Hello!

I am the LD captain at Amos Alonzo Stagg Highschool

I'm very familiar with LD debate and can handle most speeds but please be sure to speak as clearly as possible.

Other than that have fun

Name: Luke Anderson

School Affiliation: Fremd High School - Assistant Coach

Were you previously affiliated with any other school?

Palatine High School Graduate, Bradley University for Undergrad.

Number of years and/or tournaments judging the event you are registered in:

This is my first year judging and coaching! Although I'm new to the debate world, I've learned a lot in a short time and am comfortable with mostly anything you want to throw at me.

Have you judged in other debate events? Please describe if so.

I have judged one Public Forum tournament before, otherwise all LD.

Speed of delivery preference (slow, conversational, brisk conversational, etc.)

Whatever you feel comfortable with. I can somewhat tolerate spreading, you'll be able to tell if you've lost me though.

How important is the value criterion in making your decision?

Very important - I need something to weigh your impacts against! Give me clear and strong links for all your arguments.

Are voting issues necessary for your decision?

Voting issues are always nice to have. Explaining back to me why you won that round never hurts.

How critical are ”extensions” of arguments into later speeches?

Not important to my decision, but can be for the sake of my organization and yours.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

Your arguments win you the round, your style gets you speakers points. Poor speaking can effect your

How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (analytical and/or empirical) is in the round?

Evidence is king. Give your contentions both strong empirical and analytical evidence.

For detailed thoughts on the hows and whys of framework debating, please see my professional profile on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100054643951460). You may learn something.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS (scroll down for PF):

First, some general thoughts: (1) the affirmative debater must defend the resolution; (2) the negative debater is not required to present a case and may choose solely to deconstruct the case offered by the AFF; (3) Lincoln-Douglas is the most philosophical form of academic debate, therefore the strategy and choices employed by both teams in the debate should reflect this fact; (4) I should not feel, during the debate, that I am listening to a one-on-one version of policy debate; debaters should defend the ethics of their respective positions; (5) I always prefer quality of argumentation over quantity.

Second, some thoughts on framework. Framework exists to present a paradigm as to how the audience and the judge should evaluate the debate and place it in one of four quadrants (deontological/individualist, deontological/collectivist, consequentialist/individualist, and consequentialist/collectivist), clarify ambiguous or nebulous terms or phrases in the resolutions and their significance for the debate to follow through definitions and observations. Both debaters should present (1) a paramount value that is an abstract concept/value (ex: "Justice") and (2) a value criterion/criteria that is an operationalized version of the premise; it is a statement, with a noun and a verb, of something that is achieved through upholding/negating the resolution (ex: "protecting the property rights of citizen taxpayers"). Even if the NEG is not going to present a positive case, it still has to present a framework and argue what premise and criterion is upheld through the negation of the AFF case. To reiterate, the value is AN END IN AND OF ITSELF while the criterion is A MEANS TO AN END. With the present resolution (March/April 2024), the AFF framework must be in alignment with rehabilitation. In fact, it is acceptable for the AFF to present "Rehabilitation" as the paramount value.

Third, some thoughts on rationale: (1) if the resolution contains the phrase "when in conflict," then the AFF debater must briefly present a "conflict scenario" that explains how or why two independent values would come into conflict with each other; the NEG debater should grant this scenario unless it is abusive; (2) the primary task of the AFF is to defend its case and this should take precedence over attacking the NEG case if time does not permit both in the same level of detail; (3) the primary task of the NEG is to attack/clash with the AFF case and this should take precedence over defending its case if time does not permit both; (4) the NEG debater should spend at least the last two minutes of the NR departing from the flow and focusing exclusively on the voting issues; and (5) the AFF debater should use the 2AR to exclusively explain the voting issues.

