you won't automatically lose, you'll just annoy me a little - unless you ignore me, which if I'm on a 3-judge panel and I'm the outlier - I totally get.
Tag-Team CX - It's okay, but I'm not a huge fan of this. One thing I like about policy is that you should know what you are talking about. I don't mind the occasional help, but if you keep answering every question, it makes your partner look like a tool. And even if they are, you probably don't want to show that they are in front of judges.
Arguments I like: I have always felt that the more you know about what a judge likes and dosn't like is essential to winning debate rounds, so to make it easier on you, these are the type of arguments that I prefer to be seen run.
Case Debate - this is a lost art in the debate community. Why as a negative are you granting them their harms and their solvency? If you can have some solid arguments against their case and point out the serious flaws in them, that will help you weight your DA's, K's and CP's over them.
Economic DA's - I have an economic background and like Econ DA's as long as they are run correctly. Generic spending DA's are usually not run correctly.
There are other DA's, but those usually vary by each year, but as long as you have a solid link to the case, you should be good to go.
Arguments I'm not wild about: Again, the more you know, the better off you will be. Once you read this list does it mean to absolutely not run these arguments - no. What it means is that you better run them better than most teams who run the crappy versions of them. I'll vote for these arguments (and have lots of times) - I'm just not wild about them.
Politics DA's - I've changed a lot on these and used to hate them but realize the strategic advantage of them. That being said, not my biggest fan, but have voted for a lot of them over the years
K's Read at blazing speed - I don't mind some K's, but most of the authors that debaters cite go so beyond the realm of what is possible to discuss in a debate round that they end up bastardizing the entire theory they are supposidly trying to use. Also, if I haven't researched and read the material, how can I evaluate it if you are reading it at a blazzingly fast speed. I don't mind K's, but I'd like to understand them, so please, assume I haven't read the theory - because I probably haven't.
Performance - this is just my inexperience with performance. I've probably only judged it a couple of times, so if you do performance, I may not understand how to evaluate it and might default to the policy framework - so you need to make sure to explain to me the role of the ballot and my role in the debate. I have voted for Performance affs and discourse affs - again, more inexperience than anything makes me put this in the category of things I'm not wild about.
As always, I'm open to questions before the round if you have any other specifics. All in all, I like good debates - if you can argue well and clash with each other, I really don't care what is argued - as long as it is argued well!
As an LD judge, my focus is on whether you prove the resolution true (if you're affirmative) or false (if you're negative) and whether there is value in voting for that position. The resolution doesn't outline the general subject we are debating but the actual question I will vote on at the end of the debate.
I am very pragmatic. Philosophy impacts the way I may view certain issues but to me, your position must be able to live and brief in the real world. Don't get too bogged down in debating philosophy at the expense of resolving the substantive resolutional issues.
I believe your value must be upheld by your issue contentions/supporting arguments, and not just 'tacked on' to have a value. As LD/value debaters, it is important to integrate support of a value into your case position.
To me, your criteria is part of 'your' analysis. It doesn't have to evaluate both sides but it should help me evaluate and understand your case. I'm not opposed to subsuming a criteria (or value) and using it to your advantage but it is not required. Also, criteria usually doesn't factor much in my decision.
Finally, to me, this is a communication activity so too much speed is not appreciated. While I'll do my best with speed, you jeopardize your persuasion and my ability to flow you. Signposting to help with flowing is also appreciated. My flow very much guides me when I make a decision. I try to take good notes but I don't flow sources (so don't shorthand with an author's name...use the argument label.)
*For the Milo Cup
Since I am judging through a computer screen, please go slow on tag and cap speed at 7.
PF/LD
Do NOT run a paraphrased case in front of me.
AFF or NEG should be topical, the burden is on AFF or NEG to justify why that topicality is not burdened on them if they run something that is not topical.
Arguments must have links and impacts.
I’m cool with the speed at 5-9. Make sure to signpost and enunciate tags.
Slow down on the Tag.
The speech must be clear, no matter how fast or slow it may be.
You only need to convince me why there should be an affirmation or negation of the resolution.
Make sure to cover both sides in the round while also making each transition audibly between points of argument.
Case turns are underutilized in rounds. That and key impact calc are often game-winner.
Spec:
Tech over truth.
Just win the offense.
Condo & Judge Kick is fine
I’m cool with Theory, T, Disads, Counter Plans also.
Email Chain
Speechdrop.net
Steve.Haile@trojans.dsu.edu
Updated 1-2024
Please feel free to include me on any email chains or share evidence that you want reviewed via Eric@dakotahomestead.com
Background
I am a former policy debater who has coached and judged all forms of debate and speech since 2005. I am a volunteer assistant coach at Washington High School in Sioux Falls with my focus shifting to coaching Public Forum debate as of 2020-2021. In my day-job, I am an attorney and the president of an insurance holding company that oversees a variety of real estate focused businesses throughout South Dakota.
Public Forum
Similar to Policy and LD, I keep a rigorous flow throughout the round, including crossfire and overviews. Rate of delivery is not an issue for me as long as you are relatively clear and understandable. I evaluate Public Forum as a Tabula Rasa judge and consider the arguments focused on by each side in the Final Focus to be the main arguments to evaluate in the round. Absent framing or a weighing mechanism proposed by either side, I default to a policy making analysis from the perspective of the actor in the resolution. Tell me why you should win based on the arguments on the flow from the round and how to evaluate them. Winning on individual arguments without guidance as to why that argument matters in the context of the resolution is a common problem I see. I prefer clash between teams on key issues compared to each side repeating their own claims without addressing the other team's.
While I primarily coach Public Forum and am familiar with the evidence and arguments on the current topic, do not assume that all participants in the round are and debate accordingly. On most judge panels, you should focus on the paradigms and preferences of the other judges as I will go along for the ride rather than advancing an argument or rate of delivery that I find acceptable at the potential expense of the round. With that said, just like with Policy and LD, I believe that the round is up to the debaters, so tell me why something matters and why you win, and I will evaluate it accordingly.
Lincoln Douglas
Prior South Dakota State Debate Lincoln Douglas Judge Questionnaire
Name Eric Hanson
In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your Lincoln-Douglas judging experience and preferences.
