ERHS Cavalier Invitational
2022 — Forest City, NC/US
Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideThis will be my second time judging a tournament, but my first time judging LD. Please make sure to enunciate clearly, make a firm argument, and outweigh your impacts specifically against your opponent's impacts. I will take lots of notes and remain impartial until the round is completely over.
I am generally a flow judge and can follow fast paced debate.
Framework should be established and followed throughout the round. Tell me why your framework is superior and back up your claim with evidence in contentions. If there is no framework debate, the round will rely on weighing evidence in contentions.
Contentions should be clearly stated with supporting evidence and analysis. Your evidence should be fully explained and analyzed as to its impact on the debate. I prefer evidence be referred to by subject/topic throughout the round rather than simply the author's name. Know your evidence well enough defend it in cross-examination.
Your case should be organized, focused and come to a reasonable conclusion that convinces me to vote in your favor. Failure to communicate the importance of evidence, weighing values and impacts, or extending key arguments may result in a loss.
Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org
Charlotte Latin School (2022-), formerly at Providence (2014-22).
Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that sometimes and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I can't do all that work for you.
GENERAL:
COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key!
If you present a framework/ROB, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.
Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).
I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.
I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.
Not a fan of tricks.
LD:
Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is, and give me clear judge instruction in the round (the trad rounds I judge have much fewer win conditions, so explain to me why your arguments should trigger my ballot. If I can't understand what exactly your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.)
PF:
Please collapse the round!
I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.
CONGRESS:
Argument quality and evidence are more important to me than pure speaking skills & polish.
Show me that you're multifaceted -- quality over quantity. I'll always rank someone who can pull off an early speech and mid-cycle ref or late-cycle crystal over someone who gives three first negations in a row.
I reward flexibility/leadership in chamber: be willing to preside, switch sides on an uneven bill, etc.
WORLDS:
Generally looking for you to follow the norms of the event: prop sets the framework for the round (unless abusive), clear intros in every speech, take 1-2 points each, keep content and rhetoric balanced.
House prop should be attentive to motion types -- offer clear framing on value/fact motions, and a clear model on policy motions.
On argument strategy: I'm looking for the classic principled & practical layers of analysis. I place more value on global evidence & examples.
Concept Explanation
CREI ORGANIZATION STRATEGY: CREI is an acronym that stands for claim, reasoning, evidence, and impact. The claim should tell the judge what you are arguing. The reasoning should show why your claim is true in your own words. The evidence should show why your claim is true using the words of another. The impact should tell the judge why your argument matters.
RIOT METHOD: RIOT is an acronym that stands for reduce, indict, outweigh, and turn. Reducing your opponent’s arguments means to put the arguments into perspective. Putting your opponent’s arguments into perspective includes breaking the argument down into its core components to show the judge the ridiculousness of the argument, or you can take the weight of their argument and compare it to the other numbers that make the weight of their argument seem small. Indicting your opponent’s arguments is the most common form of refutation. You can indict your opponent based on flawed logic and bad evidence. Outweigh is when you look at the impacts of your arguments and your opponent’s and tell the judge why your impacts have a greater weight using IMPACT CALCULUS. Turning is taking your opponent’s argument and using it to benefit your side. If your opponent presents an argument and you notice it helps your side the same or more than your opponent’s point that out and explain why to the judge.
THREE-POINT REFUTATION STRATEGY:Three-point refutation breaks down the refutation process in an easy-to-manage way. The first step is to say, “my opponent said _______.” Then you follow up by saying “my opponent is wrong because _______.” Then you end by saying “this error is significant because _________.”
VOTER ISSUES:Voter issues give the judge criteria to vote on other than his own. Providing these voter issues will allow you to demonstrate to the judge why you have won the round. Common votes include better evidence, rhetoric, and greater impact weight.
WORLD COMPARISON:World comparisons are a persuasive way to demonstrate to the judge what is happening in the aff/neg (pro/con) worlds. World comparison tells the judge what the world would like if he voted for one side or the other and illustrates why one world is more/less desirable than the other.