Fourth, on evidence: (1) I would strongly recommend that both debaters bring hard copies of their evidence into the debate as it makes exchanging them a great deal quicker and easier than passing around laptops; (2) if a debater is going to call for/request evidence, this is how it should occur - a) request the evidence in a speech as part of an attack on the opposition's argumentation; b) immediately after the speech, the requested evidence should be offered; the debater requesting the evidence either has to burn prep time to read it or read it during the next segment/action in the debate; c) the response to the request should be addressed in the very next available speech; and (3) if a challenged is issued regarding evidence (misrepresentation, out of context, etc.), the outcome of that challenge will be THE major voting issue in the debate.

Fifth, and finally, on cross examination: (1) use the CX to ask and answer questions and not to make points or speechify or grandstand; I do not flow CX, so these points will not be recorded; (2) the debater conducting the CX may cut the other debater at any time when answering; this will not be construed by me as being rude; time belongs to the one asking the questions and not the one answering them; and (3) do not use the CX to ask for and exchange evidence; I have outlined my preferred manner for challenging evidence above.

PUBLIC FORUM:

First, some general thoughts: (1)the affirmative/PRO team must defend the resolution; (2) public forum is the most audience friendly form of debate that exists, therefore the strategy and choices employed by both teams in the debate should reflect this fact; and (3) I always prefer quality of argumentation over quantity.

Second, some thoughts on framework. Framework exists for two purposes: (1) to clarify ambiguous or nebulous terms or phrases in the resolutions; and (2) to present a thesis that will guide the argumentation offered.

Third, on rationale or case: (1) in the B team's first constructive, it may choose to present an opposition case, criticize the A team's case or a mixture of both; if the B team chooses to present a case, it should structure its case for maximum clash with the A team's case (and highlight for the judge when a contention directly clashes with an A team contention; (2) in the A team's second constructive, if B team presents a case, the A team should focus on attacking that case and not attempt to extend its initial arguments beyond a simple "pull through our case as unattacked" response; if the B team does otherwise, it should attempt to address the entire flow; (3) same holds true for the B team's second constructive; it should attempt to both attack the A case and respond to the A team's attacks on the B case (this is the price paid for speaking second and deferring to this speech any response made against the A case in the first constructive); (4) the first rebuttals/summary speeches need not address point-by-point, given limited time, both teams can pick and choose what they wish to highlight as major points of clash; and (5) the second rebuttals/final focus speeches should delineate the voting issues of the debate and explain why your team wins those voting issues; the points of clash and the voting issues do not have to be the exact same things and should retain some flexibility.

Fourth, on evidence: (1) I would strongly recommend that both teams bring hard copies of their evidence into the debate as it makes exchanging them a great deal quicker and easier than passing around laptops; (2) if a team is going to call for/request evidence, this is how it should occur - a) request the evidence in a speech as part of an attack on the opposition's argumentation; b) immediately after the speech, the requested evidence should be offered; the team requesting the evidence either has to burn prep time to read it or read it during the next segment/action in the debate; c) the response to the request should be addressed in the very next available speech; and (3) if a challenged is issued regarding evidence (falsification, misrepresentation, out of context, etc.), the outcome of that challenge will be THE ONLY voting issue in the debate.

Fifth, and finally, on crossfire: (1) use the crossfire to ask and answer questions and not to make points, speechify, grandstand; questions do not begin with the phrases "Is the A/B aware of . . . " or "Does the A/B realize . . . "; I do not flow crossfire, so these points will not be recorded, they must be referenced in the very next succeeding speech; and (2) do not use the crossfire to ask for and exchange evidence, especially at the end; I have outlined my preferred manner for challenging evidence above.

Dr. Samantha Dolen, Coach, Palatine High School

LD Judging and Coaching: 3 years

Teaching areas: biology, chemistry and physics. I'm a scientist, I will be skeptical of the information presented if you don't provide quality evidence to back it up.

Speed of Delivery: I prefer a moderately paced speech. If you speak faster, then it is your responsibility to make sure that your speech is easy to follow. When speaking quickly, there is a greater chance that I won't be able to flow all of your contentions. I will also not view your attempt to spread your case using a fast pace of delivery. Presenting a litany of contentions or sub-points with the hope that your opponent will not have time to address them all is not the goal. Quality over Quantity is where my vote will land.

