I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card.

Timing

You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if not argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts. Performance is important here.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true. I have a fairly low threshold to vote on "psychoanalysis is unscientific nonsense" arguments because....well, they're kinda true.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

Educational Background:

Georgia Southern University (2018) - Ed.D. Curriculum Studies; Cultural Studies

Georgia Southern (2010) - M.Ed.

Virginia Commonwealth University (1983) - B.A. English

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2008-2010) Lassiter High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2003-2005) North Cobb High School

Public Forum

Make your points efficiently. Be polite.

Policy

I'm a bit of a policy wonk, so be sure to cite credible research. Don't be so rushed that you can't enunciate clearly.

Lincoln Douglas

I haven't judged many LD debates, but tend to lean towards arguments that are logical and compassionate.

Speed

I will do my best to follow your argument should you choose to spread. I appreciate those who recognize that speed should not have priority over delivery.

Disclosure

I will try to answer questions if at all possible and provide disclosure.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

This is an opportunity to identify weaknesses in an opponent's argument and allow them the opportunity to remedy misstatements or oversights. It is not an opportunity to be snarky or try to trick your opponent.

Axioms

"It's nice to be smart, but it's smart to be nice." (Unknown)

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams, The Portable John Adams

Contact: DIANA BISHOP, dfbishop58@gmail.com

Hi! I’m a senior and I'm in my third year of LD at Midtown High School.

General

I prefer speech drop but put me on the email chain fionabray06@gmail.com

I've competed both on the GA circuit and national circuit, and broken at tournaments for both. I'm fine with progressive or trad, just do what you want in the round. Generally, I would say don't change your style for your opponent but also don't beat up on traditional debaters with jargon. Some exposure to the circuit is good but 7 off for an easy ballot is not. I think a good traditional debater should be able to effectively counter progressive argumentation without compromising their style. I did a lot of K debate my second year but I'm almost entirely a policy debater now.

Tech over truth, CX is binding, I presume neg but I’ll listen to arguments from either side

Give a roadmap before your speech. Signpost if you deviate from that but you should signpost anyway

I'm probably a 9/10 for speed, just be clear on analytics. I'll say clear three times then just ignore you.

I don't usually flow until the 1NC on case so I can read evidence

No you cannot insert rehighlighting???? I'm not flowing it unless you say it

Use trigger warnings if you're discussing sensitive stuff (on this, I'll evaluate arguments like neg util/death good and I've run them before but make sure to do it appropriately)

Don't violate accommodations and don't be exclusionary/ad hominem/discriminatory (no sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.; I'll give you the lowest speaks, drop you, and if necessary let your coach know)

Prefs Cheat Sheet:

Policy, K - 1

Trad - 2

Phil, Theory/T - 3

Tricks, Friv Theory - 4/5

Policy (LARP)

Pretty easy for me to resolve, and one of my favorites to judge. Please collapse in the 2nr, you probably shouldn’t be going for all 6 off. The aff should read a plan for this (even if its whole res), and should probably mention util/SV once in the 1ac for framing.

I’m so tired of having tags with just the word extinction and the card just says we have a couple energy shortages with no major implications. Read your evidence, cut better evidence, and don’t lie in your tags.

Explain the perm. I need more than perm do both with nothing else.

Counterplans are cool but make sure there’s a net benefit. I usually go for 3-4 counterplans in the 1NC and I don't buy condo bad in pretty much every instance unless it's like over 6 counterplans. I think rehighlights as adv counterplans are so good and the more planks, the better. Good counterplan debate>>>

Politics DAs are cool, just please have recent evidence and understand the position. I don’t want a card from 2021 saying Biden can’t win independents.

I love impact turns. The crazier, the better. I like debaters taking risks and I’m open to voting on literally anything. Spark is probably my favorite.

K

Good K debates are the best types of rounds, but bad K debates are frustratingly difficult to resolve (pre-scripted 2NRs loaded with buzz terms that don’t frame anything for my ballot)—know your lit base (theory of power, topic links, etc), make it meaningful. Also please have a clear link to the aff. A generic “the aff has the state” link is annoying.

I prefer alts that are more than just "reject the aff". I want to know what the alt actually looks like. And see some kind of material change. Refusal can be good but you have to do the work to explain what this actually looks like and why it matters. I’m familiar with most literature bases, but the more obscure, the more you're going to have to explain it. Some of my favorites are cap, set col, post colonialism, fem and Virilio. I'm probably a lot better than most for afropess. I have an unusually large amount of experience hitting afropess, so I have a really good understanding of the K. This means I'm also pretty good for other types of pess Ks.

K Affs

Love them. I think topical k affs are great, but non topical are too. If you’re going to be non topical, be prepared for generic responses (tfw). Once again, I want to see that the aff actually does something. I don’t care what it is, I just want to know that the aff does something. My personal favorite k aff is fem killjoy. If you’re going for an identity argument or anything debate bad, know the literature and the movement. Rambling about something to confuse your opponent is not fun. Performances are also cool, just bring them up throughout the round and use it. A poem just to confuse your opponent with no later mention is a waste of time.

K v K

A good K v. K round is great to watch, but this does take work on your part. I need some level of effort to evaluate. Please interact with one another, explain the perm, explain the alt, weigh between methods, etc. Absent this, I think it gets really messy for me to resolve.

Phil

Honestly, I’m probably not the best to evaluate these kinds of cases, but I have a fair amount of experience hitting them. I’d prefer a genuine phil position and not 3 min of spikes. I’m most familiar with Korsgaard/Kant, Virtue Ethics, Levinas, Heidegger, and Deleuze. I’m not a huge fan when there’s only a single card of offense. 2-4 is probably better. TJFs seem silly. AFC and ACC are bad arguments, the threshold for response is so low.

