Debate Experience

West Allis Central High School (in Milwaukee, WI)- 3 yrs (Policy)

I have been participating either through debating or judging for most of the last 16 years.

If I said I'm trying to be as clean of a slate as possible when judging, I'd be lying. I vote on mostly everything as long as there are good arguments made and carried through the final speeches.

Things that will upset me and make me want to leave.

• The spray and pray (You just make random args with no content just for the sake of making them)
• When you try to spread (speed read), but can't keep it clear. If I look confused, I am. I can keep up with your speed if reasonable. The more I judge, the more I see the students getting faster and faster to just get cards on the page rather than advancing their arguments and making strong arguments. If you're reading fast just to get cards out so you can call your opponent out for dropping them, that's bad debate.
• When you run arguments incompletely, and decide to go for it (i.e. Counterplans with no CP text, DAs with no link or uniqueness or impact, T with no standards or voters)
• If you stand up there and say nothing during your speech

I love clash, clash is fun. I can't be mad at a passive-aggressive CX or debate because I was notorious for that, but when you show your whole behind then it gets awkward and I will probably dock your speaks if it's unwarranted.

The one thing I love more than clash is when the debater does the work for me. This is often achieved through good line by lines and impact calcs.

Performance debates, T, and weird alts are fine. Kritiks are off-the-wall for me, so run it slow for me.

Theory and framework debates- I need you to definitely slow down on these arguments if you want me to flow everything and get a good understanding of the arguments. These also need an impact calculus.

I've been a Nat Circuit PF/LD/Policy judge, a NAUDL policy judge, and a HS policy debater.

In case you read this, good for you. I assume most of you won't, which is fine but then don't expect high speaks.

I have 4 years of British Parliamentary debate experience in college, and 4 years of PF experience in high school prior to that. I've participated in other formats such as APDA and NPDA as well.

I prefer a few fleshed out, convincing, well-warranted arguments to a great number of surface-level arguments. I don't like spreading, if you are going to spread, make sure to sign post extremely well.

I believe debate should have educational value and real world impact. Please refrain from using terminal impacts such as extinction when debating topics that are not likely to have extinction as a real world impact, as this heavily diminishes the educational value of a debate round.

When discussing issues that impact real people, please do not reduce people down to concepts/numbers. Do not make generalization about groups of people, even if you think you are making a positive generalization. Be careful when building your arguments on what you perceive to be universal beliefs/values. i.e. if you are planning to win the debate round on positive impacts brought to US citizens, you should explain to me why US citizens should be the most important group of people in consideration, especially if the resolution clearly calls for a more global impact.

Please respect other debaters. Do not speak in derogatory ways regarding your opponents. Do not instigate any personal attacks onto your opponents. Do not comment on your opponent's mannerism, attire or accent. Do not make any arguments/assumptions during your speech based on your opponent's identities. Remarks such as "Of course my opponent will argue xyz as a [insert identity group]" will absolutely receive equity violation.

I will not bring my personal political biases into judging. Arguments from across the political spectrums will be well considered.

When judging an LD round I carefully flow the arguments and evaulate the persuasiveness of the arguments made. Please dont expect me to make your argument for you. Be polite. Explain why you have won the round, i.e., what are the determinative issues that settle for your position? I am well-read in philosophy so use references appropriately.

Speed/LARP is fine, I was a policy debater years ago so I can keep up, but don't just dump arguments and expect a dropped argument due to speed will win the round.

Hi I am Frida (she/her)

As far as experience goes, I did three years of LD debate here in Wisconsin and I'm currently a junior at the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee for Political Science, English, and Middle Eastern and North African Studies (Arabic). I also conduct research in Public Health, so fortunately (or unfortunately––however you view it) I come to the table with some background for most topics.

In General:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE include me on the email chain if one is started.I will give you my email in the round if you start one.

Speed is fine. I can flow it. If you are using it as a strategy though to hurt your opponent, that feels very unsportsmanlike and I do not care for that.