Framework: I place more consideration on your value criterion than your value. You have selected this VC as the way to measure your V because the value is a broad concept that is difficult to measure. If I am to make a decision based upon that VC, you need to clearly and substantially tie your impacts back to that VC. You need to articulate this; don't leave it to me to try and find the connection. I want to know specifically why one VC is more aligned with the resolution; if you collapse, then make sure you begin tying to the agreed upon framework and not the original one you presented. I want you as the debater to identify the clash between the AFF and NEG; how are these two worlds different and how is that important to the resolution.

Contentions & Impacts: Don't spread. Your contentions are your opportunity to make your case; they should be clearly articulated, well reasoned, and well supported. If they are unique, then even better! As a coach, I have researched, read and judged this resolution dozens of times before I hear you debate so unique and interesting is best if you want to keep my attention and my vote. Impacts are where you are going to win with me. You can present dozens of cards, but if they all amount to very small impact on a very small group of people, then you will have a hard time winning. I want you to provide strong contention tag lines, indications of separate sub-points, etc. If you are just reading a laundry list of cards, then I will eventually lose track and wonder how all of these points are related. Minor points are just that minor; if you have an insignificant point left un-attacked at the end of the round, that doesn't necessarily give you the win. Remember, it is about showing how your contentions support your framework and why that view of our moral obligation outweighs your opponents.

Format of Rebuttals: If you provide a roadmap, then follow it. I track attacks made on concepts and not individual cards. I would rather see you recognize the commonality of cards presented and attack the main idea. I like it when opponents are able to understand and attack big ideas instead of the individual cards as it demonstrates a level of complexity of thought during the debate. I want rebuttals to prioritize which contentions are most important. Provide analysis of why your framework and contentions are better aligned with the resolution; do not simply tell me to disregard your opponent's contentions, this must be articulated to win points on the that argument. When disputing your opponent's case, be respectful and disparage the contentions or framework and not the person.

Flowing: I will flow everything except for the cross. I tend to flow main ideas and not each individual card you present. I do consider your ability to ask and answer questions when determining speaker points.

Voter Issues:When providing voter issues, don't just restate why your framework is better or how your contentions have gone un-attacked. Voter issues are about WHY your remaining arguments are more important. How odes your side realize a better outcome for the society in question? Are you winning on scope, magnitude, reversibility, probability? This is your opportunity to make the case for why the issues you have presented are more important to meeting the moral imperative of the resolution.

A few other things: Overall, I work very hard to leave my own ideas, biases and knowledge out of the debate. If something isn't true, is an exaggeration, or is actually supporting the other side, I expect the opponent to point this out. If it isn't acknowledged as false in the round, I try to vote on it. But I can only suspend reality so far...if what you are saying isn't plausible, then I can only ignore that for so long. So, if your opponent is saying weird stuff, acknowledge that so I know that you also see that an argument is faulty. If you don't say it, I might have to let it flow through.

Blippy arguments make the debate nearly impossible to judge:

Cards should have warrants and you should be able to access the warrant and reasoning behind the card a quote without context is not an argument. You should be using warrants not just reading a quote. If you are extending evidence you should be reading the warrant, not just a blip.

THE DEBATER WHO HAS BETTER ARGUMENTATION WILL WIN OVER THE DEBATER WHO JUST READS A CARD THAT SAYS WELL ACTUALLY WSJ SAYS XYZ.

there should in general, be more engagement on the framing aspect of the debate. Tell me:

How you link into framing
Why that is good
Why your opponent doesn't
why that is bad

pick one main argument that you are winning and link to framing.

pick what offense the other team has and outweigh it

he/him

I have been a coach at Evanston for 5 years, and have been judging for them for 7+

please be clear if spreading, very important that you pause and sign post during argumentation. I will defer to what I hear in speeches and use the speech doc sparingly. It is importance to change cadence when spreading in order to emphasize warrants and impacts in order to differentiate. I don’t want to have to read the cards to figure out what you are saying in your speeches, you should be clear enough so I can flow