Theory/T

Not the best for this either, just because I find it difficult to resolve if the debate comes down to just multiplate friv shells. I don’t apply defaults in theory rounds. PLEASE WEIGH BETWEEN SHELLS. I don’t want to have to do this work for you. The sillier the shell, the lower threshold for response. PICs and condo are a good thing for debate, and probably not abusive.

Reasonability is always an option – similarly, I think it’s actually quite strategic to read reasonability as a paradigm issue for accessibility-type theory

Reading more than 2 shells in-round (on either side) will usually lead me to question your strategic decisions.

A lot of IVIs just aren't IVIs, please warrant how it is one and why it matters.

I think RVIs can be valid. I also think they can be stupid. Give good warranting to why you get one.

T is cool. I like shells a little more fleshed out than generic tfw or nebel. Running a tfw shell beyond just “aff must defend a policy” and going for it in the 2nr properly will give you high speaks. RVIs for T are not real.

Tricks

Not my favorite. Just explain why they actually mean you win. Honestly I have a low threshold for response because I don’t like them, but I won’t automatically vote against it. That being said, I think the grain paradox is super duper silly and I’d love to hear it.

If you're going to go for it, I understand ethical paradoxes within the time constraints of a debate round much better than logical formulae/dense logic equations—blitzing through a paragraph of “if p then q” will probably give me a headache.

Truth testing against Ks and K affs is not my favorite and a very uphill battle.

Disclosure

Disclosure is good for debate, but beating up on novices or trad debaters because they don’t know what the wiki is is not good for debate. I think the aff should be sent 30 min before the round (unless it's new) and your wiki should disclose positions from any bid tournament. This excludes novices or someone who doesn’t understand disclosure norms. Someone not disclosing their random Georgia local lay case is not abusive, and I’ll have a low threshold for theory. If they don’t have a wiki and clearly don’t understand disclosure norms, don’t run theory. It’s exclusive.

Trad

I mainly did this my novice and some of my second year. These debates are usually simple for me to resolve.

Please provide a coherent framework, with a v/vc structure. Freedom as a value and autonomy as a value criterion means nothing to me. I need to understand how your value connects to the resolution, and how the criterion actually provides a weighing mechanism. I think criterions that are “consistency with the constitution” are probably bad and problematic. Favorite trad frameworks are Rawls, util, and korsgaard. Winning framework doesn’t win the round. Engage with your opponents framework, but literally just agree they’re the same if they are similar. Use your time debating impacts, not whether maximizing well being or increasing pleasure is better. The impacts are going to win the debate here, not quality of life versus wellbeing.

I think link chains are really important here and proper warranting. A lot of evidence in trad rounds that I’ve seen has been horribly miscut or bracketed, with limited author credibility. I don’t want to hear your right wing think tank evidence. Please read the author last name and year before your card so I can flow it. The aff also needs some sort of solvency, implied solvency is not real.

Counterplans are fine in trad debate, but please have a counterplan text (what the cp advocates for). Also make sure the counterplan makes sense. For example, a multiplayer universal healthcare system as a counterplan to single payer universal healthcare makes sense. Solving all global poverty instead of doing the aff is silly.

Traditional rounds are easier to evaluate if you weigh, have clash, and give voters at the end, but are more difficult to resolve in the absence of crystallization in later speeches. Just engage with your opponent please. Weigh as early as possible to make this an easy round (1ac excluded). Tell me how to evaluate the round and vote.

Speaks

I don't listen to requests for speaks generally. If it's a good reason I might be persuaded.

I try and average a 28.5 with a scale of 27 to 30 for most normal rounds. I adjust my speaks based off of the pool.

Things I'll boost speaks for:

• If you commit to a traditional style and execute it well.

• If you run unique arguments and explain them well

• Using cross ex effectively (gain something, I don’t want 3 minutes of “what was your first contention again?”)

• Good rehighlights of 1AC/1NC evidence

Things I'll drop speaks for:

• Being a doc bot
• Clearly stealing something off the wiki and not understanding it (If it's someone else's rehighlights and it still says their name in the tag, I'll take off a speaker point)
• If you're obviously spreading analytics off a doc at full speed and not sending the doc
• Sending the 1NC before the 1AC starts

I am fairly new to the debate world, but I am a Language Arts teacher, so I value developed and well-reasoned arguments but do appreciate clear signposting. I value clarity over speed, though I don't mind if you speak quickly as long as you speak clearly.

Steer clear of fallacious thinking; it's a massive red flag. To me, the strongest arguments contain a variety of appeals and evidence. I also believe that the win lies in the clash; I want to see that you are listening closely to your opponent, thinking in the moment, and reacting directly and precisely.

Hello! I'm Henry.

I compete in Extemporaneous Speaking, so I'm more of a speech kinda guy than a debate kinda guy. I did do policy debate in middle school, but have very little other experience in debate.

For debaters, I prefer clarity over speed. I'm open to whatever progressive arguments you run, but you have to convince me that you're right.

Please speak clearly, concisely, and slow enough that I can understand. Supporting your claims with factual evidence is a must. Be prepared on the topic, it is apparent when you are not. Have passion which will sway my vote. Attack the other competitor's claims with reason and evidence. Tell me what arguments you have refuted and why you win the argument. Christina.Cazzola@cobbk12.org

Hi there, I'm Zach, and I have very little experience judging debate (sorry), but I did compete in policy debate in 7th and 8th grade. I will try my best to follow along with your speeches but please don't go too fast :) good luck and thanks for competing!