I also like tangible statistical impacts. Nuclear fallout is great, but how likely is it actually? War, on the other hand, I am much more likely to believe and weigh. I will though listen to almost anything (obviously nothing racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc) so long as your links are strong. For a lot of these topics, I hear the same arguments over and over again so I love hearing new things!

What happens in cross stays in cross, unless it gets brought up. If it does, I will start weighing it.

Dropped items will not be considered unless your opponent mentions them, but I will be sure to comment on them afterward.

Please assume I do not know anything coming into the round. Tell me what to vote on and I probably will. I like clear voters and impacts.

For LD Specifically:

I really like a good framework debate. Show me how your framework is superior, how your case fits under it, and please don't drop it.

I don't love CPs and Ks, but I will hear them. If you run them because you know your opponent can't address them though, it makes the debate boring and, again, feels a bit unsportsmanlike.

Most importantly, have fun!

David Henning—LD Debate Judging Philosophy

2024 NCFL National Debate Tournament Edition

School Affiliation: Director of Debate at Sheboygan South

School Email: dhenning@sasd.net

LD/PF/Policy Rounds judged this season: 53/1/1

Lifetime (LD/PF/Policy): 460/76/2101

Years Judging: 40

IMPORTANT—READ FIRST. Over the course of the last few years, I have noticed several disturbing developments in LD. Stuff I never thought I’d have to discuss. I have that at the end of this philosophy, after the always relevant quotes. Given that we're at nationals, I hope that none of these comments are necessary. Please read allof my paradigm before preferencing or debating in front of me.

My experience with academic debate: I began my debate career during the Carter Administration. I was a policy debater in high school and college during the 1980s. I was an independent (mostly high school) policy debate judge for many years. This is my fourteenth year as Sheboygan South's debate coach, and I was a college policy debate coach for four years. This is my seventh year of coaching L-D debate. I've had some success both as a debater and as a coach. And I have many funny debate stories.

My Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, but please don’t insult my intelligence or agency. Don't tell me I "have to" do or vote for something. Ignore my philosophy at your own peril. Ask if you are unsure. I’m coming closer to Bill Batterman’s Critique of Argument paradigm as applied to LD, since some policy debate paradigms make little sense in LD, although hypothesis testing has some appeal. I like original, unusual or counter-intuitive arguments when done well. Do not assume that anything is inherently good or bad. Far too many debaters assume that things like wasting money, destroying the Constitution or climate change are inherently bad and fail to read impacts to them. I don’t care about “wasted money” and want you to put the bodies on the flow. Hopefully all of them. Provide impacts and analysis if you’re not doing so. And be aware that I oppose "common sense," especially in a debate round.

Technology Time: For this tournament there is 10 minutes allotted to deal with technological issues that may affect the round. If you think you might have tech issues, say something so we can get it resolved. See tournament rules for more information.

Argumentation: A well-written, structured and reasoned case is essential for both debaters. That includes substructure. Be aware that evidence matters, so does evidence quality. Provide qualifications, when possible, for the sources you use and tell me why your evidence is of high quality and/or better than the evidence used by your opponent. Clash directly with the arguments your opponent makes. That means the line-by-line rather than just an argument dump or an overview. Tell me specifically why you achieve your value as defined by your value criterion (or achieve your opponent’s) and why that means you should win the round. Do impact calculus, telling me why the impacts of your case are worse than or outweigh that of your opponent. This is probably the most important thing you can do in the round. Provide a few clearly explained voting issues near the end of your last rebuttal and make a convincing call for the ballot.

Policy Debate or “National-Style” Arguments: I debated and coached both high school and college policy debate, and judged policy debate for 30 plus years. I like policy debate. I am open to pretty much anything you can throw at me. That said, I don’t think LD is a particularly good forum or format for many of the policy arguments. Kritiks, counterplans and disadvantages are necessary, but in LD they are nebulous since there isn’t an agent of change in the resolution, affirmatives usually do not offer a specific plan, and whether there is fiat in LD is another issue altogether. How can the K, CP or DA link if there isn’t a plan? Those running such arguments will want to keep that in mind and explain very clearly how their arguments are linked to the aff or the resolution. Likewise, an affirmative claiming solvency or advantages must meet that same burden. The same holds for kritiks, at least those based on policy action.

