I value people who are articulate and define their arguments clearly. I am focused on the person who best supports his/her arguments and refutes opposing arguments

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

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

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

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

Policy:

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

Lincoln Douglas:

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

Public Forum/Speech:

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

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

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

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

As a judge, I value engaging and substantive debates that focus on the core issues. I appreciate clear, compelling narratives and arguments grounded in real-world evidence. Quality is more important than quantity; I prefer well-developed, logically sound arguments with clear reasoning and meaningful connections between evidence and conclusions over numerous underdeveloped claims. I also value creativity and novel perspectives that bring unique ideas to the round.

In WSD, I assess each team's model based on net benefits and the comparative world it creates. Critical arguments should articulate real-world implications and provide tangible alternatives.

I evaluate the debate holistically, considering argument strength, responsiveness to key issues, and defense of positions. I compare impacts based on factors like scope, magnitude, probability, and level of impact. I appreciate effective comparison and weighing of different impact types, as well as the quality of evidence, clarity of reasoning, and persuasiveness of delivery.

Each speaker role is crucial in creating a persuasive case. POIs should be concise, relevant, and challenging. I assess a speaker's ability to handle POIs effectively.

Debate should be enriching, educational, and accessible to all participants. I expect respectful engagement, genuine interest in the topic, and intellectual honesty.

My background: I have a Ph.D. in American history, focusing on contemporary political economy. I teach US History and US Government at Jackson-Reed High School in Washington, D.C., where I also advise the Speech and Debate Team. My email is eduardo.canedo@k12.dc.gov.

If you see my pronoun listed as "judge," please note that it started as a joke at my expense. In the end, I've left it as a reminder to judge every competitor as an individual with dignity and without bias.

-----------------Big Questions-----------------

This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading. Your need to appeal to the philosophy of your position in a orderly efficient manner in important. Collegial discussion needs to be your manner to approach this and be successful. Please note, this is one of the few events where a judge can declare a forfeit without consulting tabroom (no true at nationals). You MUST remain topical. This is NOT an event to play games with kritiks and counterplans, etc. I have every expectation that you will take this event seriously. In doing so, you show respect for your team, your opponents, your judge, and yourself.

-----------------Speech-----------------

Do your best and be respectful of others in the room. Tell me if you want time signals. I will try and ask every competitor what they want, but it is the affirmative responsibility of each competitor to communicate what they want. I expect that you will know the rules and requirements of whichever league you are competing. Unless you are double-entered, you are expected to stay the whole time. If you are double-entered, please tell me before we begin, and do not interrupt a fellow presenter while leaving or entering. I will go in the order of the ballot. Give a warning if the piece you are presenting might cause anyone discomfort. If you need to leave for a necessary reason, please do so quietly. (You don't need to tell me why, but I may check to see if you're ok after. I worry a lot, sorry!).

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Honor your fellow competitors and yourself with being mindful of your surroundings.

-----------------Debate-----------------

For LD, if you are not talking, you're prepping.

There is one official time-keeper, the judge(s). You are welcome to time yourself using your phone or another device as a timer. Your timer should be silenced and not interrupting you or your opponent's speaking time. Please ask if you want notifications whether on prep or debating and I'll be happy to let you know. When your time is up, I will inform you quietly so you can finish your sentence.

From the 2022 NCFL Bylaws "The resolution is a proposition of value, not policy. Debaters are to develop argumentation on the resolution in its entirety, based on conflicting underlying principles and values to support their positions. To that end, they are not responsible for practical applications. No plan or counterplan shall be offered by either debater."

Be polite. Argue your case effectively and clearly. As the debater, you (or your team) will decide that method. Speaking more quickly will not help you case if you are not clear. As a judge, I will attempt to read up on your topic of debate ahead of time, but it is best to assume that I know nothing and provide definitions accordingly. Be sure to ask both myself and your opponent if we are ready.

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Anything that interrupts your speaking time will count against you. Doubly so if you interrupt your opponent. I'd appreciate it, as a courtesy, if you are using a phone for notes, etc (if allowed for your style of debate) to warn me ahead of time.