Hello, I am the parent of an LD debater and essentially should be viewed as a lay judge. I would like to hear clear, articulate speeches (clarity over speed is preferred, but ultimately your comfort level takes precedence). I expect you to avoid any hints of racism, sexism, homophobia or aggression in the enforcement of your argument. Determination and conviction are welcome, that is different. Please be respectful during CX, however rules of an honest command of topic and control over delivery of argument during CX apply. I do not flow CX but anything important that is said should be brought up in the following speech.

Email: hechildress25@gmail.com, please include me in any email chains

I've competed in almost every event - I've been in debate for 7 years now. I've gone to nationals 3 years in a row now. I love debate, please don't change that for me.

LD: Framework is the most important and whoever wins framework tends to win in my experience. Use your contentions to back your framework. I love LD, please don't make me dislike it. If your opponent drops your case and you say it went uncontested in your speech, then the argument stands and will be weighed heavily. I like impact analysis, so do what you with that. I do not care for statistics much because this is Lincoln Douglas Debate, this a morals and values centric debate and stats are for more policy and implementation centric debates. If it resorts to a stats debate, low speaker points, but better stats win.

PF: I have never competed in PF, but I have PFers on my team and understand the basics. Please don't use much jargon because I don't speak PF. This is not policy junior, so don't act like it. Use your evidence as impacts and arguments, don't just read it. I prefer traditional PF.

Congress: Read a speech and actually know it (or act like you know it). This is supposed to be fun. Don't be rude, and actually get stuff done.

CLASH - this is a debate, not a tea party. argue against every point. I prefer framework debates and contention impact weighing clash, but please don't resort to a definitions debate. If there is no clash, then speaker points will show that.

I will not do your work for you. If you said something in Cross Ex and don't bring it up, it is not an argument. Explain your links and impacts or else I won't.

Use all of your prep time because even if you don't need it, you need it.

IMPACTS!!!!! I judge the round off of impact weighing and linkage to frame!! If you do not bring up any impacts, speaker points and the overall outcome of the debate.

Values - I think the framework of a case is the most important part of a debate for LD. I don't care that much about implementation unless the resolution has it. PROVE HOW YOURS WINS and how it links to your case.

I will not accept any disrespectful language towards your opponents or judges. Don't be rude and you'll do just fine.

Timing - Use all of your time. Just do it. I will take points off for more than one minute of left.

Flow - When giving rebuttals, just go down the flow so it's easier for everyone. And please, please, please, for the love of all that is good, clarify what you are talking about.

Spreading - If I cannot understand what you're saying because you're speaking so fast, I will take off points even if I have the case. I can flow spread, but please speak clearly, and if you don't, then I will not flow the argument.

Know your case - at least act like you did the research and wrote the case. If you say you have a card for it, say the card name and argument at least.

Keep your logical fallacies for your next round.

PLAY BY THE RULES - if you lie about something or steal a case or do anything unethical, I will vote against you.

I will not vote on Extinction arguments without proper links (minimum of 4 cards to prove linkage).

Losses for me: disrespect, sexist/racist/LGBTQ+phobic/literally any discriminatory comments or language, or violence.

I don't really like Theory, but if it goes uncontested I'll flow it, and if it has proper links and explanation, then I'll flow it.

Don't browbeat less experienced debaters or your speaks will be below 28

Interp: Only rule for me- SCREAMING DOES NOT EQUAL EMOTION!! If you can show emotion without screaming, you did good. Now if it's a getting louder because the piece needs to show emphasis, sounds good.

Short-pre-round version: Speech and Debate coach at Calhoun High School (Georgia). Former high school policy debater in the mid 1980s. Since re-entry into the activity via UTNIF in 2018, I have worked hard to learn innovations in debate since my time in high school. My paradigm is still evolving. Even though I am willing to listen to anything, debaters must have clash and explanation. - following Toulmin (Claim, Warrant, Explanation). I flow, so I expect you to signpost, label, and explain.

Longer, working on prefs, version: If you think from visual clues that I am not getting the argument, I am probably not.

I expect to receive an email chain for 1A and 1N at deguirek@calhounschools.org

My team: I coach on the national and regional (Georgia) circuit. My team has transitioned from a policy only team to an LD only team. Now, the team writes most of their own arguments, but my varsity teams run a lot of Ks. Understand that just because my team runs an argument doesn't mean that I like it, or that I will understand it without your thorough explanation of the argument.

Likes/dislikes: I teach debate because I love debate, the community, and the education it provides. I try to be extremely objective and vote for teams because I think their arguments won, never because of rep or outside (or inside the round) influences. In fact, I tend to react badly if I believe a team or coach is trying to exert undue influence. Post-round I will give you as clear a critique as I possibly can and will answer respectful and honest questions from the debaters. I expect a team I drop (and their coaches) to be unhappy, but no matter what, please be nice to your opponents, your partner, your coaches, and your judge.

LARPing: I can deal with LARPing as long as I can follow it. If you spread through the analytics or don't signpost or don't weigh the args, don't expect me to vote for it.

Weirdness:I do not like performance-based actions of any kind. No challenging opponents to any kind of physical altercations, especially tortilla fights (don't ask.)

My email: deguirek@calhounschools.org

Updated January 2024 for Barkley Forum

Dr. Brice Ezell – Debate Coach, The Lovett School

Speechdrop is preferred, but if it's email do add me to the chain -- my email is brice.ezell@lovett.org

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate in California and nationally for my four years in high school, and another four years in the WUDC format at George Fox University. My PhD, though in English, centered on philosophy, so I’m comfortable and familiar with much of the critical/theoretical literature used in theory-heavy LD cases. At Lovett, I coach LD and PF, though I mostly judge the former. (For Public Forum debaters: scroll to the second-to-last section of this paradigm for PF stuff, though note that a lot of my thinking in the bulk of the paradigm applies to PF as well.)