The format issue may be even more important. In policy debate, you have more speeches with which to refute and extend arguments. Ks, CPs and DAs introduced in the policy 1NC mean that both aff and neg can get to third line arguments. Fewer speeches means less developed arguments. You physically cannot get past first and sometimes second line argumentation in LD. Speeches are shorter than in policy, which means less time to develop such arguments and read cards. The end result is that debaters just read their argument, the opponent reads their first line answers, and that’s it. For complex (or really cool) arguments, this is unsatisfying and shallow. I really don’t have a solution to any of these issues, and I don’t reject policy arguments in LD, but this is something to keep in mind.

Topicality: Don’t, unless it is particularly egregious. I dislike topicality. Unless you can show me actual, in-round abuse I’m not interested. Don’t tell me that the aff reduces education when you’re doing just that by running lousy topicality arguments.

Framework: Framework is usually so poorly argued I rarely see the point. A framework is an integral part of Lincoln-Douglas debate. By this I am referring to the value and value criterion for the round and/or the role of the ballot. You must specifically define and explain your value, hopefully something better than an ill-defined “morality.” That’s subjective and pretty much every social or cultural group has their own morality. The Nazis had their own “morality”--horrible, but defined. The word "ought" does not imply morality. Define and explain your value criterion. Tell me how your case will best achieve your value as defined by your value criterion. You may attack the framework and case of your opponent or demonstrate how your case better achieves your opponent’s value as defined by their value criterion. Argue the superiority of your value/value criterion to that of your opponent. Be clear with your analysis. If there is a Role of the Ballot you must explain that also. If there are policy arguments, you must say why you outweigh your opponent’s arguments.

Debate Theory: Theory has its place, somewhere, but it is never argued well in LD rounds. Don’t read cards from some debate coach at me. Why is that coach more qualified than you, me or someone judging in the next room? OK, why are they more qualified than me? Explain your theory positions and tell me why they matter in this round. What are the in-round impacts to your theory argument? Are there impacts on the activity itself? Does my ballot have a role in your theory argument? If you are claiming some kind of “abuse” of theory, show me the actual in-round abuse—potential abuse is not enough—and tell me why it should be voted against. I can’t remember the last time I voted on an abuse argument.

Quotes Related to my Judging Philosophy (ask if you have questions)

“It’s a basic truth of life that we tend to give more credence to the opinions of people who know what they are talking about.”---Kel McClanahan.

“Add it up, it all spells duh.”---Buffy Summers

“Yankee detective are always on the TV, ‘cause killers in America work seven days a week.”—Joe Strummer (The Clash)

“They tell lots of lies about me. They say I killed six or seven men for snoring. Well, it ain’t true. I only killed one man for snoring.”---John Wesley Hardin

"Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift."---Bob Dylan

“Facts are stupid things.”---Ronald Reagan

"Sometimes I think this job is too much for me."---Warren Harding, on the Presidency

“People say Bob, what do you do with the money we send you? We spend it.”--- Pastor Robert Tilton

“The most popular songs are always the worst.”---Natalie Maines

“Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp.”---Bob Dylan

"The numbers don't lie. . . I got a hundred forty-three and a thirds percents of winning."---Big Poppa Pump Scott Steiner, and reprised by Maxwell Jacob Friedman

"That was the equation! Existence! Survival must cancel out programming."---Ruk, planet Exo III

"You talk about your Olympic gold medal--big whup. I was all-county in the triple jump."---AJ Styles, to Kurt Angle

"The judge's jokes are always funny."---Dan Hansen

"She's a monster of staggering charmlessness and monumental lack of humor."---Richard Burton on Lucille Ball

“A stitch in time gets the worm.”---Buffy Summers

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.”---Mark Twain

“The Good Earth—we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy.”—Kurt Vonnegut