Internet access is being allowed in some tournaments. The rules governing access can generally be found on the tabroom page for the tournament. I have every expectation that you will use network access honorably and ethically.

I have been asked many times if I have a preference for types of arguments or styles of debate and the answer is that it doesn't matter. You are are the speaker, not I. Progressive, traditional, plans, counterplans, theories, or kritiks, your job is to convince me that your side's position is the strongest.

Extemp Debate:

Be prepared to move quickly through the round. Reminder: The use of evidence is permitted, but not a focal point due to the limited time available to prepare a case for the round. We will NOT be sending cases back and forth (unless you truly want to use your limited prep and speaking time to do so. I will be judging you exclusively on what you say out loud, so I don't recommend it!) I would recommend that you not spread. If you choose to, you'd best be on the top of your articulation game. Again, I will be judging you exclusively on what you say out loud, so I don't recommend it!

Policy Debate (CX): (Feel free to do the 1950s version of a policy round. You know, before they developed spreading. Since this is unlikely....) If you are passing cards back and forth, give me no reason to wonder if you are appropriating prep time. If you are passing cards, do so expeditiously. (Why yes, I'd like to be on the email chain! My email is tim@squirrelnest.net) Be prepared with USB drives or another medium for sharing documents. Please note, this isn't supposed to be war of the USB drives. Taking more than a minute to transfer a file will add up. Out of respect for your fellow competitors and the tabroom, I will be urging you in-round to move forward expeditiously. Especially at the varsity level.

----World Schools & Parliamentary Debate ----

I'm not going to treat this as LD/CX Jr, honest. This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading, and the speed should max out at the upper end of a standard conversation.

NO OFFTIME ROADMAPS!!!

Argument execution is important. Each speaker should communicate using an effective combination of public speaking norms. Namely conversational speech rate, appropriate pitch and tone, and confident body language. Eye contact is key, so limit what you're reading verbatim from paper. If you read from a paper in a monotone voice for 8 long minutes, you will put me to sleep as well as your opponents. Please don't do this!

Case construction should flow seamlessly and I recommend it be logically laid out. Evidence calls are not allowed generally. Check the tournament's rules. If you think something is wrong, well, that's what POIs are for.

Do NOT abuse POIs. I will heavily dock speaker points in the event of any abuse.

NSDA nationals note: No electronic devices!!! Everything is on paper! (Other tournaments: internet use will be allowed on a per tournament basis). Any timers should be silenced!

Use of knocking and tapping in the appropriate manner is encouraged. My timer will ding for protected time. Humor will never be amiss in any round I judge.

Ask me questions before the round begins.

cards, so if there is a technology problem, we will be moving forward. Be prepared!!!

-----Legacy Pandemic Rules-----

Pandemic edition: Tell me if you can't stand or if there is another environmental concern in your presentation area. I know a lot of you are in bedrooms and otherwise at home. Do the best you can. I will NOT being taking in to account your environment with respect to your rankings.

Upon entering the room, put the title of your piece in the chat window and list whether you are double entered. Time signals can be in the form of an on-screen timepiece or traditional time signals.

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters let it overcomplicate their arguments or worse. Some may even allow it to further make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you will probably be sad at the end of the round.

Debate Experience: Debated for three years in high school, coached four years in college.

General: I'm pretty tab. The debaters should choose whatever arguments they're most comfortable with/is most strategic for the round. 2NR/AR decisions should be made based on the flow, not what you think I want to hear. Comfortable with speed; go as fast as you'd like while still being clear.

Aff: Again, pretty comfortable with anything. I wasn't a performative debater in high school, but I'll vote on a k aff. See below for more on how I evaluate k affs vs. framework. Make sure that the advocacy statement is clear, especially for more nuanced high theory Ks.

Neg: The best thing you can do in front of me is have a substantive internal link debate with proper impact calculus. I'm not very persuaded by teams that skip to extinction scenarios without actually debating the logic chain that leads there. Good internal link take-outs, case debate, and framing arguments are key. I'll vote on theory on either side (perm theory, condo/multicondo, t, etc.) if you run in properly and can defend your interps.