1. Your experience with Lincoln-Douglas debate: (Mark “X” on all that apply)
X A. Coach of Lincoln-Douglas Debate
B. Former Lincoln-Douglas Debate Coach
C. Former Lincoln-Douglas Competitor
X D. Former collegiate and/or high school policy debater
X E. Frequently judge Lincoln-Douglas debate
X F. Coach of Policy Debate
X G. Coach of Individual Events
H. No Lincoln-Douglas Debate Experience
2. I have judged 18 years of Lincoln-Douglas Debate
3. I have judged: (circle or highlight one)
Typically between 15 and 30rounds of L-D by the end of the season
4. Indicate your attitudes concerning the following typical L-D practices:
A. RATE OF DELIVERY (circle/highlight your answers)
No preference | Slow, conversational style | Typical conversational speed | Rapid conversational style
1. Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision? Yes No
2. Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed? Yes No
B. HOW IMPORTANT IS THE CRITERION IN MAKING YOUR DECISION? (circle/highlight one)
1. It is the primary means by which I make my decision.
2. It is a major factor in my evaluation. (unless advocated otherwise during the round)
3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.
4. It rarely informs my decision.
Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case? Yes No
C. REBUTTALS AND CRYSTALLIZATION (circle/highlight one of the answers for each question)
1. Final rebuttals should include: a) voting issues b) line-by-line analysis c) both (I default and usually prefer voting issues, but it is your round so you tell me what you think is important in determining a winner)
2. Voting issues should be given:
a) as the student moves down the flow b) at the end of the final speech c) either is acceptable.
3. Voting issues are: a) absolutely necessary b) not necessary (strongly preferred but not required).
4. The use of jargon or technical language (“extend,” “cross-apply,” “turn,” etc) during rebuttals is:
a) acceptable b) unacceptable c) should be kept to a minimum.
D. How Do You Decide The Winner Of The Round? (circle/highlight the best answer)
1. I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.
2. I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round.
3. I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round.
4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.
E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?
(Circle/highlight your preference)
Not necessary----------Sometimes necessary----------Always necessary
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F. Circle/highlight the option that best describes your personal note-taking during the round.
1. I do not take notes.
2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater’s case.
3. I write down the key arguments throughout the round.
4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.
5. I keep a rigorous flow.
Policy Debate
2017 South Dakota State Debate Policy Judge Questionnaire
Name Eric Hanson
In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.
Your experience with policy debate (Mark all that apply with “X”):
X A. Coach of a policy debate team
______ B. Former policy debate coach
C. Policy debater in college (Where? )
X D. Policy debater in high school
X E. Frequently judge policy debate
______ F. Occasionally judge policy debate
Which of the following best describes your approach to judging policy debate?
A. Speaking Skill D. Hypothesis Tester
B. Stock Issues E. Games Player
C. Policymaker X F. Tabula Rasa
Circle (or highlight) your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:
RATE OF DELIVERY (X No Preference)
Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very Rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS (X No Preference)
A few well-developed arguments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments
the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive issues
most important most important
TOPICALITY – I am willing to vote on topicality:
Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely vote on topicality
COUNTERPLANS
Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable
OPTIONAL: If you feel the need to clarify (or add to) your responses to items 3-12, write those comments LEGIBLY on a separate sheet of paper.
Eric Hanson’s Additional Comments
I truly believe that each round is the debaters to do with what they want. Evan so, here are my preferences and some common criticisms I have for teams:
When running theory and Kritik’s, just prove to me you understand them and how they apply in this round. Do not just read a shell that someone else has prepared without understanding the underlying criticism that is being levied.
Please write out Counter Plan and Perm text.
I have a very expansive view on Topicality. I will listen to and vote on in round abuse, potential abuse, and competing interpretations. That does not mean that I vote on potential abuse or competing interpretations just because you say those words. You must actual prove to me that your definition is the best one for debating the resolution or that the other team’s is just so flawed and abusive that it cannot stand.
When extending warrants, it is preferable to say more than just “Extend my partners warrants.” Take the extra few seconds to actually state the warrant of the argument.
When considering impact calculus, I give weight to all three parts (timeframe, probability, and magnitude). If a team tells me to give little weight to a massive DA impact because the probability is so small, that will factor into my evaluation.
This means doing more than just saying “Impact Calc. 1. We win timeframe. 2. We are more probable. 3. We have bigger impacts.”
As a Tabula Rasa judge, I really appreciate it when the 2NR / 2AR actually explain why the win the round and in what framework / paradigm I am supposed to view the round when evaluating.
You probably do not want me to guess at how you wanted me to evaluate the round.
This means doing more than just saying “Impact Calc. 1. We win timeframe. 2. We are more probable. 3. We have bigger impacts.”
Background
I got my bachelor's in Religion and Philosophy from Augustana University (SD) and now I’ve been teaching speech and coaching debate (mainly LD) for Brookings, SD.
Ethics
Coming from the world of philosophy and ethics, I am particularly picky when it comes to respectful debate. Please keep good ethos form the moment you enter the room to the moment you leave.
SPEECH EVENTS
When it comes to Interp. and IEs, it’s all about delivery (and content where appropriate). Make sure your voice is loud and clear, but be careful in humorous / dramatic pieces. Things like laughter, screams, cries, etc. are often done too loud for a small room. I’ll comment on everything from movement, to clarity, to character and everything in between. For pieces that you’ve composed (orig. oratory, extemp., etc.), I’m looking for cohesive structure, good intros/conclusions, and clear main points that follow the purpose of the piece.
DEBATE
Overall:
I am fine judging however fast you feel necessary; however, go faster than conversational speed at your own risk. However fast you go, your presentation should be clear, understandable, and well structured. If I can't hear or understand it, I don't factor it into the debate or my decision.I also love clear and concise voters / clinchers in your final speeches!
Under the consideration of what’s listed below, I’m willing to listen to and judge based on what you deem important so long as it’s clear, relevant, and uses sound reasoning. As far as K’s, I’m open to listening to them; however, I’ve found them relatively ineffective, especially if they are not run well (you need to make sure they still have connection to the resolution).
LD:
This is my bread and butter. With a philosophy background, I’m pretty familiar with just about any philosopher you could throw my way. Particularly with the more popular philosophers, make sure you know how the philosophy you’re using works. If you don’t, it will show.
When it comes to how I judge a round, LD is a value debate and I think this should be the main focus. Your contentions should be purely to support your framework, not the only focus of the debate (it’s not PF).
PF:
I feel evidence plays a bigger role in PF than in LD, so I’m far more interested in hearing evidence-based reasoning in round. Just like LD, outside of this, I’m willing to judge what you, your partner, and the other team focus on throughout the round, just keep it clear and structured.
If you want to do speech drop/email chain that's fine I guess. My email is katie.jacobs@k12.sd.us
Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!