"Wrong thinking is punishable; right thinking is as quickly rewarded."—The Keeper, planet Talos IV

". . . there are no truths outside the gates of Eden.”—Bob Dylan

"What is truth, if you know what I mean?”—Lionel Hutz

"When Stalin says dance, a wise man dances."—Nikita Khrushchev

"Nothing really matters much, it’s doom alone that counts."—Bob Dylan

and

“You know, it actually can happen. I mean, the chances of it happening are very rare, but it can happen actually. Which is crazy. Not that it—the chances of it are, like, you know, it's like probably “pigs could fly.” Like, I don't think pigs could fly, but actually sharks could be stuck in tornados. There could be a sharknado."---Tara Reid

LD General Issues

This is not English class or forensics. Do not write your case as if it were an assignment that you are going to turn in to your teacher. It’s not an essay. Nor is it an oratory or persuasive speech. Do not “preview” the names of all of your contentions, and then go back and read them. Start with the first contention. Then go to the second contention (if you have one). Provide me with some substructure. I don’t want a preview like you would do in a school paper or presentation or a forensics speech. Previewing messes up my flow. And note that you must use evidence in your case.

Put the citation first, before you read your card, not after. Many judges try to get the tag and the cite. I won’t know it’s a card if you read the cite after your evidence, and then where should I put the cite? You’re already on to the next argument or card. Read the tag line, name and date, then the body of the card. Provide the complete citation in a small font size (8)—that means qualifications, source, the link if it’s an on-line source, date of evidence, date you accessed the evidence and your initials. If you fail to provide a complete cite, or even a partial one, then all I have is some writing by someone with a last name and a date. I can’t treat that as evidence if I can’t see the full cite should it be necessary for me to do so. This does not mean a list of internet links at the end of your speech. That’s useless for debate (and academic) purposes.

Provide the Correct Date. This is the date the article or book was published, not the day you accessed it online. Virtually every online article lists the date the article was first published. Use that date. If the article was updated, and you are accessing the updated article, use that date.

Do Not Use Ellipses ( . . . ). In academic writing it is acceptable to cut out chunks of text you do not want to use. That is not OK in debate. You must keep all the text of the card. If you do not, judges and debaters don’t know if you cut out something important, like “not” or “never.” That’s taking a card out of context. Shrink the text you are not reading to a small font size (8). Both Paperless Debate and the Google Debate Add-on have a shrink feature. Use it. If your opponent notices ellipses in the body of your card and points it out in the round, then it is no longer a card. If ellipses are in the original, indicate that.

Do Use Brackets [ ] sparingly. Brackets are appropriate for brief explanatory or clarifying text. A few words, maybe a sentence. Use sparingly and only when essential. If you’re adding multiple sentences to your card, you are altering the card itself, and that is inappropriate. Adding a lot of text is akin to taking a card out of context or fabricating it altogether.

Delivery Style: Speak loudly and be clear. That is the most important thing. I work hard to try to get down as much of each speech as possible on my flow. Speak toward me, not your opponent. If it is especially noisy then speak louder. Your points may suffer and I may miss arguments if I can’t hear you clearly. I don't care if you sit or stand. Don't walk around. I don’t care about eye contact or gestures or a forensics-style polished or memorized speech. That stuff is meaningless in a debate round.

Do not expect 30 speaker points. The magical speaker point pixies have been very active the last few years. I have never seen so many 30s given out by judges. No one I have seen this year has warranted a 30. I have not given a 30 in fifteen years. 29s are relatively rare, but I do give them. I gave a 29.5 and seven 29s this season. And remember (coaches and judges take note of this) that there are tenths (or halves) of a point, and I use them regularly. The strangest thing is that I have not changed the way I award speaker points. I was once one of the highest speaker point judges, and now I am one of the lowest. But don't worry, I haven't given less than a 25 in seventeen years.