The TL;DR below should honestly suffice for most folks. The page below is long, I know, but I treat this paradigm like a running document where I put out answers to questions I get more than once, so that hopefully this page gets to a place where it'd answer basically any question before the debate happens, to save the debaters any time in asking me questions before the round. My general tip would be if your question boils down to one debate jargon term (e.g. "skep" or "RVI"), search that term on the page and -- ideally -- I'll have something written.

TL;DR Summary of Everything in this Paradigm: In general, I will vote on whatever is most successfully warranted, weighed, and impacted in the round. Arguments can have all sorts of impacts: to the fairness of the debating activity, to the possibility of nuclear war, to violating a universal ethical principle, etc. However you impact your arguments, you also need to sell me on some kind of standard by which I am to evaluate the in-round impacts. This doesn’t mean you have to use the old-school value/criterion structure, but rather that you as part of your weighing need to tell me the yardstick by which to measure all the in-round impacts. Absent any clear standard from the debaters I will default to a post-AC utility calculus (meaning: I assume the AFF happens, and then I weigh the impacts claimed in the round by both sides) – though, hopefully, my judging doesn’t get to that point.

Tech > Truth?: Yes, though when I'm listening to and flowing your arguments, they need to, at some level, make sense, i.e. tags need to be clearly articulated and internally incoherent. So, for example, if you're running a really out-there K or otherwise philosophically inclined argument, explain what key terms mean and what they look like applied to the debate at hand, even if you think I know the body of literature from which you're drawing. To give one example, run a psychoanalysis K in front of me, but if you read some tagline that's like "The alternative is to run towards the Real," like... I'll flow it, but I don't know what "run towards the real" means unless your tag or card gives me some explanation of what that would look like. You shouldn't be clarifying key claims of a case only in the rebuttals.

Speed?: Yes, I’m fine with it. My main request, though, is that you slow down and are very clear when reading your contention taglines and names/dates of your cards. If, however, one competitor in a round is fine with speed and the other isn't, I'd prefer that speed not be used.

Performance Cases: As it happens, my PhD specialty was in drama/theatre, so in a very real sense performance cases are, in theory, a perfect intersection of my interests. With that said, I definitely hold performance cases to a higher standard than most lines of argumentation one could take in an LD round, even the more out-there Ks. This is a category where I like to be surprised -- hell, that's part of the value of performance cases in general -- but the main thing I would stress is that a performance case should be delivered from a position of genuine and substantial critique, not merely the novelty of the performance itself. I remember back in my debating days that when people would talk about performance cases, it was almost like the critical-intellectual equivalent of shock jockery: "Oh, they'll never see this coming!" And sure, there is a surprise-based strategic value to performance argumentation, but considering the causes to which performances cases are so often put in service -- e.g. feminism, Queer rights, combating anti-Blackness, etc -- taking a performance strategy that feels solely motivated by how "surprising" it, to me, feels like a disservice to how important those causes are. So, put simply: if you want to run a performance case in front of me, you better deliver it like you're living the truth of what you're saying, not simply that you're picking something because of how avant-garde it is. A performance case should feel like a unique approach to persuasion, not an evasion of it for the sake of leaving your opponent befuddled.

Also, just a general note for those running performance cases: make sure you understand what the word "performative" means.

What Do I Not Like? (Really: What Arguments am I Skeptical Of?)

Like any judge I’m not bias-free, but I do try to keep myself as open as possible to learning new things from the debaters I judge, so I don’t really feel comfortable drawing a hard line excluding classes of arguments. That said, in the spirit of honesty, I’ll list some categories of argument for which I have a higher degree of skepticism:

*RVIs: Have never voted on one. Doesn’t mean I couldn’t vote on one, but in general I find the ones I have heard thin on face, and I tend to buy the “you don’t vote AFF based on the mere fact of their fairness” response.

*Disclosure theory arguments: This take may be a product of my debate experience, back when disclosure was less common and/or rarely practiced: I have yet to be sold on the claim that not disclosing cases withholds debate to such a pernicious degree that I’m meant to vote against the non-disclosing debater. Doesn’t mean that a particularly persuasive debater couldn’t sell me otherwise, but I think of all the theory arguments out there, disclosure’s the one where I have the highest threshold.

*Extinction:The old cliche of debate. You can run extinction in front of me, but just know that any debater with good analytic skills to sever the link chain connection between event X and extinction will probably do a good enough job to make me, at very minimum, skeptical of an extinction scenario, and most likely just not buy it. Most cards used to make the extinction claim aren't actually saying what debaters think they say, and I think the desire to try to boil down rounds to "who can save us from the end of the world?" creates a real race to the bottom argumentatively, frankly. And I just don't understand why certain impacts that could more plausibly follow from typical LD topics "aren't good enough" for the weighing: war, genocide, environmental degradation... these are all really bad things! Nuke war isn't quite as far fetched as extinction, but note that nuclear war doesn't *automatically* mean that the whole species goes extinct. Again, even in the hypothetical case of a localized nuclear conflict (i.e. between two neighboring countries), preventing that alone would be a really good impact, even if the conflict wouldn't spill over! I am more likely to buy a less "world-ending disaster" impact that's well-linked than a weaker-linked, far-fetched impact even if it's more disastrous.

*"Util because pleasure/pain are inherent" (AKA: "Moen 16: doesn't say what you think it does"): I am not anti-util – it’d be pretty hard to be in competitive debating, where utility is such a natural (and good!) weighing mechanism. But I will say I find most presentations of util by LD debaters very unsophisticated. Util comes in many shapes and sizes, and in running a util framework you should specify the type of util to which one is committing themselves, and explain why said framework makes sense for your case/the topic. (E.g. act util or rule util; specifying if your calculus is “maximizing pleasure/minimizing pain” or “greatest good for the greatest number” – these are all different things, and come with different commitments). I find the prevalence of the pleasure/pain binary in framework cards very odd; if you’re arguing, say, that China should maximize its environmental policy, “pleasure” and “pain” are weird metrics to use. Long and short of it: if you naturally default to a utilitarian-style calculus in your case writing, that’s fine, but put some actual work into it. I’ve heard so many shallow util frameworks to the point that now I’m somewhat numb to them.