IMPACT CALCULUS:Impact calculus is an easy way to illustrate to the judge why your arguments have more weight than your opponent’s. Impacts can have a greater weight depending on timeframe, scope, magnitude, and probability. Timeframe compares how soon the consequences of the impact will happen. Scope observes how many people the impact will affect. Magnitude explains how bad/good the consequences of the impact are (think getting sick vs. dying). Probability measures how likely the impact is to happen.
Lincoln Douglas
Judging Criterion:
I primarily judge on how the debaters engage with the values presented because LD boils down to the values. Focusing on the values requires great LD debaters to rely on mostly rhetoric, philosophy, theory, and history to support their arguments. Using studies and other academic journal works would prove insufficient in LD when they stand alone because the findings only serve to illustrate debaters’ reasoning. Because debaters’ main reliance comes from their own reasoning, they should maintain a conversational pace when speaking.
The next quality I look for in both debaters is accomplishing the goal of each speech for the debate.For constructive speeches, the debaters should focus on communicating their main arguments to the judge, except for negative using some time to refute the affirmative’s contentions of course.To communicate their constructive arguments clearly,debaters should use the CREI ORGANIZATION STRATEGY or a similar strategy (explanation above).
During cross-examination,debaters asking questions should make sure to only ask questions that let them gain information for their refutation, however,please do not only ask yes/no questions,give your opponent the chance to slip up when they are over-explaining an answer to one of your questions. The questions should be concise so the opponent cannot claim to “not understand” your question and waste your CX time, and the questioner should not let opponents waste their CX time by giving long answers. Therefore,questioners should let their opponent answer their question plus one sentence and then politely cut them off.The questions a debater asks should indict one of three elements in an opponent’s case: reasoning, evidence quality, and impact weight.Debaters answering questions should keep their answers concise and answer only what their opponents asked them, so they do not accidentally give their opponent more ammo for when they start their refutation speech. However, when answering questions,you should not only answer with a “yes” or “no.”You need to explain why the answer is “yes” or “no,” especially when a “yes” or “no” answer damages your argument in the eyes of the public.
During refutation speeches, debaters need to focus on both attacking their opponent’s arguments and bolstering their own. For attacking,debaters should use the RIOT METHOD (explanation above). Along with this method,debaters can use the THREE-POINT REFUTATION STRATEGY(explanation above).For bolstering arguments, debaters should not just repeat their argument in different words; instead,debaters should try to focus on what their opponents said and counter the reasoning or evidence their opponents used during refutations.
Finally,debaters should end the round with a strong closing speech.Strong closing speeches NEVER summarize what each debater said during the round. Instead,strong closing speeches tell the judge why you won the round.The best methods to use to tell the judge how you won include VOTER ISSUES,WORLD COMPARISON, and IMPACT CALCULUS(explanations above). Debaters should also make sure to relate their concluding arguments back to their value and why their value should be preferred during the round.
During all these speeches,debaters should relate all that they say in support of their side back to their value. Remember this is a debate about VALUES. Therefore,the debater who convinces the judge to prefer their value wins the round.Without convincing the judge to prefer your value, you will miss the whole purpose of this format and probably lose.These are the strategies that will make you a great LD debater.
Breakdown:
CONTENT: 70%
Values – 30%
Logical Reasoning – 10%
Impacts – 20%
Supporting Materials – 10%
SPEAKING: 30%
Conversational Pace – 15%
Non-fluencies – 10%
Tone and Non-verbals – 5%
Hi! I am a parent judge for LD, but I have been judging tournaments for a while. I heavily prefer traditional cases (no theory, K's, etc.); counterplans are fine. No spreading, do not be condescending, racist, homophobic, sexist, or anything that attacks a debater's personal beliefs or identification, else I will drop you. I flow crossx, as it is binding. I do not appreciate post rounding, unless you are truly confused and want to understand the outcome better.
Tech>Truth
Good luck and have fun!
I am a parent volunteer and this is my first year judging LD debate.
I look for well-constructed arguments that are organized, focused, and effectively integrate value and criteria. Contentions should be clear stated, and supporting evidence clearly cited. I value quality over quantity.