Heed my “louder” and “clear” warnings. Many debaters ask me if I am OK with speed. I answer yes. I seriously doubt if you're fast enough to give me trouble. But clarity is much more important than rate. Often it goes like this: I answer yes, the debater then proceeds to speak at a much faster than normal (conversational) rate, but is unclear. I shout “clear.” No change in delivery. A little while later I again shout “clear.” No change. In my previous philosophy I said I may deduct a speaker point after repeated “clear” warnings. I will now deduct a half speaker point if I have to give a “clear” warning after three. At some point I will give up shouting “clear” and your speaker points will suffer a little more. You have been warned, because clarity is key.

Have a way for your opponent to see your case and evidence. Use NSDA File Share in the competition room. You can also put the document in the chat. Use email chains if that fails. Include the judge in the chain. Should evidence be challenged in the round, judges and competitors must have access to this.

No New Arguments in Rebuttals. New arguments in rebuttals diminish or eliminate the opportunity for your opponent to respond. I will not vote on or consider new arguments in rebuttals, whether your opponent points this out or not.

Other issues. A roadmap is short, just the order, like aff, then neg, or the other way. Don’t tell me every argument you plan to make, or all the things you plan to refute. And you refute or rebut opponents' arguments, not "rebuttal" them. Don’t read a bunch of definitions at me—it’s usually pointless and is difficult to get down on the flow. Use all your prep time. Even if you don’t think you need it (you do), I need it to write comments. I will be unhappy if you don’t use all your prep time. I disclose and provide comments, and I encourage you to ask questions after my decision and comments.

Hi, I’m Amanjot (uh-mUHn-joht)! I use she/her pronouns and I’m a student at UW-Madison majoring in Political Science and Legal Studies with a certificate in Political Economy, Philosophy, and Politics.

Debate experience: Brookfield East graduate, 4 years competing in LD (2018-2022), one year in Congress (2021-2022), Wisconsin locals, 3 years competing at NSDAs/NCFLs, and limited experience with national circuit. This is my second year judging.

This paradigm is mostly for my LD folks. If you're in PF or Policy, apply this info as you can. I'll do my best to be a good judge for your categories.

Alright, enough about me.

Ks = trad/phil = larp > theory > tricks

Please always send your case. Good for accountability and keeping things clear.

I don’t have a lot of rules but I will drop you if

1. you clearly create an uncomfortable space for your opponent (being rude, intimidating, personal attacks, etc.)

2. you are using harmful prejudiced rhetoric (racism/sexism/homophobia/xenophobia). I am going to hope you know what this means and it won’t even be an issue.

Argumentation: run whatever you want! I love hearing wild, unique arguments and I thoroughly enjoy philosophy, political theory, and diving deep into obscure topics. Debate should be an opportunity to explore, learn, and share your excitement for certain arguments, so please run what you have a passion for!

I am much more familiar with larp, Ks, and traditional/framework-based debate than I am with theory and tricks. I love Ks and phil; that's what I would consider my bread and butter when I was in debate. And I will be honest, I have never liked tricks, so unless you’re good at convincing me to care about your argument and vote based on it, I’m not the judge for people who like tricks. If you want to talk to me about this, feel free to do so before the round.

Speed and clarity: I can handle spreading up to a certain extent, at which point I will probably just say “clear/slow” to let you know that I can’t really keep up. But more likely than not, I won’t have issues with your speed.

(Side note, don’t feel the need to spread if you don’t feel comfortable spreading/don’t really know how to. I’d rather you don’t hurt your vocal cords trying to speak as loud and fast as possible.)

If you are going to spread, please be considerate of your opponent. If you’re going against a first-time novice debater, maybe don’t spread. (Hint, this might impact your speaker points.)

Lastly, always include me on the email chain. My email is amanjot.kaur.sagar@gmail.com.

Tips that will benefit you:

1. Use your time wisely and efficiently. Don’t go over, don’t end your speech a minute early.

2. Make sure your taglines/cites/whatever you wanna call em are clear and refer to arguments by tagline in your speeches.

3. Weigh throughout the entire debate whenever you can.

4. If you get a major concession in cx, you have to bring it up in your following speech if you want me to put it on the flow.