*"Death good": An unusual number of debaters have asked me about this line of reasoning lately. I suppose I could vote for this argument, but just know that different kinds of arguments have different sorts of evidentiary burdens baked into them. Meaning: while I am open to most arguments one could make in a round, I do not have to treat “actually, death good” as equally plausible a line of reasoning as, “We should pass single-payer healthcare so that we can increase the number of insured people.” “Death good” or “actually we’re in the matrix” are bolder arguments to make, and bolder arguments require more robust proofs. That doesn’t mean I dislike these arguments; far from it, I really enjoy it when debaters take big swings, especially in out-rounds. But just know that ambitious cases require a higher degree of intellectual sophistication to run, meaning you can’t just cut the “death good” case the way you would, say, a stock plan-based case.

*Time skew arguments: In contrast to my generally "I'll vote on whatever's warranted" stance, here's maybe one place I'll be curmudgeonly: time skew arguments (e.g. "1AR's only four minutes!" "As the NEG I only speak twice!") are incredibly corny, and I can basically imagine no case where I'd vote on one. To be fair to the people who have run this in front of me, most of the time this is just an additional piece of warranting under a theory arg, so it's not as if this line of thinking is replete in most cases I'm hearing now. But this kind of complaint, to me, is pretty whiny. Debate, like any game, has rules and regulations, and the trade-off in LD's pretty basic: AFF gets more speeches, but NEG's speeches are longer. Given how many people continue to participate in this activity, I find it pretty dubious to say that the speech times are so unfair as to be a theoretical warrant in-round, especially given spreading.

*Presumption: In keeping with time skew, since that's so often used in this line of argument: I do not have a default presumption standard. I'm willing to hear arguments about presumption, but I'm of the belief that these are unnecessarily defensive arguments to include in constructive speeches, as they signal to me, "Judge, if this round is a total mess, and you can't possibly adjudicate what you have on the flow, vote AFF/NEG for x, y, and z reasons." Rhetorically, this does not instill much confidence in what you're doing with the constructive. Where I could see presumption making more sense is in refutation, if clash between arguments has reached a point of total murkiness. With that said, though, I'd rather there be big, clearly defined clash rather than pre-fiat discussions of the positionality of the AFF and NEG in an LD round. Put more directly, if it seems like your strategy is first and foremost togo for presumption, I'm definitely going to be annoyed.

A Note on "Tricks"

I am not entirely clear on what constitutes a "trick"; the contents of that set are somewhat ambiguous to me. (A consequence, perhaps, of never having gone to debate camp.) I've heard ordinary truth-testing cases described as "tricks" even though they strike me as just normal truth-testing-style cases. Same for some skep arguments as well; depending on how one runs it, I don't automatically see skep as inherently abusive/"tricksy," but when people have described tricks to me skep often features. (As someone who very much enjoys reading skeptical philosophy, I'd like to think that skep, run well in the right context, might actually be rewarding.)

If by "tricks," however, you mean "some ultra-fine technicality argument that squirrels the round to the point that my definitions basically say it's impossible for the other side of the debate to win categorically," then I will say: yes, I find such strategy annoying. As a comment about debate more broadly rather than just about tricks specifically: I reward debaters for going toward the debate, rather than running away from it. Debates, almost by definition, are best when two robustly presented sides clash with/weigh against each other, so any move to make the debate hopelessly stacked for one side will put you on my bad side.

This doesn't mean that I prefer, say, whole-res affs uniformly, as I also am likely to give high speaks to debaters who showcase quality topic research, which very often involves degrees of narrowing for case-writing (especially on Policy-esque topics like the 2024 Jan/Feb topic on West Asia/North Africa). To shamelessly plagiarize Potter Stewart, when it comes to cases that narrow for the sake of a richer debate versus narrowing to give the opposing side as little ground as possible, "I know it when I see it."

Evidence/A Brief “Old Man Yells at Cloud” Rant on Case Writing

My general policy is that unless I know a card that's being used and it sounds off in the round, or if the evidence is cut in such a way as to be unclear, I won't comb through all the evidence when making my RFD, barring a dispute in-round about a piece of evidence's validity or cutting. Put shortly, unless you give me reasons to doubt your handling of your evidence, I will honor the arguments in-round as presented. I ask to be added to the chain/Speechdrop just so that I have a record in case of such an aforementioned dispute.

There has long been a trend in debate of treating a cut card as automatic "evidence" for something. The important thing to remember is that the cards are not your case; your case should be making its own argument(s), for which the cards are support. I would hope that in constructing cases that debaters are taking as much time on their contention taglines, framework warrants, and overall structure as they are cutting their evidence. Thin case-writing (that is, little time on contention/subpoint tags and overall argument structure) has been a problem for as long as I’ve been in debate, but it does seem to have gotten worse. The framework, contentions, plan texts, etc – meaning, all the stuff that the debater themselves creates – should shine, as that’s where the debater’s personality can most come through. The cards just demonstrate how well you do (or don’t) make the argument that you yourself are writing.

Stray Things

*I prefer immediate post-round disclosure of result if possible. If for some reason it isn't depending on tournament rules (thankfully these instances seem rare now), know you can find me after the round to ask about an RFD, but if you wish to do so, make sure you find me ASAP, as I'll be less detailed if I'm several rounds removed from your debate. Should you want an oral RFD post-round in the event where I can't give one immediately, find your opponent from the round so I can speak to you both at the same time.