LD: I tend to lean more to a traditional LD judge style. The framework debate is important and I will always appreciate debaters who connect their contention level arguments back to the Value & Criterion. My background is in policy, so I will keep a flow and value that in a round. Maintaining focus on the resolution is important as well. I appreciate debaters who weigh out their arguments and give me clear reasons to vote one way or another.
In general I'm fine with speed and can follow arguments as long as clarity is maintained. That being said, my vote never just goes to who has the most arguments. In LD especially, I prefer well thought out and well weighed arguments versus a flood of arguments that may or may not hold merit.
At the core, I don't see a judge as someone who should intervene in the round. This is the debaters space to utilize their own strategies and argumentation. If you can explain an argument and give me reason to believe it matters in the round I will vote for it.
PF: Rounds most frequently come down to how well arguments are weighed out/impact calc for me. If you have framework or resolutional analysis you should be connecting your arguments back to it.
I have no problem following jargon or more advanced debate discussion, but I don't feel like Public Forum debate should devolve into a policy debate round in half the time.
Evidence is important in public forum debate and I do consider that when making decisions. If you are going to criticize your opponents evidence or call out any abuse, I want to see a reason behind it and why I should consider it in my decision making. Just saying "we post date" or "their sources are faulty" won't carry much weight unless you actually show me why it matters
In an LD round I tend to vote for the side with the most substantive arguments as opposed to the side who has pushed to most arguments through.
In terms of speed, fast conversational is fine but nothing faster.
Email: livvyjo11103@gmail.com (put me on the email chain, and feel free to message me post round)
About me: Olivia She/her (20) I am currently an individual events coach at Sioux Falls Jefferson! I attend USD online and work in marketing.
TLDR:
Debate is hard, please have fun and after the round, shake it off and never let a down bother you!!
PLAY NICE. There is nothing worse than a round where I as a judge feel flustered because of how the debaters are treating their opponents. I will comment on this, and I will give you lower speaks because of this.
I do not do time signals, do not ask. (Debate)
I prefer if you have time on your own (I tend to forget), but once my timer goes off, your time is done, please do not argue with me about how much prep you have.
During your opponent's speech, please refrain from talking, and listen to what they have to say, even if it is the last speech. They are valid and deserve to be heard as much as you do
My debate career:
I graduated from Central High school in 2022 and was a member of the debate team for all four years of high school. I did policy, pf, oratory, and info - went to nationals 3 times.
PREFERENCES:
I tend to lean more tech over truth - and I am very open to experimental debate, within reason. Just ask before the round or let me know if you wanna do something crazy. That being said, i will vote truth over tech, if there is literally no warrant or link to the debate/evidence.
QUALS AND STATE: (This is for debate only)
Lay it out for me. If I do not understand your argument I will not vote for it. Ks and Theory, are okay - just make sure they connect back. If you want to try something new, please go for it.
As always, be nice and play by the rules.
- EVIDENCE SHARING: This shouldn't take long, as we have some long days ahead - or it's the end of a super long day for all of us. It's cool if you just set up an email chain or something to make the process go faster. (but of course, add me in)
- EVIDENCE VIOLATIONS: I am ALL for the educational level of debate. If something is not true, please say something as I will not catch it like you do - because I am less experienced in the topic, and do not have the card in front of me. I will look at all cards brought to me, but I will not ask if you do not say anything.
Public Forum:
I am okay with speed, I understand the lingo. Keep things on the flow, if you drop something and do not address it, I no longer consider it an argument. I am good at following the flow. - That being said, please stay organized, it's easier for everyone to understand when you follow the order of contentions and arguments that are set up during the first few speeches.
Keep a good roadmap throughout the whole round and TELL me what I should vote for. Believe in what you are saying and why you win. Carry your arguments all the way through, if you drop something, tell me why, do not ignore it. With this - if you drop something you are not allowed to pick it back up. Consider it on the floor and I can't see it - do not bring it up in the final speech.
Please refrain from using abstract arguments such as Ks, Critiques, and CPs in South Dakota main season, UNLESS you are able to prove exactly how this relates to the resolution and your contentions. Experimental debate is only fun if it makes sense and works within the round. I debated policy for the majority of my debate career (being in the final policy round EVER in SD) so if you use them, I will know what you are talking about - your opponent may not so explain exactly what you mean. (CPs are very controversial in PF, I would strongly avoid these if you don't wanna talk about it for the duration of every speech and get debated on topicality and resolutional analysis)
LD:
I have only judged LD, last year being my introduction. With this, I am someone who, like PF will judge based on your clash. Believe in what you are debating, even if it is not your own personal belief outside of the round. If you do not care about what you are saying I will pick up on it, and stop listening.
I tend to lean towards a criterion and value debate as my main voter (any framework actually), as it’s there for a reason. You drop your criterion, you lose. You don’t uphold your value, you lose.
CIRCUIT:
Do not be abusive to your opponent. No disclosure theory if I am in the back, please. You can run theory, you just have to explain why it pertains to the text, and are able to back it up.
Speechdrop and email chains, make it quick. I am not spending 20 minutes trying to set it up when you did not come prepared. Have a print-off of your case as backup.
Ks, CPs, and DAs: Make sure you are explaining these in order of event - like if you have 2 DAs that are triggered by something, or solved by the CP, make sure they make sense to me. Explain if your opponent does not know what you're talking about, as not everyone normally debates circuits, on the traditional level these do not exist. Be courteous.
Spreading: IDC if you spread (I'm an 8/10 on speed) - slow down on tags and cards so I can follow. Please share your speech doc with me if you spread it so I can look back if I need to. I used to spread myself and know how to do it in a nice way.
SPEECHES:
If you are checking my paradigm before an IE round, I am so sorry that you think that you should be judged based on someone's preferences on content. Be confident, and I really hope that you love what you are telling me. I think IEs are unique and cannot be based on my personal preferences and biases. You will do great, I promise!! <3
DO NOT ASK ME TO READ MY PARADIGM FOR YOU.
I WILL get the ick for any arguments that are racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, discriminatory, and generally anything else you think I would get upset with. I do not tolerate hate in a progressive environment and I will not stand for any of it. Please do not say these things, I will stop listening and will contact your coach.
History:
I have judged South Dakota debate for the past 18 years. During my High School years, I competed in Policy, Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas debate. I don't judge as frequently anymore, but do normally get a couple tournaments in each year.
Lincoln-Douglas Debate
I am a traditional LD judge looking for a value debate. Tell me why your value is supreme and how you better uphold your value or achieve your opponent's value.
Contention debate is important, but you need to win/uphold your value for the contention to hold weight.
Crystalize your debate in the end and give my your voters. Tell me how to vote and why you win. If you make the decisions for me and show me why, it is less decisions I have to make on the ballot and more likely to go your way.