Topicality: You should be doing as much impact calc on T as you are on a DA. I'm more than happy to vote on procedural issues; this is a game, and debating the rules of the game is as legitimate as the substance. That being said, just throwing out words like fairness and education won't do that much for you. T is an argument that needs substantial time in the block to become a viable 2NR strategy. Don't go for T and five other args - it's not something you can win with 45 seconds at the stop of the block/2NR.

Dis-ads: Again, internal link chains and impact calc. Make sure to kick out properly.

Counterplans: Make sure to be clear on CP solvency mechanisms. Don't just yell 50 states CP and expect that I understand how that would work given the specific aff advocacy. Clearly lay out the net benefit to the CP (internal or external). Again, impact calc is important. Tell me how the risk of a solvency deficit compares to the risk of the DA link, and why that should matter to my decision.

Kritiks: Just like the K aff stuff above, explain the K and do the same kind of impact calc you would do on a DA or FW flow. It should be clear to my how I'm evaluating the K. For example, is this a Cap K where I might be weighing the impacts of the aff vs. the neg world, or should I be evaluating speech acts before plan implementation? Usually a FW debate at the top of the flow is helpful. Clear link chains are preferred. I'm much more persuaded by Ks that have a specific link to plan functionality rather than topic-generic links. If the K is covering dense high theory (I'm thinking about some Baudrillard, a Hegel K, anything that mentions D&G), walk me through the background.

K affs: K affs are fine, but so is a good FW debate. If you're going to run a performative K, make sure to link the performance to voters. I'm generally not persuaded by a minute-long musical intro that never gets brought up again throughout the debate. Neg, if you're going to run a FW arg please set it up like you would a T debate. I need interps and clear voters. I know they're not running a topical plan. You need to defend your interpretation of debate, why your interp is best for the debate space (fairness, education, etc.), and how the knowledge or fairness that you gain from running topical affs compares against the education that they're bringing into the round.

Above all, please show respect to everyone in the room. The fastest way to lose speaker points with me is to be inconsiderate to your opponent. I'm more than comfortable with low point wins if I think you're not treating your opponent (or partner) with dignity.

Last updated for the Liberty Bell Classic.

Email for the chain: omar.elsakhawy25@gmail.com

Feel free to email me if you have any questions before/after the round.

Tech>Truth

Debate is a game

Olympia High School '22

UPenn '26

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Conflicts: Olympia, Doctor Phillips, Seminole, and Lake Buena Vista.

___

Quick Prefs

I try to be as tab as humanly possible. This is not necessarily based on how much I like these arguments, but how comfortable I feel judging them.

1 - LARP/Trad

2 - T/Theory

3 - K/Light Tricks

4 - Phil

5 - Heavy Tricks/Performance

Go slower than you normally would with a circuit judge, especially on analytics. I'm bad at flowing speedy debaters.

___

About Me

Hi, I'm Omar! I've been doing debate since my freshman year of high school and absolutely love the activity. I was the LD captain of my team since my sophomore year and intend to continue competing at the University of Pennsylvania in policy and APDA. As someone who hails from a small school, I mostly competed locally and specialized in traditional debate, qualifying for NCFL Nationals four years in a row and reaching quarterfinals at FFL Varsity State. However, as national tournaments went online and became more accessible, I took an interest in circuit debate. I reached quarterfinals at Duke and runoffs at Princeton.

As your judge, you can expect me to put in just as much effort analyzing the round and offering in-depth feedback as you do in competing. I view judging as a responsibility, not a privilege. That being said, I think my judging philosophy can be summarized in one phrase: be yourself. Although I may be more skilled at judging certain styles, I certainly prefer you do what makes you comfortable. I enjoy chill, humorous rounds and believe that debate should be an accessible space for all. Any "phobias" or "isms" will not be tolerated and I will take sufficient action if someone is being antagonized. Good luck, try your best, and have fun!

___

LARP:

- My favorite style on the high school circuit.

- I like complex scenarios way more than generic plans/DAs.

- I hate the new trend of just assuming the framework is util/reading 30 secs of "extinction outweighs" at the end of the AC.

- Please tell me when you're kicking something, don't assume. I'm chill with judge kick as long as its warranted.