Delivery is important to me. You will do well to speak clearly and at a conversational pace so that I can hear you, understand what you are saying, and digest the points/arguments you are making. Speaking excessively fast/spreading will not be helpful. Being clear, professional and courteous will.
Hi, my name is Shelley Holland. I am a parent judge and a teacher. I primarily judge LD.
Value: The value debate is very important and you should weave your value into your contentions and throughout the debate. Values are key voter issues for me.
Speed: If I can't understand you, I can't flow it. Be sure to speak clearly.
CX: I don't flow CX, but if you bring up CX in rebuttal - that is fine.
Time: I will also keep time. I will not evaluate anything that is said after the allotted time.
Make sure to have a clear link chain with clear impacts.
I prefer an analytical debate where you are interacting with your opponent's argument.
I am a lay judge. Convince me on why the world you create is better than your opponent's.
Being courteous to your opponent is a requirement. Have fun!
Hi everyone!
I’m a parent judge and this is my second time judging. Please do not spread. I won’t flow anything that is said after time passes. Be respectful and polite. Good luck!!
I am first year Judge - please speak slowly and clearly.
I am a new judge. I value clear arguments presented logically with sufficient supporting evidence, common sense, and/or citations. I value when competitors speak slowly and clearly with sufficient pauses or verbal cues when shifting topics or arguments. Finally, I value respect and sportsmanship between and with all involved.
I am a new judge, but very used to listening to people debate the pros and cons of a thesis or framework at work.
I am an ex-traditional policy debate coach (Stock issues judge) who has been coaching LD since 1990. I usually administrate tournaments rather than judge except when I have been at Catholic Nat's and NSDA Nat's.
Speed: Adapt to the judge who prefers a few well-developed arguments to spreading. I will flow as fast as I can, but it is up to you to communicate to me the compelling/persuasive reasons why you should earn the ballot. Speak clearly and articulate your words and you'll do fine.
Flex Prep. No. Speak within the time constraints and use prep time to see Evidence.
Evidence Challenge: If you doubt the veracity of evidence, then challenge it at the next available opportunity. Remember evidence challenges are all or none. If the evidence has been proven to be altered or conjured, then your opponent loses. If the evidence is verifiable and has NOT been materially altered, then you lose for the specious challenge.
Arguments: A few well-reasoned claims, warrants, and impacts are very persuasive as opposed to a laundry list of underdeveloped assertions/arguments.
Theory Arguments: Not a big fan of sitting in judgment of the topic and/or its framers with critiques. But I do weigh the issue of topicality as germane if made during the constructives.
Philosophy: It's been labeled Value debate for a reason. I encourage the discussion of scholarly philosophies.
Framework: There is a Value that each side is pursuing as their goal. There is a value criterion that is used to measure the accrual of the VP. The last steps include why the Value is superior and why the VC is the best way to measure that value.
Decision-Rule. While repetition often aids learning, I prefer that you tell me what the established standard for judging the round has been and why your arguments have met/exceeded the threshold. Write the ballot for me.
PFD: I have coached and judged PFD since the event started.
I prefer a framework and a few well-developed arguments to the spread. Point keywords as you read your case. Be polite in C-X and ask closed-ended questions. Tell me why your arguments are better by weighing impacts.
Ryan Parimi - Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm
Email: ryan.parimi@gmail.com
About me:
- UGA law student
- I coach/teach college, high school, and middle school debate (LD, PF, WS, Parli)
- I did congressional debate and moot court in college
- I coach college moot court and high school and middle school mock trial
- I started my university's debate program
- I've taught summer debate camps at Yale, Drew, U. of Washington, and even one way out in Jakarta, Indonesia
General Debate Stuff:
- A coach once called me a debate "hipster"; though I enjoy a lot of the more progressive arguments, my philosophy of debate still centers on clear argumentation and conversational, persuasive speech. After all, you’re trying to win me—not just win arguments in a vacuum. I want to be convinced. Talk to me, don't just talk at me.