Public Forum Debate
For an "On Balance" topic, I'm going to weigh out the two sides. You don't have to win every point in the round, you don't even have to argue every point, you need to show why, on balance, your side wins.
Write your ballot for me, tell me why you win this and why this is most important.
Speed:
I learn the older I get and less I judge, the harder it is to keep up the flow. I'm probably a 5 on a scale of 10 for speed.
*** I may be wearing headphones or earplugs. I promise I am listening to you. Sometimes, I need to block out environmental sounds so I can focus on your words and arguments. If you speak normally, I will have no problem hearing you.
Big Questions - Hi there, I've been coaching and judging BQ for three years and I keep a decent flow. Definitions are SO important. In Big Question, the topic is very vague and broad; you need to clearly define your terms and the context in which you build your arguments. If you debate against your opponent's definition, give me a good reason to believe your definition instead. If the definitions are similar enough or don't impact the round, you do not have to debate them, focus on wherever the important clash is. For voting, I first look to framing (observations, definitions), then evaluate contention level based on framing. I look for logical consistency. I like examples. I like to know the credentials for your sources. I can handle a bit of speed, but I'd rather you stay conversational for a BQ debate - this isn't policy or circuit; you shouldn't be speed-reading evidence at me.
LD - The first thing I look at is value/criterion/framework. Framework is how you craft your moral world; your job is to establish your moral world and convince me we must affirm/negate on the basis of your world's moral system. The winning framework is how I judge the round. Example: If the winning framework tells me that absolute freedom is to be valued over human life, then an argument that Neg contributes to a high death toll holds little weight, because human life is not what we're trying to achieve. SO DON'T DROP THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE; pull it through, and explain to me how the contention level matches with and upholds your framework.
PF - I vote for the team that can best uphold their case through analysis and evidence. If you don't tell me WHY something matters, I don't care - give me impacts! Example: I don't care about terrorism unless you tell me why I should care about terrorism, otherwise you're just throwing out a buzz-word. If you provide framework, the arguments for your case AND arguments against your opponent's case should work in the world of your framework - don't contradict yourself.
——> Experience <——
He/Him
I debated LD for three years and was top 20 at nats my senior year, as well as state runner-up. I've worked debate camps 2020-2023, and am Sioux Falls Washington’s assistant LD coach!
My paradigm is long but just know that I am genuinely here to make the round and debate as welcome and accessible for you as possible. ask me before the round about anything I might have left out from this. I tried to include as much info as possible.
If there's an email chain my email is Smarkley020904@gmail.com
^ I will not evaluate anything not highlighted in your case unless your opponent brings it up to say you're misconstruing evidence.
——> Tl;dr <——
Flow judge. Good for the K but explain it well. Huge on framework. Extend more than author name
——> LD <——
tech > "truth". Don't drown your opponent in blippy responses or run an argument that is exclusionary.
I like a clear thesis with a strong narrative you pull through for me. Tell me a story of why I should vote for you and make your advocacy cohesive. This is always much more compelling than throwing the entire kitchen sink at your opponent.
I keep a rigorous flow, but understand that speaking skills are still an important persuasive element to highlight key points to me. If you start emphasizing something in rebuttal as very important I'll normally circle or star it, so it's in your best interest to have inflection. Also, what the heck is up with y'all extending a key drop in rebuttal but then never leveraging it? I've heard so many rebuttals start with something like pointing out that their observation went dropped, but then that's the last time I ever hear about it.
My eyes are normally glued to my flow during the round, so don't be offended if I don't look at you while speaking. In fact, If I look at you that's probably a bad sign because it means I don't feel like I have anything to flow. If you see me nodding along to something you say that means I thought of an argument and then you went on to say what I was thinking. If you do that then congrats, I think you're smart.
Yes, "solvency isn't a burden in LD" is an unwarranted claim, and the idea that no moral theory requires you to at least somewhat decrease the issue seems silly to me. The only thing that determines for me whether solvency matters is going to be the framing. I've seen too many rounds where someone runs util but then tries to get out of showing how they actually solve for their impacts. If your framework/criterion has anything to do with "reducing X", "minimizing Y", or "maximizing Z" then congrats you conceded to having the burden of solvency. NOTE: this does not mean "100% solvency", but rather I need you to show a mitigation of the harms if you're running a consequentialist framework.
On that note, if you like leveraging framework, then I'm your guy. If you like running deliberately vague/borderline abusive frameworks, then I am NOT your guy! Please don’t try and hide the ball about how things should be evaluated. It confuses your opponent and it confuses me. You can run in-depth philosophy without being asinine about it. Want to spend 3+ minutes alone on framework in the constructive? Let's do it! But it better have strategic value! I'll listen to whatever you want to throw at me (so long as it doesn't create a hostile environment), just explain it clearly. On this note, I am of the opinion that Y'ALL ARE TOO SCARED TO RUN FUN FRAMEWORKS!! I am getting seriously tired of evaluating justice frameworks 24/7. If you ever want to run something but feel as if judges will reject it, use me as your guinea pig!
You don’t need to win your framework to win the round, you just need to win one of the frameworks and tell me why you win under it. My first step towards evaluating the round is deciding what framework to use. The more messy the round gets the more likely I will be forced to intervene and the more likely you will be upset with my decision. That being said, if you drop framework you're basically dead in the water for me. I find myself most convinced to buy someone's framework when they warrant it well and when attacking their opponent they do more than just read generics, but discuss specifically why the flaws in their opponent's framework expose the strength of their own.
Warrants matter more than cards. Markley '23 does not matter if it's not warranted (that being said though, you should run Markley '23 :)), and an analytic with warrants will easily refute any unwarranted card for me. If you cite a stat and when asked for an explanation, you just say "IDK that's what the study says" that's probably bad. If you're citing something you should know the reasoning behind it. Also: weigh, Weigh, WEIGH!!!
I will not immediately reject Kritiks and CPs. I used to be adamantly against them but have changed my mind in the past year. The burden of the negative is to disprove the affirmative. If they can show that there is a separate moral obligation to pursue some other, mutually exclusive action, or that the fundamental logic/reasoning of the aff is flawed then that is a reason to negate. Therefore, I don't think either are abusive in an LD setting and if anything it's probably bad for fairness on certain topics if the neg just isn't allowed to provide some sort of alt to the aff. That being said, I'm not biased in favor of them or prejudiced against trad. Some of my favorite rounds I've ever watched have been super traditional, but it is in your best interest to level arguments against Kritiks and CPs more than "this shouldn't be in LD" without warrants.