- Going for the scenario with the most clash will give you brownie points.

- There's no such thing as a bad impact-turn (unless you're turning something like racism of course).

- My threshold for extensions are low since I know the aff has a ton to cover, a short overview will probably suffice.

- Please do a ton of weighing or the round becomes really hard to decide :)

- Please make a clear distinction between each card by saying "AND" or something of the sort.

Unless told otherwise, I default to:

- Unconditional = must go for the CP unless there's a higher layer.

- Conditional = can kick out of the CP it unless it's been turned.

- Perms are a test of competition.

- PICs/severance perms are cheating.

T/Theory:

- There's no such thing as frivolous theory. That being said, please don't run disclosure on trad debaters or novices, it's such a low blow (unless we're in break rounds or the context makes it reasonable).

- I don't know why voters still exist. We get it, fairness and education. Feel free to give unique ones though.

- I like fleshed-out standards and dislike blippy warrants.

- I don't like when big-school debaters tell small-school debaters what's best for them.

- Not sure if "contact me before the round if you need me to meet any interps" is the best norm.

Unless told otherwise, I default to:

- Drop the debater.

- Reasonability.

- Yes RVIs.

- Yes 1AR Theory.

- Theory is the highest layer.

Ks:

- I'm probably not familiar with your author unless it's cap K lit, so go slow and don't assume anything.

- I don't care if you're topical.

- PIKs and K-tricks are sus, but I will still vote for them.

- I will vote off links of omission but just like any other pre-fiat link it's really easy to beat back.

- Going for the linear disad and kicking out of the alt is a strategic move.

- PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAKE THE ALT COMPREHENSIBLE.

Performance:

- I have no idea how to judge these rounds. If you're going to run this in front of me, please try to make it mirror a traditional K format so I have some sort of reference point.

Phil:

- I'm kind of a noob when it comes to evaluating these arguments.

- I'm familiar with Rawls, Kant, libertarianism, and communitarianism (plus generic FWs like MSV, util, etc.). Explain your framework to me like I don't know anything.

- Syllogisms are preferred over blip storms of independent warrants.

- Unless told otherwise, I default to epistemic confidence.

Tricks:

- I think tricks are fun but I'm bad at evaluating them if they're spammed.

- Please don't be shifty, stuff like "whats an a priori?" will get you docked speaks.

- If you collapse to a tricky argument against a novice or a trad debater, I will be sad.

- As I said before, I flow mostly off the doc. Therefore, I probably won't flow stuff that's hidden/not on the nav pane.

- Brownie points for running unique paradoxes instead of the generic laundry list.

- Unless told otherwise, I default to presumption affirms, permissibility negates.

Trad:

- Check the LARP section above.

- Please give off-time roadmaps and signpost.

- Offense (i.e., reasons why you should win the round) takes precedent over defense (i.e., reasons why your opponent shouldn't win the round).

- Framework is key. If neither side's V/VC is extended, I default to util. Winning on the framework isn't a voting issue unless it's connected to case offense.

- I don't flow cross. If you want me to evaluate something from cross, please bring it up in your next speech.

___

PF

- Check the trad section above.

- Spreading is fine as long as you send the doc and everyone is okay with it.

- Counterplans are fine, I would rather not hear theory though. I'm fine with ev ethics IVIs.

- I don't think the framework debate really matters in PF, but probably have one.

- Everything should be extended by summary. No new evidence after rebuttal please.

- Paraphrasing is fine as long as you have the cut card on hand. I might call for it post-round.

___

Policy

- I'm not very good at judging actual policy, although I am apt at LARP (check the LD section above).

- Open cross is fine.

- Prompting is fine as long as it isn't excessive.

___

Speaks

I consistently float around the 28-28.5 range.

Ways to boost your speaks:

+.1 for memes/pictures of cute animals in the doc.

+.2 for Playboi Carti references.

I appreciate chill, friendly rounds. Any harassment is an auto-drop with minimum possible speaks. Hateful behavior will result in tab being contacted as well as your coach. Have fun and be nice!

___

Misc.

- I disclose whenever I'm allowed to but I don't disclose speaks.