Tricks are pretty annoying and don't really help people learn how to debate, It is on a case to case basis on how I will weigh tricks (long story short, id recommend NOT reading them in front of me)

The most important thing in the round is that your arguments are accessible, and inclusive to everyone. That being said, be inclusive to your opponent inside the round. If your opponent doesn't understand speed, slow down. If an argument is not clear and is hard to understand, explain it. If you don't do these things, I will have a hard time voting for these arguments. That being said, I am pretty much open to any argument (regardless of event) as long as it is warranted, and impacted (as long as it is not exclusionary or violent). This includes critical arguments in public forum. Don't lie about evidence. This is a very good way to automatically lose the round with me, and more often than not almost any other judge, or judge panel.

Decision-Making:

Framing:

If you tell me to look at a certain framework and it is fair and reasonable, then I will do so. If I don't think it is fair I probably wont evaluate under it, but I will tell you why I think it's unfair, and how to make it fair. For LD, it is more about warranted framing. I don’t like/understand phil framing when it’s spread, and I literally have no idea how to evaluate it when it’s read at 200+ wpm

K's are cool.

Decorum: You should do what makes you comfortable in round, if you want to sit down for cx cool, stand up, cool. Sit down for speech, yeee, stand on your head. Let people know if there is anything you need to make the round more accessible or more comfortable for you.

Speaker points: Being kind in round is the best way to get 30's with me. Also, if I learn something new or interesting, you will probably get good speaks

winners get probably 28-30, then the losing team .5 less

30: you were cool in round

I don't always remember to time, so please be honest and hold yourselves accountable.

Hello! I am a high school English teacher in Illinois and have coached speech & debate since 2015.

I love good organization - feel free to give an off-time roadmap and please signpost your speeches and arguments clearly.

Arguments should be concise but clear - lay out the warrants and the impacts for me and weigh the impacts as the debate continues. While I like to think I'm okay with spreading -- I know my limits, too. I am not someone who judges every weekend, so sometimes I'll have trouble following if you speak too quickly. I try, though!

In Congress specifically:

If we're more than a couple of speeches into the debate, you should be providing clash, not standing up to rehash arguments we've already heard. In that same vein, do not keep debate going on a bill when it's clearly dead. You should be prepared to speak on every. single. bill. and shouldn't have to rely on having the opportunity to speak early or often on a certain topic.

Make sure you provide impacts. Make it crystal clear what the benefits or harms of passing/not passing said bill/resolution will be on people.

Make the real arguments. I will absolutely listen to you explain to me why a bill or resolution is not the appropriate or most effective way to solve a problem, but only to a point.

Again, structure and organization are important. Be sure to signpost!

Keep questions and responses concise. Be respectful of the judges' time and the time of your competitors.

If you have a question for the PO on their procedure, precedence, or recency, just politely ask it. There's no need to be a jerk about it, or about anything, for that matter. Extend kindness to the person who has volunteered to run the chamber.

I love this activity and believe it should be fun, inclusive, and useful to everyone who chooses to participate. Rather than taking advantage of or judging someone who might be debating for the first time, let's show them what a great community this is to be a part of by answering questions, providing guidance, and setting good examples! Leave the judging to the judges. Instead, be a coach. You'll have more fun. :)

I personally like to steer away from restricting debaters and making them debate how I want via something like a paradigm. 
You guys do you and have fun. I look forward to seeing the unique styles of debating that each one of you has to offer. 
Just be respectful of your opponents. Don't forget that they, like you, are also taking out a day in their lives to present the case that they worked hard on. 

I judge based on the flow. Make sure you speak clearly and address all contentions and subpoints when defending and attacking cases. Explicit signposting and road mapping is always appreciated. Treat everyone with respect and be kind and courteous during the round.

I am a former LD debater (trad, not prog) in my third year of coaching, appreciating the ability to return to a sport and circuit that is very near and dear to me.