That being said, if you're going to run a K INCLUDE ALL PARTS OF THE K!! The most ineffective K's I see in trad circuit are the ones that try to disguise it by making it wear a trench coat and sunglasses. Run a K, be clear that it's a K, and do a quick Google search for a video explaining how a K functions (The NSDA also has a free course on Kritiks that shouldn't take you too long)
I dislike hyper-specific advocacies in LD. I don't think solely focusing on one country is doing enough for me to affirm "as a general principle" without some really good explanation. If you're running a hyper-specific framework that is super interesting, then that's a different story! but don't focus on one case study.
If you're going to engage in topicality debates about what "a right" means or "democracy" go for it but please be clear about it. I think oftentimes these are important and strategic debates that need to be had, but are just done very poorly.
WHEN EXTENDING AND CROSS-APPLYING YOU NEED TO SAY MORE THAN JUST "Extend Horowitz '21". I don't flow authors. Explain to me what Horowitz is saying and WHY it adequately refutes their point.
Please line-by-line and signpost.
——> General Information <——
I'm incredibly passionate about making Debate inclusive and accessible. Be respectful to your opponent and don't use marginalized communities as props to get a W. There's a big difference between actually advocating for groups and just flippantly talking about the issues they face to get a point on the flow. Also be cognizant of the types of arguments you decide to run, and if you might end up alienating members of the community. Was not fun seeing friends get uncomfortable during the open borders topic.
I'm pretty tolerant of arguments brought up in round but don't bring anything homophobic, racist, xenophobic, etc. into the round. Please also provide a content warning before you read case if you are touching on sensitive subjects, and accommodate as necessary.
Verbally insulting your opponent will definitely tank speaks and is grounds for an auto-loss. Be good people.
~Insert generic statement about how while all judges have their biases, I try my best to limit it when making decisions.~
——> Evidence <——
Please be transparent with evidence. It's genuinely a pet peeve of mine if authors are cited out of context or are misrepresented. If I found out you're misrepresenting a card then it's getting thrown off of my flow, I won't consider it in the round, and your speaks are going to be at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Too many successful debaters can attribute their success to their ability to conceal evidence violations, which is bad for this activity. That being said I won't call for a card unless explicitly told to. If you want me to read one of your opponent's cards, tell me to call it and explain why I should.
My standard on paraphrasing is basically reasonability. My ideal world is that every paraphrased source has the piece of direct text copy and pasted underneath it so I can see directly what you're pulling from.
I will start to run prep for calling a card once you can actually see the card, your opponent taking time to pull it up will not affect you.
Please don't tell me to extend a specific author. Tell me the argument/subpoint you want extended. If I write down your author it's so I can look it up later and steal it for the team I coach (Go Warriors).
——> Speed <——
I can handle speed but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm a fan of it. you won't get voted down for going fast but just know I prefer that you make 1-2 strong and well-explained refutations to one contention rather than blitzing out seven arguments with no warrant behind them. That being said if I can't hear it, I can't flow it and any extensions will not matter to me.
I competed for 4 years in speech and debate in Nebraska (I participated in Policy and PF primarily, with some Extemp). I am now the head debate coach at Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD. I was primarily a K debater and have experience with performance affs, however, I adapted to traditional debate circuits in SD, so if you have a K you have been waiting to pull out, now is your time. Using K's as timesucks, however, is a huge pet peeve of mine. If you are running a K, I assume you care about the issue at hand and not just trying to be performative.
-I'm more than willing to listen to any argument you are willing to make, as long as it's done fairly. I love to see creativity in argument and believe that such types of thinking are fundamental to society, so if you want to run something a bit out there, I will hear you out. However, if it's clear that you are primarily using these types of arguments to confuse your opponent, I will automatically drop speaker points.
-I am okay with speed as long as you enunciate! I cannot stress this enough.
-I will be paying attention to what is said, but if there's something you think was said that is important to winning the round, I would mention it in a subsequent speech.
-If your opponents don't attack a point of yours, make sure you extend that in either summary or final focus (if not both) if you want me to consider it. In LD, it has to make it into your rebuttals.
- Weigh!!! As a former debater, I know how hard this can be to do well. Always remember that what makes sense to you and what you see as obvious may not be how others (including your judge) see things! Use your rebuttals and especially your final focus to really paint me a clear picture of why you won the round. I love voters. I'm typically a big picture thinker, so meta level questions and framing args are critical to instructing my ballot.
-Be polite to each other and have fun! Also, I have found I am very expressive in round, so if something does not make sense or I am confused, you will be able to tell. This usually means I need you to really sell me on the link story.
-IF YOU ARE GOING TO CALL FOR CARDS, KEEP SPEECHES GOING UNLESS YOU ARE USING PREP TIME. There is no reason we should be stopping rounds after just 1 constructive speech to wait for 5 cards. If you are waiting on evidence sharing, your partner can still read case while you wait. I don't mind short stops to glance at a card, however, I will dock speaks if I have to wait too long because you abuse time. Too many people are doing this, essentially creating a second untimed prep time for their team.
If you all have any specific questions this didn't cover or want any other additional information about my judging I encourage you to ask me before the round! :)
Email: mercado.angelicaarely@gmail.com
hi my name is rachel (she/her) i’m excited to judge (almost always)
chahta yakni | šuŋgmánitu oyáte
dowling 23- i am going to be judging a ton of pf for the foreseeable future! i'm excited to learn more about a different style of debate. however, the way that I approach rounds pretty much never changes. i only care about the arguments on the flow, not speaking style. i highly value framework debate and impact weighing, and i expect that debaters try their hardest in every round. my paradigm might not be very helpful if you're a PF debater, so feel free to ask me questions before the round. gl everyone!
apple valley 22- email chains consistently annoy me. if you can use speech drop i would appreciate it very much.
going forward- i'm not going to clarify a position on my paradigm for only 1 debater- if you want to ask questions, i think it's only fair that your opponent gets the same opportunity. if you want to email me beforehand, either cc your opponent or just wait until everyone is in the room.
Quick Guide if you want to pref me
1- Give back the land (Tuck and Yang, not Churchill)
Debord
Orthodox Marx (i have mixed opinions on Stalin and Mao. I think there are probably better critical theorists who articulate their ideas better, but whatever floats your boat. Lenin is fine, but I'm only really familiar with Imperialism:HSoC. If you read Krupskaya I'll be stoked).