*I don't disclose speaks. Do not ask in-round for higher speaks for doing X, Y, Z, etc. Speaks are my own consideration.

*I expect that debaters keep their own time, but I will time during the round to ensure everyone's honest.

*I'm cool with flex prep.

*I am not anti-theory by any means -- some people really do be breaking the rules (such as the "rules" are) -- but I would call myself a "minimum theory" judge, meaning that the theory should not come across as a way of avoiding the resolutional debate. I know debate topics can be imperfect (no disrepect, NSDA), but theory, to me, exists to ensure debaters are being truly fair and educational. An overabundance of theory, to me, can often come across as a refusal to engage with the substance afforded by the resolution.

*I am not a fan of the strategy wherein a debater takes a stray line from an AC or NC card and tries to blow it up in the rebuttals if it isn't directly refuted by the opposing speaker. Even if I can technically flow it as a drop, I'm generally of the belief that if you're going to make a big deal out of a specific argument/detail, you need to flag it as such in your constructive. I like clash between clearly presented, bold arguments; I'm less inclined to trickery for trickery's sake, even if you're technically extending arguments fairly.

*Don't just say "my opponent dropped this argument, so extend it"; impact all arguments, even drops. I do not immediately think to myself, "By gum, they've given up the debate!" the moment I hear that an argument has been dropped.

*Cross-x is binding. Use it well.

*Nothing is more boring than a debate that collapses into the most generic version of the "utilitarianism/consequentialism vs. deontology/principles" discussion. Avoid these, please. If a framework debate gets into this territory naturally, try to make a case for why your specific version of util or deontology holds up best, rather than relitigate the broad debate that we all know and hate.

*I am not terribly persuaded by arguments that feel so stock/generic that you have no investment in them. Even conventional T shells should be presented like they are specially applicable to the debate that's happening in the room.

*The only things that will make me drop you outright are things like: egregious card-cutting which leads to misrepresentation/distortion of sources (having competed myself, I know what some will try to get away with) and morally outrageous arguments like "genocide/racism/sexism/homophobia good." Even though debate is about clash, it is an activity that must include all, so I view any arguments that aim to exclude people from the activity as a massive problem.

What About Public Forum? I am generally of the belief that PF should be insulated from the "circuit-ification" that's endemic to the other major debating formats. A PF round really should be viewable by all, including the mythical "average person on the street." This isn't because I'm a "PF originalist," or am against spread/circuit debate -- far from it. Rather, I just think the strictures of the form (four minute speeches max, topics that change every month) make "circuit PF" a kind of contradiction in terms. PF should be about a clearly defined and persuasively delivered (in the traditional sense) clash on a current events topic with which a parent uninitiated to debating could follow. Though PF doesn't have the value framework of LD, your weighing mechanism for my decision in the round -- these are often called "voters" or "voting issues" -- should still be clear by the time you get to the Final Focus speeches.

And to reiterate something I said above, but in a PF-specific fashion: the crossfires, especially the grand crossfires, should be the most electric part of the round. Please don't turn cross-x into a back-and-forth of basic fact-finding questions: really get into the debate there!

One specific note on the rules of PF debating, since this issue has come up in some rounds for my debaters: the CON is not required to defend the status quo. Though plan texts are verboten in this format (for the PRO and CON), the CON is allowed to advocate (without a specific plan-text) alternatives to the PRO advocacy. For example, with the recent student loans topic ("The United States federal government should forgive all federal student loan debt"): the CON, in that instance, is not required to defend a world with no student loan forgiveness or only the types of forgiveness that exist in the status quo; they could say, as a generalized claim, "We support some targeted means-testing style forgiveness programs, those that target historically disenfranchised groups in America." There couldn't be, however, a specific plan iterating the details of that advocacy. I'm not sure why so many people think PF would be set up to where all debates are "X or the status quo," and in any event there's certainly nothing in the rulebook for PF to suggest that the CON can't offer alternatives in the same generalized way that the PRO advocates for a given case.

Note on Speaks: Unless a specific tournament specifies a house preference for its speaker point allocations, here's how I award speaks:

30: You changed my mind about what's possible in the activity of debating, or did something truly revelatory with the topic. Your speaking style exhibits a sophistication that would get an attention of a full theatre.

29-29.9: You're a top-tier speaker and thinker, one I'd expect to be in late elims at the tournament. You are thinking about the topic at a very high level.

28-28.9: You gave a speech that put considerably more thought into the topic than the stock cases I'm likely to hear on any given topic. Your speaking style shows confidence and elegance.

27-27.9: This is what I call the "perfect average;" to be specific, perfectly average for me is 27.5. You did good work in presenting and constructing your case, even if the presentation wasn't particularly flashy.

26-26.9: You generally presented a coherent case, but with not much sophistication either in delivery or in quality of argumentation.

25-25.9: Your case and/or delivery were unclear, and your arguments poorly warranted.

Under 25: You did something profoundly offensive.

Things that Help or Harm Speaks

Things that Help Speaks

*Confidence! Especially in CX. Using CX to put your opponent on the defensive is a must.
*Knowing your case. You should be able to state the warrants/theses of your cards as if they were your own words.
*Using really good analytics arguments in rebuttals. Debate shouldn't just be "AFF reads card, NEG reads card to counter."
*Eye contact. Doesn't need to be constant, of course, but it should feel like you're addressing a person, not a computer screen.
*Writing a case where your words principally, not your sources, do the talking.
*Tasteful use of humor that rhetorically enhances your argument.
*Coming up with angles on the topic that are unique and genuinely thoughtful (meaning: not novel for novelty's sake).
*Similarly: a really well-written and detailed "stock" case can be just as impressive depending on how it's wielded. To give one example: for me, at tournaments at the highest level, a really artful whole-res AFF done well is arguably more impressive than a more niche plan AFF, as it shows the debater's willingness to take on a bigger burden and do so persuasively.
*Rebuttal that shows that you have done topic research outside of just your immediate casework.