The bulk of my decisions will come down to a round’s voting issues. I will likely not vote for you if you don’t provide me any—even if you otherwise would have won the round. Your voters should not come out of nowhere; I should be able to check my flows and very clearly identify their origins in the debate, as well as track their development over the course of the round. Additionally, there should be no doubt in my mind that you did, in fact, win the debate based on the voting issues that you choose – no hotly contested points as voters!

Overall, I frown upon fear-mongering and I favor realistic impacts above all else. If you are claiming that to affirm/negate will directly lead to something as serious as the breakdown of society or the end of the world, I’d better be able to poke no holes in your reasoning. I value skills over tricks any day of the week.

Debaters able to maintain a cool and level head even while in the middle of an intense round of debate capture my interest. I often look for a debater's ability to conduct themselves in a composed manner, especially if the round isn’t going their way. Additionally, I greatly appreciate debaters who are able to balance concise evidence with clear logic. Leave few gaps in your argumentation and linkchain, and you will win me over.

I will admit, I am a little old-fashioned; I look more favorably towards debaters who can make strong and consistent links between their contentions, their impacts, and their framework. I do not see the point in neglecting framework debate in the slightest; I will weigh your arguments more strongly if you can explain how your contentions uphold the values you’ve chosen, or prove how your opponent’s contradict each other.

I appreciate well-stated, unique arguments with logical support to back them up. When I can follow your line of thought clearly through signposting, it can only reap dividends.

Let's have some great rounds!

I debated in LD for four years in high school and was the 2021 IHSA state champion. Should you have any questions or concerns, please email me at egmcddd@gmail.com.

I will expect you to be prepared to begin once everyone is present. I can handle speed, but please remain comprehendible and enunciate for your opponent. Provide roadmaps and signpost throughout your speeches so I know where you are.

Debate is a lot of work, and you likely put a lot of time into preparing for this tournament; I will reciprocally put effort into judging. I will flow the entire round, but if I am on my computer, it is only to write notes on the ballot.

Lincoln Douglas (LD) Paradigm

- A tagline is not a sufficient explanation of your argument. When you read cards, please explain their impact.
- I will know if you misconstrue evidence.
- If you do not extend your case, I will consider the arguments dropped. If you extend a card without explaining it, it will not count.
- I will not flow CX, but it is in your best interest to use it to your advantage. Do not waste time asking for clarification. If you ask a question, you need to allow your opponent an opportunity to answer it (do not cut them off).
- Tell me exactly where to flow and how to weigh. I will judge on what remains at the end of the round and how it is presented in voters.
- Be polite and professional.

Name: Karla Nunez

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: Public Forum Since Fall of 2016 - approx. 7 years | Lincoln-Douglass since Fall 2019 - approx. 4 years

⟨⟨ Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round: ⟩⟩

Before answering these questions I'd like to express that normally when asked if i have a Paradigm I'd answer along the lines of "I trust that you know what you are doing, so give me what you've got and I'll do my best to fill you in on what you need to improve". I other words, You, your coach, and teammates are expected to work together to ensure you've got what it takes to win the round, and I ensure that i asses and provide you with tools that can help you improve and succeed in the future. If you take anything away from this is that I'd like for you to GIVE ME WHAT YOU GOT! I want you to show me what 100% of you looks like in that moment. and just trust that your 100% now will change with time and effort.

Speed of delivery- During your constructive any speed as long as you are clear and enunciate properly. If it were a range of 1-5, (1 being slow with heavy pauses and 5 being the fastest ever I could call you McQueen and exclaim "Ka-Chow!") I find students do best at about a 3-4, I would be more concerned with your opponent’s preference.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- If your opponent said something that changes the game then address that, but i like big picture stuff.

Extension of arguments into later speeches- ?????

Flowing/note-taking- You should definitely be flowing 1000000%, and I'll flow your speeches as much as possible, I'll lend an ear to cross incase any of my questions are answered, but none of it will flow through.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? ?????