SC authors (Locke especially, Hobbes 2nd and Rousseau 3rd)
Rawls
Socrates/Plato
2- Butler
LARP (i think of this in two ways, either structurally or argument-wise. I'm pretty solid on both, although you'll be better off dropping some hyper-specific policy language because it wasn't what I usually went for as a debater)
Spinoza (this is only at a 2 because I genuinely don't think you could ever make Ethics topical).
Hegel- i mean what can you do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
3- Trad/lay (i debated in SD, so go figure).
SOME DnG (I think I get rhizomatic thought, I think I get schizophrenic capital, I don't understand most of the rest of it. Plz be cautious.
Kant- idk man this is run in so many different ways you should just ask.
4- Middle-of-the-road Performance (I have not yet been able to find a debater that clearly articulated how to substantively weigh performance in a round, and I ran performance several times. If you think you can then go off, I'd love to hear it). This includes poems, songs, personal narratives, etc- see "5" for aggressive or emotionally traumatic performance.
"High Theory"- whatever this means, if it's gonna make my brain bleed i'm not a fan.
Chinese Imperial Philosophy: Confucianism, Taoism.
Theory- I'm not a huge fan and I'm bad at flowing it. Like terrible. Please if you do this to me go very slow I will unintentionally drop 50% of your standards. RVIs mostly good. paragraph theory is fine, it just needs clear impacts to the round/debate space.
5- Evola (ill drop you no cap)
Time Cube >:(
skep
social darwinism
badly done death drive (ie "k*ll everyone, nuke war good). Don't justify oppression, don't be rude. Also in here- physical performance or extremely emotional performance. Do not read me trauma-porn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
here is a list of things that make me go :) in rounds
1. extending the whole argument (claim + warrant) in every speech
2. warrants that you can actually explain tbh
3. evidence comparison (especially using author quals)
4. when u kick ur F/W and turn their case (that’s spicy stuff)
5. when u run a well articulated Kritikal position that ur excited about and that makes me learn stuff ( although it makes me go :/ if it’s clearly commodifying a people group- ex. don’t facilitate a performance you have no stake in)
6. in general if u teach me something that’s great!!!!
here’s a list of things that make me go :( in rounds
1. you have a captive audience in the round, so don't make the round unsafe for anyone (think the -ists and -phobias). if you do so in a manner that i think warrants it, i will
a. drop kick u off the ballot
b. give u the lowest legal speaks
c. talk to ur coach
d. tell ur mom
2. when ur winning and u rub it in the other person’s face- that is rude stop. not gonna drop ur speaks though- its just annoying.
3. don’t run afro pes if ur non black or anything like that- don’t use other people’s oppression as a gimmick y’all the ballot isn’t worth it
if you take each part of the debate seriously then u should be fine- most people mess up the most when they get too confident
ask me if u want more info i’ll tell u how i feel about anything and i’ll give u time to change it if u need to
my email is rdover2@gmail.com if u need it
u get +.1 speaks if u can diss Andrew Myrick in ur speech and it flows well
Policy
I still believe debate is a communication event. I do not like rounds consisting of throwing as much as humanly possible at the proverbial wall and hoping that something will stick. Debaters should focus on well-reasoned arguments that actually apply to the case being debated. If I can't understand what is being debated because of speed or because it isn't clearly explained, I will not consider it in my decision. I do not prefer kritiks or other random theory arguments. I will vote as a stock issues or policy maker judge.
LD
I am a traditional LD judge. I like to hear a value and contentions that apply to the value and the resolution. Communication is important to me. Debaters should weigh arguments and tell me why they should win the round.
Public Forum
Debaters should communicate and run arguments that clash with those of the other team. I flow arguments and do consider drops, but debaters need to point out which issues are most important. The final focus for each team should be where the debaters frame the round and tell me why I should vote for them. I expect debaters to be polite.
I debated Lincoln Douglas for all four years of high school. One of the biggest things a debater should do in order to win is adapt to judge preferences... Here are mine,
1) I’m a big framework guy, does that mean if all you win is framework will you win the round? Absolutely not. If you don’t have a framework at the end of the round though it’s going to be difficult to win my vote. I’m a big fan of framework because it makes every contention level argument easier to weigh. FW turns are one of my favorite arguments and if done right will do a lot towards gaining my ballot
2) On the contention level I need sign posting and you need to directly address sub points not just contention headings.... Also, like framework I love a good turn on the contention level and I also love direct clash of arguments from both cases. My biggest advice is to be articulate and concise on the contention level.
3) I’m a fan of faster paced debates. Does this mean spread your opponent out of the water..... nope. I can handle most speeds but don’t get out of hand, slow down on tags, explanations, and transitions.
4) If you’re debating in South Dakota with me in the back of the room... Avoid policy arguments plz :)
5) Finally, I need to see respectfulness during the debate. Yes you can still be savage in cross-x but that doesn’t mean be rude.... There’s a difference. If you ever call your opponent dumb or stupid you will lose the round.
6) Finally, if you ever see me make facial expressions during a round don’t get nervous. After debating for so many years you learn it’s hard to control them sometimes. Odds are you’re doing just fine :)
Hopefully this helps y’all out
Hi guys! My name is Zoe and I’m a former debater whose done her fair share of events. During high school, I competed in oratory and informative for my IE’s as well as public forum for 3 years and Lincoln Douglas my senior year, and I competed at the 2021 Nationals in Student Congress.
Debate in General: This can be a stressful activity and things can get heated in rounds, but I am not ok with disrespectfulness, rudeness, or other uncalled-for behaviors. In a debate round, I ask that you signpost well to keep the flow clean and allow me to catch everything you are saying and want me to know. If I can’t flow it, I can’t vote for it. I will time prep and speeches, but you are free to do so as well on your own and I encourage it as well so there is no need to ask if I am ok with it. :)
Pufo: This is an event to be understood by a person who has absolutely no clue what you are talking about and should be treated as such. I will listen to whatever you are telling me, but if I can’t understand it without prior knowledge it won’t hold any weight if you can’t make it make sense. If you run framework please, please, please debate it. It shouldn’t be something that just sits at the top of your case and doesn’t do anything else, if that’s the case I won’t vote for it. Again keep the flow as clean as possible, sign post, sign post, sign post. If you tell me where in the flow you are I can meet you there and listen to what you are saying better, it works out better for all of us in the end. And in your final focus I want to hear voters. Tell me why you win, and why your opponent doesn’t. My decision at the end of the round should only be challenging because both teams used voters and made it hard to choose the winner.
