For Lincoln-Douglas debates, I look for clearly articulated value and criterion, with opening case statement arguments that are closely related to the value and criterion.

Arguments that are overly structured with complicated subset points begin to lose effectiveness; a clean, clear structure is more convincing.

The pace of speaking should not be so rapid, in haste to make as many points as possible, that the judge cannot clearly discern the arguments being made. A well designed argument is more convincing than rushed speaking where the judge may not be able to acutally discern the points the debater is trying to make.

NEG should focus in the case statement period more on building a strong argument rather than using an inordinate fraction of time to initiate rebuttal; if the case statement is made stronger, and minimal time devoted to the beginning of rebuttal, the NEG argument will probably withstand AFF rebuttal better.

Both AFF and NEG should avoid such phrases in rebuttal like "...if you don't buy that argument..." Such language suggests uncertainty in the argument just presented, which undermines its effectiveness.

I did LD for 2 years and coached for another two at Pittsburgh Central Catholic. I am now coaching debate at Oakland Catholic High School, and this is my first year back in a few years.

I'll vote on anything. However, if you're going to go for something, it must be extended in each speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused it is because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but I don't flow it.

Be confident but don't be rude, there's a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow), but you need to have both in order to win the round.

I will let you know if you are going too fast.

If you have any specific questions let me know and I'll be sure to answer them before the round.

LD paradigm:
Clash - I don't weigh contentions equally - if you establish why one contention is particularly important to the resolution I might weigh it more than another contention.

Flow - I follow flow pretty closely but its not necessary in my mind to match every piece of evidence with a counter piece of evidence, but each contention and subpoint should be countered.

Framework/Value Criterion (VC)- Any framework/VC is fine but if you don't explain why choosing your framework/VC means the contentions go your way or should push me towards/against the resolution winning the framework/VC might not be valuable to you.

Evidence - You have to read enough of the card to establish it says what you are claiming it says or summarize it. Saying the date of the card and a cursory conclusion is not sufficient.

Speed of Delivery - Speak as fast as you like but if you are so fast that I can't clearly hear/understand your points I won't be able to track them on the flow and you will likely get less credit for them. I used to debate, my hearing is fine and I don't care about delivery so you can go fairly fast but if you speak to the point where you start slurring/sounding like a machine gun you probably are going to end up with contentions that I am just not clear what you said and will give greater credence to your opponents' counters. Also see my comment on Flow - I won't give you a contention just because you have 4 pieces of evidence to their 3. If they provide better reasoning or have stronger/better cards I will award someone with fewer pieces of evidence the contention.

LD: I'm a pretty traditional judge. I like philosophy and will vote on clash first (both framework and the flow), then I'll look to see that arguments were responded to, but I care a lot more about winning the most important arguments than the most arguments. I do not want to hear theory or spreading. I'm a history teacher and I value giving historical context to arguments to prove you understand what you're talking about.

Policy: I come from the LD/PF/Parli/Speech world, so I would say I’m going to be as Trad as possible. Because of that, I’m probably going to be a little biased against K AFFs, but I’ll listen to anything with an open mind and I’ll pick whose policies are still standing at the end of the round. I will flow and I will listen.

PFD: Don't do policy. I don't really like statistical debates and I'll generally ignore any argument that you say will lead to the end of the human race or kill millions of people. Just win the round by arguing the resolution. I'm a history teacher, and I value giving historical context to arguments to prove you understand what you're talking about. I'm also an economics teacher, so if you're going to run any kind of economic argument, make sure you know what you're talking about.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

LD: I am a traditional judge. I do NOT believe is SPREADING. Do NOT speak fast! This technique of speaking does not show your ability to be clear in stating your contentions and using concise arguments. If you spread, I will miss your points and then most likely, you will not get the win. Definitions should be clear and concise. Competitors should have clash in the debate round. Since this is a philosophical debate, I would expect to hear which philosopher reflects your value/criterion and explain the connection. Stating voting issues at the end of the round is very important. Also, competitors must support their V and VC in their speeches. Stay away from WOKE responses...they are distracting and tell me that you can't defend this resolution. Careful that your sources are not from partisan sources.

Parliamentary debate: define the government and any pertinent definitions; stay away from LD jargon; convincing arguments are important; since this is less source-based, I want to hear the general reasons that support your argument; NO new contentions in the final speeches; each speaker should take at least one questions during their unprotected time; each competitor should pose at least one question during the entire round...this indicates understanding of your opponent's position and your engagement in the issue being debated; choice of strange or a very narrow definition of the "government" does not help a debate and wastes the round. Woke arguments or arguments that have nothing to do with the topic do not help your team. These arguments only distract and say to me that you can't address the issue at hand.

Congress: If you are the first speaker/author of the Bill/Resolution, your speech should explain the Bill and its importance. First negative, you need to explain why this Bill should not be passed. While sources are sometimes important in supporting your stance, use sources that are non-partisan. (ex. MSNBC leans to the left). Also, if you use a source such as Breitbart which I've heard often, cite the specific researcher or pollster who authors the supporting evidence. If you are 3rd or 4th on Pro or Con, you must have new information as to why you support this side of the Bill. Stay away from Woke arguments.

PF: remember this type of debate says that a person off the street should be able to come into the room and judge a round. Stay away from LD language. Fighting over sources is a waste of time in my opinion during the debate. If you have researched the topic, you have the sources that support your side of the resolution. Be specific in the source and use non-partisan sources. Sources that are stronger include governmental departments and possible university research. If you are using a source such as a magazine such as The Atlantic, mention the author and his/her qualifications in presenting the information that you use. No Woke arguments.

I am a traditional judge.

I would like to hear clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

Respect your opponent, no insults.

I was my school's debate coach for five years and have been judging both public forum and Lincoln Douglas debates during that time period.  I am now retired but continue to judge for my former team. 

While I am ok with speed, please do not spread and be careful that you enunciate clearly.  If I can't understand what you are saying, I won't be able to flow your speech and I will be frustrated at the end of the round. 

I do work my way down the flow and prefer that debaters argue in the order of the flow.  I do pay attention to dropped points but only if there is additional commentary on why the drop is important. Organizational skills matter so please go in the order that items were mentioned and try not to bounce around. If a round is close, I do consider voting issues to be a good way to break ties so please leave yourself enough time to include them.

I also expect all competitors to be respectful of each other. I will dock points for outwardly rude or arrogant behavior.

Hi, my name is Gopal Varshney and I am a senior engineer in software technologies. I design software and know a few languages in software development at my workplace.

First, You are welcome in this LD speech and debate tournament.

Speaking:-
While I am a traditional judge, I prefer to judge the debate without spreading and I really like impacting arguments so spend a lot of time on it during rebuttal speeches.

Expectation:-
As far as the current topic, I am aware of various facts and findings.
Clash on framework and arguments are encouraged. You may do an off time roadmap and clearly mention it in your speech. It helps me flow.
I expect teams to be civil and respectful during the crossfire and during the entire debating rounds.

Substance:-
Have logical and consistent arguments. Every argument should explain exactly how you win the debate. I love evidence and take note of arguments grounded. Provide ample evidence during your responses and impacts.

Have fun and enjoy the tournament !