- You can take off your mask when speaking just put it back on afterward. Keep masks on during cross.

- I don't care whether you stand or sit.

- Evidence ethics matter. I default to NSDA rules. I don't think useless indicts like "they bracketed one word in the card" are a big deal though.

- Flex prep is fine.

- I don't count the time it takes to flash the doc as prep time unless it's excessive.

___

Online Concerns

- I would recommend recording yourself in case there is a network issue. If I don't catch a part of your speech and you don't have a recording, I'll just give you some time to redo what was missed.

- I recognize that online debate sucks so don't worry about internet connectivity issues, background noise, etc.

- I don't care about cameras being off. I'll probably keep mine off unless tab tells me otherwise.

- Please put prep time taken in the chat.

LD Paradigm

I am a parent judge and usually judge speech. I did compete in LD (albeit 30+ years ago).

If you have me for LD, to win the round:

• peak clearly and not too fast (don’t spread),
• flag unanswered/dropped arguments,
• connect your arguments to your value criterion, especially in the NR/2AR,
• follow up your winning XC admissions or points in the subsequent rebuttals.
• More often than not, debates come down to values and clever arguments, rather than evidence. Reading long cards of evidence is tedious - while artfully turning your opponent's evidence to support your own case is sublime.

Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Extemporaneous Debate are persuasive speaking events. Your speech must be geared toward the average, non-technical college-graduate-level audience. You do not need to 'dumb it down' for a Reality-TV audience, but if you are talking too fast, or using undefined jargon - even common LD terms like Utilitarianism or Categorical Imperative - you are hurting your chances. And refer to arguments by their substance, not name dropping - not 'My Plato Card' but 'the philosopher-king argument.' And you must be polite to your opponent, no matter how obnoxious they are.

In LD, your value and criterion count - this is how all of your arguments will be judged, as well as any impacts. If you prove horrible war crimes will be committed under your opponent's case, but have conceded the value of real politick and your opponent effectively argues those war crimes will improve the political standing of the perpetrator, then no matter how morally reprehensible the crimes committed, there is no impact under that value. Conceding the value is fine, if you think you can win under theirs, but understand the full ramifications of doing so are not merely saving time for your clever sub-points, but conceding how they will be judged.

In Extempt Debate, you only have at most two minutes - keep your evidence to statistics and use your own arguments - you really don't have enough time for anything else - which is the point. And avoid the temptation to try to fit 5 minutes of speech into a two-minute speech - if you are speaking too fast to take notes, you are by definition saying nothing noteworthy.

For speech events - clarity is the most important part of any speech - not just clarity of speech, but clarity of meaning and clarity of purpose. If you move, move for a purpose. If you speak oddly or with a heavy accent that is barely comprehensible, it still needs to clearly communicate something; the emotions of the phrase we can't understand, at the very least.

Finally, never tell the judge she MUST vote for you - the judge must vote for whom they think won - declaring yourself the winner is generally bad form, no matter how badly you have trounced your opponent. Forcefully argue in your voters or final speech why you think you won, but no mic drop.

I am not a technical judge. Communication skills are more important, thus do not spread. Refer to link for an example of spreadinghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FPsEwWT6K0
Thank you!

LD and PF: Although I list myself as "Traditional," I am open to different arguments as long as they are explained well and related to the resolution. I believe that we are debating the resolution, not fixing society's ills. Yes debate will enable us to fix society's ills but a competition round is not where that will occur. Debate theory can be interesting to judge, but again, needs to still be connected to the resolution. Also, be sure that the theory you're arguing is correct and logical. In terms of speed, to me it's not speed it's clarity. If you are going 97 miles per hour and have to constantly repeat yourself because you trip over words, maybe going 60 is better.

Congress: As a scorer or Parli, I look for good speeches with good evidence and analysis, but also continuous participation. I believe Congress is an overall package, including activity with questioning, motions and amendments. PO's should be able to move the chamber along smoothly, and fairly. However, they must also recognize that sometimes this may be a new experience for someone in the chamber, and be sure that everyone understands how the PO is maneuvering the chambers, not just assume that it's just standard operating procedure for everyone. Be good to each other and you will often stand out from the competition.