LD: I don’t/won’t normally vote for a winner because of value criterion debate over contention level and vice versa. I will listen to anything and everything openly but make it make sense. You’re value should make sense in the context of your case and your criterion should uphold it and your contentions should fit within it that framework you have laid out for me. If you run something wild and out there in your contention level please link it back to your framework so everyone knows what is going on, but to also make sure your case as a whole makes sense, if your contention doesn’t uphold your framework that won’t work very well for you in the end. Again please signpost for everything. Use voters at the end so I can see what you want me to weigh at the end of the round and why you think you should win, but keep it simple, 3 or 4 max will do the trick if you have too many it just becomes a list and I don’t have a concise grouping to make my choice.
Speech: In a speech round I’m looking for you to be passionate about you’re topic and really show me that you love it and care about what you’re telling me, make me believe it. I also ask that you pay attention to your peers and what they have to say. You can learn some amazing things from the others in the room. But also they have put in just as much time and hard work as you have and deserve the opportunity to be heard.
Numbered points are from the NSDA ballot
1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.
2. Each debater has the burden to prove his or her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.
3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.
4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to him/her as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.
5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his or her opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.
6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.
7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.
I prefer to make my final decision of the voting issues the debaters present in the context of the round. I do believe the debate is ultimately about the resolution.
Deliver rate: I prefer typical conversational speed
Framework (value/criterion): Debaters need to tell me how the resolution should be evaluated based on its key value term(s) i.e. ought
Evidence: Using known philosophical positions might be easier to understand, but are not required. A philosophical argument does not require evidence, nor do thought experiments. However, factual arguments require evidence.
Flowing: I write down the key arguments throughout the round vs keeping a rigorous flow.
Plans and Counterplans: Not acceptable
Pet peeves: I dislike debaters arguing the generic faults of extreme positions on utilitarianism and deontology, rather than talking about the principles and consequences that are specifically tied to the resolution. I have become disenchanted with policy debate and don't like excesses of policy debate creeping into LD debate i.e. speed and kritiks.
Experience: I have judged LD since it started which was around 1979. I was a high school policy debater. I debated CEDA in college when they did propositions of value. I have coached CEDA at the college level. I'm currently an LD coach and have previously coached policy and public forum debate.
Hello debaters! My name is Amelia Underberg and my pronouns are she/her. I debated in high school for 3 years and have tried my fair share of speech events as well. If you have any questions for me, feel free to ask before or after round.
Public Forum:
For me public forum can get hard to weigh. Please do not sit and debate about one or two cards the whole time. Show me the impact!! I need reasons as to why your side outweighs in the round.
Lincoln Douglass:
I love a good framework debate. If you do not uphold your framework, you cannot really win the round unless both sides cannot. Contention levels are important to me for impact, but still pull your framing through the round please!
Speech Events:
Just have fun and be respectful please! I will vote on who I think is the best speaker and does the best on their topic/form of event!
General:
For the love of God, have fun guys! Debate is a fun and unique activity that you can be a part of, so enjoy it. Do not be rude or snippy. And treat your fellow competitors with respect. Remember that the point is to learn something and be a part of something larger than just one round :)
My background is largely in policy debate; however, I have been judging Public Form and LD since 2001.
My preferences:
1) I do not need a roadmap. If you have one, I prefer it to be on the clock.
2) I prefer moderate to slow speed; if the whole round is fast, I will gladly keep up, but I prefer the competitive edge to come from stronger arguments and not from a faster speaking style.
3) Tell me why arguments matter. I would like all rebuttal speeches to include weighing. If you tell me how to evaluate the round, but the other team doesn't, I will default to your framework. If there are competing arguments, whoever can best explain and carry through an explanation of why their argument is better will likely win that argument.
4) I prefer realistic impacts to outlandish, daisy-chained larger impacts.
My background is largely in policy debate; however, I have been judging Public Form and LD since 2001.
My preferences:
1) I do not need a roadmap. If you have one, I prefer it to be on the clock.
2) I prefer moderate to slow speed; if the whole round is fast, I will gladly keep up, but I prefer the competitive edge to come from stronger arguments and not from a faster speaking style.
3) Tell me why arguments matter. I would like all rebuttal speeches to include weighing. If you tell me how to evaluate the round, but the other team doesn't, I will default to your framework. If there is competing arguments, whoever can best explain and carry through an explanation of why their argument is better will likely win that argument.
4) I prefer realistic impacts to outlandish, daisy-chained larger impacts.
5) In LD, I want a strong focus on value and criteria as well as a slower to moderate speed.
Hello debaters!
My name is Andrew. During my 4 years in debate I competed in LD, PF, extemp, and oratory. I qualified for the NSDA National tournament twice in LD and once in extemp. Hopefully my experience is sufficient to judge your debate round accurately and fairly.
LD:
- Generally, I am not a huge fan of speed. I prefer quality over quantity.
- Please don't neglect the framework. The framework is absolutely necessary to get the ballot in an LD round.
- Please go down the flow in order. If you prefer to do something else, let me know before the speech begins.
- Respect your opponent, especially in CX. My pet peeve is when debaters try to run down the clock on CX with overly verbose answers.
PF:
- Make sure you use evidence (duh). Well researched cases and debaters are usually more successful in PF than those who can BS well.
- I prefer voters in the summary.
Most importantly, have fun. Enjoy your tournament.
I was an Extemper for Aberdeen Central and I did Public Forum for 3 years. I have a very good understanding of a broad amount topics and can flow rather quickly but I do not do speed reading very well at all. I don't like straying too far away from the topic at hand but I am willing to hear you out if your topic and case are strong enough to sway me. Every round is a good round and make sure you are confident in everything you do because that's what this whole thing is about.
Hello:)
I debated LD in South Dakota for 3 years. I am not the fastest writer so I would give speed preference to be like a 6/10. Due to debating purely in traditional circuit, I will judge more traditionally.
I like to see emphasis on framework and a clear link to contentions. I don't think you necessarily have to win your framework, but at least one of the frameworks provided within the round. Additionally, you could lose both frameworks and still win (ie very muddled framework on both sides, or all framework was dropped), I will usually default to winning framework though. I really dislike how policy is kind of pushing its way into LD so please try to avoid that. That being said, I'm not the biggest fan of Ks or counterplans but I am willing to hear them. Also, I think that a few well-thought-out arguments are much better than a lot of short non-cohesive ones (again slow writer).
Don't be rude, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, etc. Not only will I lower your speaks, I will probs vote you down and call your mom. I think debate is meant to be fun and educational, neither of which can happen if issues like this occur.
For prep, I will call 30 second increments and I do count reading/calling cards in prep.
PLEASE do not bring up new arguments or cards in the 2AR. I will not flow them, so save your time for more important things. I don't think it's fair if your opponent cannot respond, so don't make the arguments in the first place.