Things that Harm Speaks

*Using cross-x solely for fact-finding (e.g. "What was your contention 1 again?")
*In rebuttal, saying "I have a card" or "my card says so" when your opponent challenges the claim being made in a card. (Meaning: the fact that you have a card is not automatically proof of the card's rightness.)
*Rudeness/condescension, especially if it is unearned.
*Contention taglines that are barely developed, no matter how good the cards below them are. (E.g. Just saying "Nuke war" for a tag.)
*Running an argument that it feels like you haven't put any thought behind. (Classic example: the NEG running T just because you can. If you kick out of it under the lightest pressure [or none at all] in the 1NR, I will probably roll my eyes.)
*While I am not opposed to speed, if you spread for the purpose of a bunch of thin argumentation, I'm going to be less inclined to give high speaks. To put it simply: justify your speed.
*Unironically saying "market solves" with no elaboration or evidence.

Hi! While I don't have LD experience, I competed in PF for a year, have done Extemp/Impromptu for the past two years, and am currently a junior at Midtown High School.

A few general things:

• speak clearly (clarity > speed - if I can't understand you' your arguments won't be flowed and your speaks will be lower)
• weigh and explain arguments/evidence/impacts (I won't make assumptions or fill in holes in your case - as a debator you need to connect the dots)
• give a roadmap before your speech
• I don't flow CX but do listen, so if there's something you want flowed bring it up in rebuttal (clash is good but don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponent)
• at the end of your speeches please give clear voting issues on why I should vote for you or why you are winning an argument and why it’s important to the round
• most importantly be respectful of each other - I know things can get heated in a round but kindness and respect go a long way
• have fun!

Include me on the chain: dylanyliu3@gmail.com

I competed for Brentwood in LD on the circuit from 2017 to 2021, competing for Emory in policy, 25'. He/Him.

I value the work and effort that goes into preparing and attending a debate tournament. I am excited to judge your round and value both my and your time!

For nats, lay, pf:

Ignore everything below. Debate is a game of persuasion: a] i'm influenced by winning arguments, b] i'm influenced by influential speakers. Lay/pf debate is an exercise in accessibility, strategic choices, efficiency, and judge adaptation. Think of me as a debater roleplaying as a parent judge and you'll have a good time.

For circuit LD/policy:

tl;dr / prefs: Debate is a very really highly educational game evaluated through whether or not I'm persuaded to vote for you. Debate how you want to debate, I think good argumentation is extremely persuasive. I think my primary obligation as a judge is to evaluate the round, but value the educational aspect of debate which has a strong likelihood of persuading my ballot.

I am likely bad for pomo and tricks and will vote for it only if there is a very compelling explanation in the rebuttals that tell me what it is I'm voting for exactly and why that means you win. I don't feel particularly comfortable voting for positions that I couldn't explain back to you.

At my core, I think debate is good. I think clash is the focal point of what makes the activity good.

debate thoughts

cp's

are logical, good, and neg gets them. I think they should have solvency advocates or very obviously solve the aff. I think condo operates structurally differently in LD and policy, and I have both run and am comfortable voting for condo bad.

da's

are yay -- if consequences matter and the consequence would be on balance negative then I would probably negate.

k's

are intriguing. My favorite debates have been critical -- I think throwing buzz words at me without warrants doesn't make for a compelling position and warrants are good. Please don't not read them, but if you do read them I think that there's a moderate-to-high threshold on me being able to explain it back to the debaters for you to win on them.

aff stuff

I love a good 1ac -- I think if you are referencing your 1ac in your 1ar frequently then your 1ac was probably well thought out.

I don't think saying "extend the advantage" is enough -- an explanation of the story is the floor and the way the advantage implicates the round is the gold standard.

I like impact scenarios

I dislike blips and would probably only vote on it if it's the only option

other stuff

i will bump up both debaters' speaker points if the 1ac begins at the round start time.

I think in round violence against people in the room can be a compelling ballot - I think there's a sliding scale of when I'm obligated to intervene and I will gladly end it shamelessly and seemingly arbitrarily, especially for children.

Clipping and other evidence violations ends the round with an L + lowest speaks; I will actively listen for clipping and am open to recordings or proof that someone else is clipping.

Please don't read win 30 in front of me

Hi, my name is John. I use any pronouns, and I debated for 4 years in LD and congress at Cherokee HS, 45 minutes north of Atlanta.

If there's anything in this paradigm that you don't understand or that wasn't covered, let me know before the round in person, by texting me (+1 470 232-4546), or by sending an email (johntpeterson355@gmail.com). good luck!

If you send a doc, cc me: johntpeterson355@gmail.com. I'm going to delete your doc at the end of the round.

I'm gonna keep it real with you, i've gotten a lot dumber since I stopped debating. i've regressed. you need to explain complicated stuff really slowly. treat me like a parent judge if you run advanced phil. i need to understand and hear your argument in order to flow it. my ability to understand speed is... a lot worse now than it was. that being said i'll flow most things as long as they're done well. being racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist/etc. is penalized with an L. **this includes the sources you use! i will notice if you cite a hate group or hate publication. also flex prep is cool

do lots of weighing and talk at a reasonable speed ????

RAP Paradigm:

Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are unhelpful.

Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence.

Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.

Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track.

Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.

Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).

Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time, etc. Avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.

Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.

My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor ELA, History, and SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.