In general, speak at a moderate speed, and be considerate of your teammates, opponents, and judges. Refrain from hyperbole. Please be clear, concise, and organized -- connect the dots for me.

I am not a technical judge. I will flow the best I can and evaluate your arguments but I am not comfortable with progressive rounds. Keep the round traditional (no tricks) or risk losing my ballot. There is no need to speed read. Please do things to make your speech easier to follow. Slow down/emphasize taglines. Signpost, and Roadmap off-time for clarity.

Debate and arguments must be persuasive. If the argument does not persuade me, I have no reason to vote for it. I do not intervene so debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them. Be clear about what I am weighing and what I should value most highly. Impacts should be realistic. Not every action could or will cause a nuclear war. Your argument should be clear and plausible. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

It is important to show respect to your competitors and approach every speech as an opportunity to teach and learn.

I've been involved with forensics for a very long time, mostly as an extemp coach but also as an LD coach.

I prefer that the students establish the ground rules but here are some of my concerns.

Speed is not your friend. If you speak too quickly, my pen will drop, and I will stop listening.

Analysis is important. Repeating an argument without evidence, logic or some type of rational support is a waste of your time.

Be courteous.

I prefer that you refer to a specific argument as opposed to saying carry my subpoint 2.B.

Direct clash with the opponent earns your speaker points. Avoiding issues will cost you speaker points.

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". In the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

I am a parent Judge, I value the topic and confidence. I like people being honest, open, articulate, and polite.

i want to be able to understand what the debaters is talking, also not too complicated English words, easy to follow

I have judged different formats before, PF being the majority. I have been very impressed by the hard work the students have been doing with these debate tournaments and want to encourage them by putting in as much effort as possible when I judge tournaments. I work for the Department of Education for the state of New Jersey and work for students on a daily basis and very well understand the importance of these tournaments in student's career. I always look for confidence in students when they present themselves. Clarity in speaking and being expressive in arguments impresses me in addition to evidence based arguments. Looking forward to listen to the students and reward their hard work. Best wishes!

I work as a political consultant and policy advisor. I also teach speech and debate courses along with civic education courses in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. With regard to LD debate, I prefer typical conversation style but will not factor rate of delivery in my decision-making. The quality of evidence in a debate is my primary criterion for judging. I prefer that final rebuttals should include a line-by-line analysis. Voting issues can be given moving down the flow or at the end of the final speech. Jargon should only be used when and where it may add value. I decide the winner of the round by selecting the winner of most arguments in each round. I take notes keeping a tally of key arguments in each round.

I am new to LD judging and I prefer a typical conversational speed and decide the winner based on the debater that persuaded me more of his/her position. On a scale of 1 -10, I feel the use of evidence is very important and would rate it on a 7-8. The use of jargon should be kept to a minimum and final rebuttals should include a line by line analysis. I usually outline the important arguements when note taking.

I have been judging Lincoln-Douglas debate for two years. This is my first time judging Big Questions. I am a psychiatrist accustomed to listening. I will be able to understand and follow your presentation better if you make your points clearly, maintain good eye contact, and enunciate with clarity and appropriate expression, especially if giving a rapid-fire line of reasoning. Quality vs. quantity is important. I can only judge by what I am able hear and understand well.I find well-formulated and supported arguments persuasive. I respect and appreciate your dedication and hard work. Best wishes!

I am looking for topicality does the thesis of the affirmative really meet the standards of debate. I also look and see what evidence is being used and if it used effectively and not just some random piece of evidence that is biased. You see their is the subjective and objective facts in each debate. I also look at see when you quote evidence is up to date and plausible to support your thesis. I expect language to be respectful to each other if you are aff or neg. I do not like to use profanity in this educational setting. Do you use your time wisely? Does someone leave two or three minutes left in a rebuttal if so why? Doing crossfire do you answer questions properly or ask probing questions to help you win the debate. I value good speakers and good flow.

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

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

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

As a judge, either in PFD or LD , I am looking for a good respectful debate, and please note I am traditionalist - yes circuit competitors you hate seeing this. However, the structure and format is set for a reason.