5. Extending is more than just saying “extend this arg”. Tell me why I should. Tell me why the opponent’s response was inefficient and why your point stands.

6. Quality over quantity. I don’t care if you have a case with 1 or 5 off, I care about the quality of your argumentation and the strength of your case.

7. Use good quality evidence. Gimme that good .org, .edu stuff, give me peer-reviewed studies, gimme stats and data, gimme that well-thought-out academic and philosophical debate. The standards for cards seem to get lower every year so break the norms and use good evidence, and you will see my approval in your speaks :)

8. This is LD, so if you do anything with framework/phil debate, that will help you a ton. Plus philosophy is just cool, so like… be cool.

9. Collapsing in your 2NR/2AR, basically keeping things efficient by sticking to the arguments you want me to pay attention to most.

10. Delivering good voters is also a bonus in my books.

If you have any other questions, feel free to hit me up via my email.

Good luck! I have full faith in you. :)

***JUMP TO THE MIDDLE IF YOU NEED MY PF/LD-SPECIFIC PARADIGMS IN A PINCH***

Short bio: former LDer for Brookfield East High School, 2012-16; after a 3 year hiatus, I was a pretty active judge from 2019-21, and now judge 1-2x per year; have about a year of coaching experience; also experienced with 4n6 and student congress; UW-Madison Class of 2019 (Poli Sci major); UMN Law School Class of 2024

Pronouns: he/him/his

OVERVIEW:

Debate was my favorite part of high school, and I believe the value provided by the activity is immense, both in the immediate and long term. Regardless of skill level or outcome, you should be proud that you have the courage to put yourself out there. I think debate rounds are at their best when they impart competitors with skills that can be used later in life, in a litany of different ways. In the long run, the glory that comes from winning will fade, and the sting that comes from losing will subside—but the valuable skills you develop will last a lifetime.

Of course, in the meantime, do what you must in order to win—not saying you shouldn't go for the gold. I'm just saying not to develop tunnel vision for racking up “points” in the game of debate to the detriment of all other considerations. Winning trophies/awards should not be the only purpose of this activity.

Ok, enough exposition—let’s talk about my actual paradigm…

NON-NEGOTIABLES:

--Bigotry of any kind will not be tolerated, be it racism, sexism, anti-LGBTQ+ views, etc. I shouldn’t have to explain why. Be a decent person.

--Be nice to each other. Debate is an adversarial setting and (basically) a zero-sum game. Getting a little fiery is a natural byproduct of this, but PLEASE keep it under control. This is an academic competition, not a tabloid talk show.

--NO SPREADING. I get speaking faster than a normal conversational pace, but spreading is a cheap tactic that turns debate into a joke. I get why people do it, but it is not a skill that will serve you well later in life. (I mean, just try it in a context outside of this relatively insular activity. No one will take you seriously). I’ll say “clear” if I need you to slow down—please don’t make me have to say it more than once or twice.

--Be comprehensible. If you gave the most brilliant speech in the world but no one could understand a word of it, did it even really happen?

GENERAL:

--Brevity is the soul of wit; quality > quantity

--Be organized—provide (off time) road maps, sign post, weigh, and give voters. (If you don’t do the latter two things, you're giving me a lot of discretion, and I may not utilize it to your liking)

--Show your work and leave nothing to chance. (Ex. your opponent drops one of your arguments...great! But that's not dispositive proof that you should win. Be specific with your extensions, remind me why I should care, and so forth.)

--Don't do underhanded things (ex. making new arguments in final speeches, deceptive card cutting, acting in bad faith, gish galloping, etc.)

--This isn’t forensics, so I care very little about aesthetic presentation–I probably won’t even be looking at you most of the time. Don’t worry about eye contact (judges that care about this probably aren't flowing!); sit or stand to your heart's content; wear whatever makes you comfy. (You get the idea). Don’t do/wear/say anything offensive, and you'll be fine.