If you can make a joke about konda and it works well within the speech I will give you an automatic +1 speaks:)
If you have any questions feel free to ask me before round or you can email me at haley.weber@coyotes.usd.edu
Good luck and have fun!
PS: if i happen to judge you for a pf round good luck and godspeed.
General - I will vote on whichever arguments I buy more. ALWAYS explain the why behind your arguments. I love hearing the phrase "here's why this matters" after you make a claim or present an argument. If I don't buy your evidence, I will call for it. I keep a pretty decent flow so don't be scared to refer to the flow and the points made/dropped. Make sure to tell me where you're at on the flow as well. In every final speech of every style of debate, please give me clear voters. A final general piece of info, please do not be super rude in your rounds. There is a CLEAR line between confidence and just being mean. If you're being mean, I'll find a way to vote you down. I'm all for a little salt every now and then, but make sure it is justified.
Speed - You can go as fast as you want as long as you can articulate well. I was a policy debater for three years so I can handle speed. I won't flow what you're saying if I don't understand you. Additionally, do not go fast just to go fast. Make sure what you're saying actually applies to the debate at hand. Don't read me a disad that has absolutely no link as a timesuck.
Theories/Ks - If you want to read these, go for it. I'm all for hearing it IF it actually applies to the round AND the topic. I will not vote for something that has nothing to do with the topic. I will vote for the other team if you read a K that has absolutely NO link. Debate is supposed to be educational. Therefore, I expect to be educated on the topic. When it comes to specific theories, make sure you explain what they are and WHY you're running them. Your voters better be excellent if you want me to vote on it. I have voted on theory before because of really good voters.
LD - I weigh framework over contention level in the debate. Please for the love of all things do not run a random framework just to run a random framework. It needs to make at least 75% sense in the context of both the topic and the debate. That means you should probably be explaining a clear link to me. Please do not turn LD into a policy or pufo round. They are separate debate categories for a reason.
TOPIC SPECIFIC - If you're going to trash the United States military, please be aware that I am marrying a man in the military and I find it extremely offensive when competitors say ALL US soldiers are bad. For example - please don't tell me that ALL US military soldiers are complicit in human trafficking. Additionally, if you are going to discuss the Israel/Gaza war, please be considerate that all people have different views and that's OKAY!!! Debate is an educational space and I expect everyone in the round to be RESPECTFUL. If I am being screamed at or I feel uncomfortable because you say something offensive on either side of the debate, I will vote you down. Not appropriate for a high school activity.
I have two rules for when I judge:
1) If you are going to use analytics, either use evidence to back it up, or make it seem like you know what you're talking about. Don't just use analytics to attack your opponent's case.
2) Don't piss me off. If you do, I will not be inclined to favor you in the round.
Now that those are out of way, here's the rest.
Introduction
I did debate for four years: one in policy as a freshman, and the next three in Public Forum. After that, I've been judging from 2017 onward, taking a break in 2020. I'm primarily a public forum judge, but I have judged LD and policy in the past. If you have me as an LD judge, know that I won't follow anything special that you may try to run, such as a role of the ballot argument. Keep it to Value/Criterion, and the round will be a lot better as a whole.
Definitions/Framework
For definitions, only define stuff that you think is necessary. This doesn't mean define the word "harm" in an "on balance" resolution, but if there's a word that you think a lay judge might not understand, such as "urbanization," that might be one to define. On framework, keep it short and simple. Framework should be something by which I judge the round, not one of the voters. Don't spend so much time on it that you have to cut the rest of your case short. 10-20 seconds max.
Speakers
Case - use as much of your time as possible without going over. Make sure that you have enough time to get through all of your points and recount your main points. Also, if you have a one point case with multiple subpoints, just why? At that point, just have the point as framework and the subpoints as the main points.
Rebuttal - first, don't use a prewritten rebuttal speech. That just tells me that you're unprepared for other people's arguments and that you're not confident in your own attacks. Second, make sure you actually attack your opponent's arguments. If you just attack the general (insert opponent's side here) case, and you don't link your attacks to anything, that's not going to help you. Make sure you are linking your attacks to something your opponent said, otherwise it's going on the flow, but it'll have very little weight.
Crossfire - don't speak over your opponent, refer to Rule #2. Rounds usually aren't won here, and they're more for you than me, so just don't be a dick and you'll be fine.
Summary - start to condense the round here. This doesn't mean continue attacking your opponent's case if you couldn't get to it in Rebuttal, this means get your arguments together and start explaining to me why you think you've won the round. If that means just restating your point titles, go for it, but explain in your own words why you think you've won these arguments. Don't just repeat verbatim what's on the cards. I've heard that, but why does that matter in the grand scheme of the round? Tell me that, and I'll listen.
Final Focus - give me why you won the round. I don't want to hear a continuation of the round. I want to hear 2-3 convincing arguments as to why you have the arguments necessary for me to vote you up. If you don't tell me what is most important, and the other team does, I will be more inclined to vote for them because they told me why they won.
Speed
Given that I'm still relatively young, I can pick up most things, but when you start reading at Policy speeds in a Public Forum round, that's when I put my pen down/stop typing and just stare at you. If I don't flow something, that usually means you stumbled over it or sped through it, which means I don't judge it at the end of the round. If you want to speed through the card, that's fine, but if you speed right through the tag, I won't be using it in my decision, which will inevitably hurt you in the long run.
Other
Reactions - try to keep a poker face when in rounds. This is especially visible in online rounds where I can just look slightly to the side of my screen and see you making a face at whatever your opponent just said.
Timer - when the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence, and that's where my attention span ends. I will leave my timer going off until you stop speaking, however long that takes. Hopefully, it shouldn't take too long. If the timer goes off after a question has been fully asked in Crossfire, you are allowed to give a short answer to the question, but don't go off on a long winded tangent on whatever you're talking about. If you're in the middle of a question, Crossfire is unfortunately over.
Be Professional - while I have given some debaters lower speaker points due to breaking Rule #2 as seen above, I have yet to decide a round based on that alone. If that does occur, I still find an objective reason in the round to explain why they lost, not just that they pissed me off. So while it hasn't happened yet, don't let your emotions make you the first round that it happens.
Prep/Called Cards - if you call for a card during crossfire, I will not start prep time so long as no prep work is being done on either side while the card/article is being looked at.
Questions
If you have any questions on decisions, any comments that I made, feel free to contact me at wilsonbc@midco.net. Try to let me know what round I had you in and what the topic was, as I have a reputation for not having the best memory.