The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:

PF—

--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s first two-minute speech.

--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.

--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.

--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.

L-D—

--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum.

--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions.

--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).

Hi, my name is Will Roberts and I'm a Varsity LD debater from Midtown High School. I am most familiar with traditional LD debate, however I do understand progressive argumentation at a sufficient level.

Some notes about my prefs./opinions:

Spreading is fine (not my preference) just make sure you speak with clarity and please annunciate your words. If you're spreading I also ask that you send me your case. Additionally if I miss a card/argument because I am not able to understand you I'm not going to flow said argument. No matter how weak or obviously in-correct an argument, card, ect. is it is YOUR job as the debater to tell me why. I will believe what I am told unless I am told otherwise, however I still value evidence ethics and if I have reasonable belief that you broke evidence ethics I will report you to tab. I highly encourage a voters/impacts overview at the end of your speeches particularly your final rebuttal. On the topic of impacts I will weigh obvious exaggerations of impacts less than more realistic impacts, as an example guaranteeing the right to housing will not lead to nuke war. Please debate framework, if you have same value and VC it is different but I value framework heavily as it is the weighing mechanism. In addition your speaks will not be hurt from a good framework debate. I value clash heavily, it helps me weigh the round and evaluate specific arguments. I will listen to CX but I will not flow, so if you want a point/concession that happened in CX to be on the ballot and my flow bring it up in a rebuttal. This should go without saying but be respectful of your opponent, I will have no issue voting down debaters making any form of discriminatory language. Be on time for your round, unless you have a valid reason I will doc speaker points if you're late. If you can include a LeBron reference at any point in your speech I will give you an extra speaker point. If you have other questions just ask me before round begins.

I know it's a somewhat long paradigm but reading it will help you in round, I promise.

My Experience/Preferences: I'm a fourth-year PF debater at Midtown High School so I'm very knowledgeable about debate in general. If I'm judging you in LD or Policy, I'm fine with most theory and Ks, but less experienced with very progressive debate, so you may need to explain things to me in your speeches. Also, explain the basics of your topic to me if you're not in PF because I won't have done much research on it. Also, plz give an offtime roadmap, it just helps me flow.

Speaking: Do not spread, if you do I will give you low speaks and will tell you to slow down. Otherwise, I can understand pretty fast speaking as long as you're clear. Make sure you're speaking loud enough and showing passion in what you're debating.

Evidence: I don't need to be on an evidence-sharing doc or email chain and usually won't ask to see evidence unless I really need to accurately judge to round. Also, do not excessively call for cards. No one should ever ask for 8 cards at the end of a speech, because they'll only end up actually evaluating two or three them. Doing this to try to gain prep time is very obnoxious and will lose you speaks. Only ask for cards if you are actually going to evaluate them well or need to examine the credibility of the source.

Time: Time yourselves, I will try to time as well but I may forget. I will be keeping track of your prep so don't try to steal any, doing so will result in a loss of speaker points. Also, be sure to use up all of your speech time.

How I Judge: I'm definitely prioritize tech over truth so if you point out your opponent's nontopicality, their running of a plan (PF), their failure to respond to something, or that they're bringing up new evidence or arguments when they're not supposed to, I will flow that argument to you. If you don't respond to your opponent's framework or alternative situation, I will go with whatever they say.

This does not mean, however, that you will get away with any type of response you want. If you have a bad turn, your opponent's impact will flow through. The same goes with your case, if your impact isn't true, terminal, and specific, I will only weigh as however important as I see it is. Your link chain also has to be clear and make sense for me to consider the impact.

I don't flow CSX but how you speak and respond will influence your speaker points. If you bring up a good point in cross, bring it up in your next speech. The same goes with other speeches, if you read it in one speech, you need to keep running that point, try not to drop arguments unless you intentionally drop it to collapse on one argument or save time and focus on more important things.

Another thing thats very important to me is giving a good explanation. Explain why the points you make impact the round and always link the points you make to your value criterion (LD) and your impacts.

I will vote on impacts, so GIVE COMPARATIVE VOTERS, tell me why you win the round and why your impacts are better in Magnitude, Risk, and/or Timeframe than your opponents.

Most importantly, have fun!! Debate is all just a game so try not to get too frustrated with anything your opponents say. Also, Ill give you 0.5 extra speaker points if you make a joke during one of your speeches, but only if it makes me laugh.

Hello My name is Russ Thompson. I am a junior in high school and I have been in debate since the sixth grade.

Speed: I am able to somewhat listen to spreading but I still might not be able to hear everything.

types of arguments I like: I personally prefer debates that have a fair amount of clash between frameworks but I will vote based off of who provides a better/more coherent argument. I also like debaters explaining and fleshing out arguments later in the debate. Specifically, what I mean is that a debater should essentially simplify an argument to the best of their ability in the rebuttal, that way the judge is able to make a decision on who provided the most coherent argument better. Although this wont make or break the argument in my book, it just makes it harder for the judge to understand.

Theory and ROBs: I don't really like theory and ROBs (especially ROBs I am of the opinion that the judge should debate who presented the best argument that is relevant to the topic instead of something like whoever educates the best) but some theory might be able to persuade me given how it is argued.

If the debater has any questions on specifics before the round please let me know before the round begins. I will try to answer the questions as in depth as I can.

email- jt895174@gmail.com

I am best described as a parent judge. I listen to your arguments and take notes. I will vote on the team that makes the most convincing arguments in the rounds.

Be nice to each other and be respectful.

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com

My judging paradigm:

STRONG Preferences:

--standing to speak

--look at judge during cross - x

--time your opponent

--spreading is fine

-clearly sign-post your constructions! V and VC must be clearly indicated, as well as contentions and subpoints

--CLASH is KING