- I like aspects of both traditional and circuit debate. I wish the traditional community wouldn't let its fear of everything turning into policy keep it from adopting some helpful circuit norms, and I wish the circuit community would stop trying to convince itself that a total departure from traditional debate turns the activity into anything but an esoteric game with no real-life application.
- Examples of cases that would be great for my taste: a Cap K that links reasonably to the resolution, argued in a more traditional style; a traditional case that demonstrates a deep understanding of the philosophy behind its framework; a tech case that restores my faith in humanity by making semi-reasonable arguments and doesn't force me to flow 10 subpoints of copy-paste garbage from the debate wiki.
- Tech over truth (within reason). You should probably run your tech case for me if you're torn between tech and lay.
- I actually know all of the NSDA's evidence rules.
Speed:
-
Prioritize clarity. Spreading is lame, but I can flow it and won't vote you down solely because you chose to spread. If you spread, please be good at it: your articulation better not go down the drain, you better stay organized, etc. Bad spreading will tank your speaker points. Email me your case or give me a printed copy before the round if you plan on spreading.
Framework:
-
I’m fine with traditional and more modern frameworks. Just make whatever you’re using clear. Be aware that I have a very good understanding of the philosophy behind most frameworks...don't try to BS me on Kant or Rawls or something. I will know. That being said, I believe it's on the debaters to call each other out on stuff like that. I'm going to flow it unless it's crazy.
- Please don't throw the framework debate away. It's what makes LD unique.
Kritiks and Theory:
-
I come from a pretty traditional circuit, but a well-developed K could certainly convince me. Similar to the philosophy behind traditional frameworks, I'm familiar with the critical theories behind most Ks.
- Theory arguments are fine when there's actual abuse--just explain clearly. Save RVIs for egregious things.
- I hate disclo and will not vote on it with one exception. Look: disclo sucks, and I'm not even sure why we still let people get away with trying to win on disclo in 2024. Part of debate is learning how to analyze and respond to arguments on the fly. Yes, it's hard. No, I'm not going to give you a win for whining about it being hard. Here's the one exception: if you didn't share your case and you're spreading so fast that flowing is nearly impossible, I will give you the L if your opponent runs disclo.
Other random stuff:
-
I like reading Alexander Pope, collecting shoes, listening to Chinese rap, and exploring Marxist criticism.
- I will follow the NSDA rules for LD whenever questions that the rules address come up. I follow tradition for pretty much anything else. If you have questions about specific preferences, just ask before the round.
Dear Debaters,
As a judge, my primary goal is to foster a fair, constructive, and intellectually stimulating debate environment. Here is my paradigm to provide you with insight into my expectations and criteria for evaluating your performances:
-
Clarity and Organization:
- I appreciate clear and well-organized presentations. Don't speak too fast. More importantly, ensure that your arguments are structured logically, making it easy to follow your line of reasoning.
-
Content and Substance:
- Substance is key. Research your main points well. I like supported assertions. Depth of analysis and a comprehensive understanding of the topic will be crucial in my evaluation.
-
Engagement and Responsiveness:
- Actively engage with your opponents' arguments. This is where most debates are won or lost. Be alert. Address counterarguments effectively, and be responsive to questions during crossfire. Demonstrating adaptability and responsiveness will positively impact your overall assessment.
-
Delivery and Style:
- A compelling delivery enhances the impact of your arguments. Stand or sit up straight. Maintain a clear and audible voice, use hand gestures to emphasize your points, and make good eye contact with the judge and opponents.
-
Professionalism:
- Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate. This includes respecting time limits, avoiding distractions, and presenting your arguments with a focus on substance rather than theatrics. Civil, respectful discourse is key for me.
-
Collaborative Teamwork:
- For team debates, I value collaborative teamwork. 1-1=0... 1+1=2. Teams work best. Each team member should actively contribute, and an effective division of responsibilities can enhance the overall coherence of your arguments.
-
Critical Thinking:
- Showcase your critical thinking skills. Analyze the implications of your arguments and demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the topic. Quality over quantity is important, and thoughtful, well-supported points will be rewarded.