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? I believe that if you state "I win on so and so because my opponent is just wrong", you have plenty of work to do.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? makes sense to me.

belvidere required paradigm info:

Name: Kalina Pierga

School Affiliation: Barrington High School

Were you previously affiliated with any other school? No

Number of years and/or tournaments judging the event you are registered in: 4 years debating, 5 years judging/coaching

Have you judged in other debate events? Please describe if so. PF

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery preference (slow, conversational, brisk conversational, etc.) Does not factor into decision unless completely incomprehensible + no speech doc.

How important is the value criterion in making your decision? Depends on whether VC becomes a voting issue in the debate.

Do you have any specific expectations for the format of the 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal and 2 Negative Rebuttal (i.e. line by line/ direct refutation and/or big picture?)-No expectations, do your thing. I think overviews and framing on top is strategic, though.

Are voting issues necessary for your decision? Yes unless you love judge intervention

How critical are ”extensions” of arguments into later speeches- Critical

Flowing/note-taking- No opinions or beliefs on this

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? argument > style

In order to win a debate round, does the debater need to win their framework or can they win using their opponent’s framework?Depends on the round. But yes, a debater can still win using their opponent's FW.

How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (analytical and/or empirical) is in the round? Necessary, unless uplayering to T.

GBX 2023 update:

as per below, for accessibility purposes, it's in your best interest to send your doc esp if you're spreading analytics.

harvard disclosure theory update: i default to reasonability on disclosure theory. it will be nearly impossible to prove to me that not having an updated wiki is a reason for someone to lose a debate round. running disclosure against small school debaters will get your speaks docked. just debate lol

kalinapierga@gmail.com

For accessibility purposes I request that all speech docs be sent to an email chain if possible.

Debate background: I debated for Barrington High School and for NYU's Policy Team for one year, did mostly K debate in both.

Run whatever you want to run. Keep things clear & do thorough analytical work. Don't assume I am familiar with your literature base/args or that I will fill in gaps for you!

General:

If for any reason you feel unable to continue the round, feel free to stop time and let me know.

If you have questions regarding any of the above, let me know before round. Happy to answer questions/concerns after round as well.

I am lazy and stupid. Please treat me as such. Tell me exactly where to flow, how to weigh, and why you won this round. I am a coach, but I am not a former debater. So if you would like to run ks, plans, theory or whatever, you can. However, you need to break it down to a fairly basic level, and they should be used to enhance the debate space, not to limit it. I'm fine with speed as long as you enunciate. If I am not getting what you are saying, I'll make a face like :/

I judge a lot, and I hear the same thing over and over so many times. If you have a non-stock case, I'd love to hear it. Run something weird!

Pet peeve: Making debate an exclusionary space in any way.

email chains to moiraquealy@gmail.com

Name: Moira Quealy

School Affiliation: Barrington High School

Were you previously affiliated with any other school? I student taught at Carl Sandburg in 2017, and I helped out the the PF team while I was there.

Number of years and/or tournaments judging the event you are registered in: I've judged LD since 2017. I tallied it up in Tabroom, and I think I have judged over 200 rounds of LD just at tournaments. I am a weary soul.

Have you judged in other debate events? Please describe if so. I have judged PF from time to time, but it is not my specialty.

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery preference (slow, conversational, brisk conversational, etc.): I like a quicker pace if you can pull it off without sacrificing clarity. If you are spreading, I need an email chain. If you are at a local tournament, you should probably not be spreading. If you speak quickly as a strategy for confusing your opponent, you should definitely not have time left over in your speech.

How important is the value criterion in making your decision? Generally, I think it is my rubric for the debate. That being said, if your frameworks are similar, I don't feel the need to spend too much time going back and forth. Collapsing and focusing on who fulfills the general fw better is a very fair and time-conscious move.

Do you have any specific expectations for the format of the 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal and 2 Negative Rebuttal (i.e. line by line/ direct refutation and/or big picture?)I would say the 2NR should be pretty line-by-line. You have the time. I do not have the same expectation for the 2AR. Voting issues are essential, and I'd rather have those than a line-by-line.

Are voting issues necessary for your decision?I wouldn't count it as an automatic loss if you don't do voting issues (especially as a Novice), but oftentimes voters are where I end up making my decision. Not including them is a detriment to your ballot.