LD:

I mainly ran traditional arguments as a debater, and prefer them as a judge. Run non-traditional arguments if you want, but be prepared to simplify them for me. (Ex. if they’re rife with jargon/wonky concepts, don’t assume I’ll be as familiar as you are.)

I also expect the resolution to be discussed. Even if just to say it doesn't matter, or is far less important than a more glaring issue, you should still acknowledge that it exists. I don't believe in disregarding the resolution entirely/reducing it to a placeholder. (Because why have it in the first place then?)

PF:

If you plan to run a non-traditional case in PF, remember that your opponents may not have experience debating those sorts of arguments, and PF is also supposed to be relatively accessible to a layperson. Keep it simpler than you would in LD or policy, and try to keep impacts as material and concrete as possible (as PF is also the medium most concerned with the real world).

Since I only ever competed in LD as a debater, off time road maps and good sign posting will make it much easier for me to follow your arguments. I also *LOVE* PF frameworks. They don't have to be overly complicated, but setting the terms of the debate early on will give you better command of the round. Also, be as clear and direct as possible with your weighing mechanism/telling me what should be of paramount importance. If you fail to do this, you're rolling the dice re: which arguments will be most salient in my mind. Similarly, give me very clear and explicit voters--many words will be exchanged, so if you don't tell me which ones to really hone in on, you're leaving too much to chance.

MISCELLANEOUS:

I’ll only intervene if your arguments are bigoted, untethered from reality, or backed up with exceptionally bad sources. (Pretty generous standard, so if I do intervene, it’s on you).

I generally despise slippery slope arguments that end in extinction/nuclear war, as most of them are incredibly stupid and nonsensical. Aiming for those impacts is fine if the link to get there actually makes sense--if it doesn't, I'll probably feel like you're trying to win the round with scary buzzwords rather than sound argumentation. I may not necessarily auto drop you, but I will not hesitate to show my displeasure.

Overall, though, I'm pretty laissez-faire. I'm open to almost any argument that's clear, logical, and well-supported.

I'll give you up to one extra speaker point if you mention seagulls in your speech because they're my favorite bird. Mods—this is a reward for reading my paradigm carefully, not me trying to be a point fairy. Debaters—take advantage of this if you’d like, but don’t go overboard.

FINAL NOTES:

Please feel free to ask questions before the round--I'll do my best to answer and elucidate.

Speaker points are more of an art than a science, but I try to put some consistent logic into how I award them. If you'd like to better understand my system, you can read more here.

I usually give OC's and disclose, unless the tournament forbids it, we're pressed for time, or the round is too close to decide right away. Always feel free to ask, though--the worst I can say is no.

Good luck and have fun!

Hi! My name is Caitlin.

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate all 4 years of high school (and went to nationals a few times, so I was pretty decent), and am a member of the Ripon College Ethics Bowl team. I am studying Politics & Government and Communications. What this means for you is:

-I am very familiar with most philosophical/moral frameworks. The way to my heart as a judge is a good framework and impact clash. Traditional debaters, I'm your gal.

-On that note, I am pretty unfamiliar with theory shells, tricks, and generally policy-like arguments. I have a basic understanding of them but I probably will not pick you up on them alone if you do not have a good argument to accompany it, or break it down well.

-Speed is totally fine with me, but 1. please don't spread just to confuse your opponent and 2. I would rather you have nice substantive contentions than just speed through 15 contentions that are a sentence or two long.

-Understand the difference between being assertive and bullying. This should not have to be said, but I do not tolerate (negative) -isms, especially classism. I dealt with it enough in high school, I do not need to tolerate it as a judge. Please, just use common sense and don't be rude.

-FOR NOVICES: Do not let one decision in a round make you give up on yourself. Debate is tough, but you will carry the skills you gain from it for the rest of your life.

-VIRTUAL DEBATE: I don't care if you have your camera on.

-If you want to add me to the email chain/contact me it's marschc@ripon.edu

-Please ask both me and your opponent (or at least warn us) before proceeding with flex-prep.