-
Respectful Environment:
- Foster a respectful and inclusive debate environment. Disagreement is expected, but it should be expressed with courtesy and professionalism. Create an atmosphere that encourages intellectual exchange.
Remember, my goal is to provide constructive feedback that will help you grow as debaters. Regardless of the outcome, each debate is an opportunity for improvement. I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging debate.
Best regards,
Sarah Patten
Hi debaters! My name is Jason Petrin and I am a software architect by trade. I am a parent judge and typically judge LD. Here are a few dos and don’t for rounds that I judge…
1. Do not spread. This may seem obvious but unfortunately some still struggle with making points clear. If I do not hear it it does not get flowed.
2. I judge SOLELY off the flow.
3. I do not judge during cross and I will not even flow it.
4. (For LD) Values are heavily considered during my final decision. That being said please understand the difference between a value and a value criterion.
5. Do not use ad hominem attacks, it is lazy and insulting to your opponent.
Good luck!
Hello, my name is Erin Revels (she/her). I work in healthcare industry as an Epic Analyst and am also a parent judge. In the past have judged LD and PF. This is my first year judging debate but have enjoyed the majority of the rounds I have judged.
For Debate:
- Impacts are a voting issue make sure you weigh
- I flow as you speak, talking too fast makes this difficult
- For LD Clearly outline your value, contentions and impacts
- Please make sure to extend cards and links or they will be dropped.
- In PF weigh impact, tell my why to I should vote for you. If you choose an ambiguous impact voting will not go your way.
- CX will not be judged or flowed
- I will keep time and not judge anything that goes past the allotted time.
- Be respectful to the other competitors
For Speech:
· This is my first time judging Speech, please be patient with me.
- Please let me know if you’re cross entered
- Time signals will be provided.
- Delivery and content are important.
- Entertain me if applicable (OO DEC DP OI DUO)
- For EXT I will be judging on arguments and analysis, organization, and sources.
- For OO I will be looking for relatability, easy to follow content and organization.
I look forward to seeing all your hard work. Good luck with your rounds.
My names is Keri Schacht, I am a second year judge. I really enjoy judging.
I prefer slower speech, with a mutual respect between opponents. Clear and concise speech is also always a plus, with a positive attitude along with a passion for whatever subject they are discussing. I also look for the person who is able to better convince me of their side of the argument.
Overall, I look for confidence, eye contact, respect, and a love for debate in each and every opponent.
Happy Debating!
After the first aff, It's important to refute speakers that have spoken before, contextualize the debate, and weigh in. All speakers should question as much as possible and questioning is almost as important as speeches for me.
Call out bad arguments, if an argument does not have strong logical reasoning behind it or you don’t explain the argument or an argument that doesn't make sense will get dropped. Substance trumps style flourish for me.
However I rhetoric which I believe is the underpinning of a good debater. Supporting arguments with good examples goes a long way in persuading me.
I believe debate is about reasoning and convincing others and therefore constructing your case logically and then articulating it well is what I expect to see.
I competed at the national level in PF for 4 years. The most important thing I need to see in a round is continuity -- I would rather hear one/two strong argument evolve and develop throughout the round than hear four/five arguments get spottily extended across the flow. Don't make me do more work than I need to when making my decision, so pick a narrative, stick with it, and clearly give me a comparative weighing mechanism against your opponents. Beyond that, some specifics:
I am fine with speed, but, seeing as this activity is meant to be inclusive of the average person, please try and avoid spreading at all cost;
I am okay with the first speaking team extending defense from rebuttal to final focus, as long as they do not make it a reason to vote for them (i.e. only terminal defense). Any reason to vote for you (i.e. offense) must be in summary in order for it to be in final focus;
Big fan of jokes/humor in round, but stay civil and respectful of the event and one another;
Tell me why I am voting for your side in the latter half of the round. Explaining why you're winning an argument is helpful, but not nearly as imperative as explaining why that argument translates into signing my ballot for your side.
Things to do for boosted speaker points:
- Funny analogies/metaphors
- 1-off Case
- Varied use of hand gestures
- Inclusion of pop culture references
- Impressive vocabulary