Please make sure you use sound evidence and impacts should be clear, like in LD your Value should win out, please do not make this a policy round.

Thank you and have a great tournament.

I ask that you please no do use spreading, I find it harder to judge those who do.

This is my first time judging Parliamentary debate.

This is my first year judging and being involved in Debate. Please be clear, concise, and organized when presenting. Please speak loudly and clear so that I can understand you. Since I am new, I prefer that you do not speed read (spreading) as I do not want to miss any key points or arguments that you are trying to make.

I will do the best I can to evaluate your arguments fairly. When presenting during a debate, remember that your arguments must be persuasive whether you are affirmative or negative. It is important to show respect to your competitor and approach every speech as an opportunity to learn from each other and grow as a debater.

Hey everybody, my name is Zach. I was an LD debater at La Salle College High School for four years, and I'm currently a freshman at Penn. My preferred style was always trad debate, but I'm open to hearing any argument that you want to run. I'm probably best at evaluating policy-type args, and I used to be able to judge K's, but I am probably pretty rusty now. The only thing I would prefer not to hear is tricks, but you do you.

Whatever you run, just make sure to explain it well. Don't just repeat taglines and refer back to author names. Also, don't just extend your own cards--engage your opponents arguments.

As for spreading, make sure to share the doc and I will try my best to keep up. Here is my email: zrw1217@comcast.net. Being honest, though, I probably won't catch everything you're saying, so do it at your own risk.

Most of all, be kind and respectful to your opponent, and don't run any arguments based on racism, misogyny, homophobia, ableism, etc. If you have any questions about anything, feel free to ask me before the round starts or shoot me an email. Good luck!

email: tyler.wood973@gmail.com

prefs:

I feel comfortable judging: Policy, Trad, T, neolib/cap, MM, Sec, set col, theory

I feel not comfortable judging: PoMo, pess, phil, most non-t affs, 

I hate judging: trix, friv theory

also, I am no longer involved in argument formation or prepping debaters, I have very little background info on the current topic

you must send: interps / plan texts / standards (in a theory shell) / alt text / etc...

it would be nice for everyone if you sent: prewritten analytics / summary of standards (or the whole text) / overviews

I think it's also worth mentioning that I do not like disclosure arguments. I do not think the judge should have jurisdiction to vote on things that happen outside the round, as this is an infinite burden. Of course I can be persuaded otherwise

Bronx: I've started to realize that despite me indicating I'm not involved in prep, debaters continue to read 1ac arguments that require extensive background knowledge and research on contemporary global events, without explanation in the 1ac. I will no longer go on a wikipedia binge to attempt to understand the arguments you are making, I'll simply not evaluate them if the 1ac evidence is insufficient to explain the concept.

If you only have 30 seconds

Policy----X----------------------------------------K

Tech---------X------------------------------------Truth

Read no cards------------------X-----------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--------------X----------------Conditionality bad

States CP good---------------------------X-------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing----------------------X-------Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-X--------------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most-----X---------------------------Link matters most

Fairness is a thing-X------------------------------Fairness isn’t an impact

Try or die---------------X--------------------------No risk

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------I’ll just read the docs

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption------X--------------------------------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

Judge kick good-------X----------------Judge kick bad

3 minutes of theory preempts-----------------------X-a short U/V seems fine

Quick thoughts

Hi, I'm Tyler, I debated for La Salle College in PA for 3 years and am a second year out. When I debated I was mostly a disclosure/T/Plan debater. I ran some Kritiks, like cap, neolib, and a brief stint in MM and security, but not much else. My favorite 1a was 1-2 advantages, plan, framing, short UV. My favorite 1n was t/theory, 2 da, 1-2 cp, case. 

For online tournaments:

please don't go top speed. I haven't judged circuit tournaments recently, and I have a really difficult time understanding things over zoom. It's much easier if you start slower and work up to 200-250 (please nothing over that). I'll say clear 2-3 times but after that I'll flow what I can hear and won't look at the doc.

I expect all competitors to be respectful, know the rules of their format and follow the needed order of the debate. I would categorize myself as more of a traditionalist versus progressive. I would appreciate all competitors speak slowly, loud and clear AND clearly state their contentions.