That's all my ground rules. If you have any questions for me do not be afraid to ask :)

(TL;DR don't be rude, speed is fine, policy args are ehh, traditional is great)

Antonio Ponce De Leon- LD Debate Judge

School Affiliation-Homestead High School

Email: ttonio1111@gmail.com

Experience- I did Lincoln Douglas debate 3 years at Bradley Tech High School, starting off as a novice as a freshman and stopped my Junior year. As my Senior year started I came back to Debate and I’ve competed in State and National qualifiers those 3 years. I have a some experience with judging LD so hopefully I can provide great feedback at the end of the Debate round. I have NO  judging experience with PF or Policy so excuse my ignorance.

How I Judge-

Speed: I really don’t mind speed unless you aren’t clear with what you are saying, I WILL NOT FLOW IF I CANNOT UNDERSTAND YOU.

Framework: Your framework should always link to your case and be explained on how it can link to the rest of your case WITH EVIDENCE. If you drop framework I will heavily weight the round on the other debater unless the other debater drops it as well than the framework will be dropped and wouldn’t be in my final decision.

T(Theory): I don’t really like theory. Don’t run theory unless you’re able to clearly relate it to the topic of the debate. Run Theory at your own risk.

K(KRITIKS): I used K’s in debate so I don’t mind it at all as long as the alternative is able to show proof  that they will solve for your opponents harms being presented in the status quo.

KRITIKAL AFFS: Not very clear on these. I understand Kritiks, so if they are run in this manner, I'm on board.

DA(DISADVANTAGES): RUN THEM! Just make sure the impact is strong.

CP(COUNTERPLANS): RUN THEM! HOWEVER, for the purpose of LD, theory might not completely persuade me to vote against a counterplan, unless the neg side drops it, then I will vote on it.

Clash: Clash should be both analysis and cards being presented. Addressing the evidence within the card and able to use analytics to show how your case outweighs your opponents and that is with Impact Calculus. Impact Calculus is showing Timeframe,Magnitude of the problem, and Probability. I weigh the round very heavy on Impact Calculus, so please show me how effective your case is.

Topicality - There has to be something that the debater (either NEG or AFF) has done within their cases that goes against the resolution meaning that the debater cannot use this argument because it's going against the resolution and can be disregarded. T violations should be well constructed and given weight, as well as how it impacts the negative adversely. For Aff, definitely give justifiable reasons why you should win the T debate; not just with theory arguments.

Evidence Reading - This is absolutely HUGE. When reading your evidence, please, I mean PLEASE, read your tag, author, and date BEFORE you read the actual evidence. If you read your tag in conjunction with the evidence, it all blends together until you get to your author citation, so, it'll sound all the same and having a subheading for the evidence allows everyone to clearly define what card you are reading and make the read be a lot more structured. This is just something that really helps, but, if you read my first way of judging, then it shouldn't be unfeasible to follow along.

Flow- I will be weighting the round on 2 things; The first way i’ll be weighing the round is Framework. How does your framework outweighs your opponents, if the framework is the same than always just show how your framework fits in your case better, and secondly, I’ll be weighing the round to who can show me how their case impacts the real world more. Who’s evidence and analysis shows me which cases impacts sooner in the status quo? And of course who’s case is more likely to happen? Pull through your points because if they’re not on my flow chart I won’t weigh it.

Overall, I am very tabula rasa when it comes to debate, and I love to learn from the debates I judge. So I will listen to pretty much ANYTHING if you can persuade me how you win. I look forward to judging you.

I am a parent judge so I am new to doing LD and Debate.

In rounds just make sure to tell me where you are going in your speech. Off time road maps are helpful as well as signposting.
I don't prefer speed at all, always quality over quantity..
As for different types of debates such as traditional, theory, K debate etc. Just make sure to explain what I should be looking for as I am not familiar with most types of progressive arguments. Also, I don't have any preferences for arguments but I will require more tech for arguments such as nuclear war compared to arguments such as recession.

Finally, during Cross X you as the competitor should be clear in your thought while asking questions or answering them.