How critical are ”extensions” of arguments into later speeches. This is an essential part of debate. If you aren't doing this, I am not sure what the debate round would consist of.

Flowing/note-takingI flow on my laptop. I may jump to my phone during CX to check in on my team and make sure everyone's rounds are going okay, but I will still listen. If you are running a team case and I have judged your school before, I may just copy and paste the flow over, so don't worry if you don't see me typing during the constructive.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument is reflected in your ballot, style is reflected in your speaks.

In order to win a debate round, does the debater need to win their framework or can they win using their opponent’s framework?You can win under your opponent's framework, but YOU need to make that connection for me.

How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (analytical and/or empirical) is in the round? This is an essential part of debate. If you aren't doing this, I am not sure what the debate round would consist of.

Any other relevant information (optional)?I will not flow new arguments in the 2NR or 2AR. It's a waste of your time and mine.

I am a former LD debater, now in college.

Be respectful. I do want to see clear impacts and their connection to case values. Also have multiple voter issues, or an elaborate explanation of one. Please signpost when giving your rebuttals so I know where and what your arguing against. Please don't waste your own time on the framework debate if they are identical, collapsing framework is fine by me but if you are arguing why yours is better, make it a good argument. Avoid spreading, I will take away speaker points if I cannot hear what you are saying.

Lincoln-Douglas

Name: Lisa Savage

School Affiliation: Benet Academy

Were you previously affiliated with any other school? No

Number of years and/or tournaments judging the event you are registered in: 1 year; 4 tournaments

Have you judged in other debate events? Please describe if so. No

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery preference (slow, conversational, brisk conversational, etc.): I prefer conversational because it makes it easier for me to follow along; that said, speed of delivery does not factor into my decision making.

How important is the value criterion in making your decision? Very important- I prefer the VC to be explicitly stated in the constructive speeches, and the criterion should be a guiding principle that the argument always comes back to and explains.

Do you have any specific expectations for the format of the 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal and 2 Negative Rebuttal (i.e. line by line/ direct refutation and/or big picture?)- No, but I do prefer a road map to be offered before they begin. I then expect the road map to be followed.

Are voting issues necessary for your decision? Yes- I prefer debaters to explicitly state their voting issues. It shows me that the debaters are able to crystallize both their and their opponent’s argument.

How critical are ”extensions” of arguments into later speeches- Not overly critical; I am judging more based on their value, value criterion, contentions, refutations, and voter’s issues more so than their ability to extend.

Flowing/note-taking- I take notes on everything, including cross examination. That said, the cross examination itself doesn’t weigh heavily in my decision making- I use it more as a way to give feedback to the debaters.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I value argument over style, but style still factors into my decision making. A crisp, clear, confident, and educated speaker makes a difference.

In order to win a debate round, does the debater need to win their framework or can they win using their opponent’s framework? I suppose it depends, as sometimes debaters end up agreeing on their values.

How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (analytical and/or empirical) is in the round? Very important. A debater can have great values, criterion, and contentions, but without the evidence, it’s all for naught, in my opinion.

Any other relevant information (optional)? None.

Hello,

My paradigm is that I like to see students speak at a pace that is easy to digest. I will keep in mind that you are trying to get as many of your points across as possible within the time frame. Other than that, I do value good sportsmanship and professionalism. Most of all, have fun.

Thank you,

Ms. Schmidt

I know this is long, and hypocritically so since I ask you to be concise in-round. This just grew over several years because I judge a bunch of different events. Instead of paring it down, I've decided to leave it but point you to what actually needs your attention. For an overview, read the TLDR paragraph. Key words are bolded in the middle section to help with skimming (I know you don't have a ton of time between rounds). Then look for your event in bold at the bottom. Feel free to skip what's not relevant to you. If you have questions about what happened after receiving your ballot, coming back here and reading more thoroughly will likely answer your question(s). If it doesn't, feel free to talk to me about it when you see me next.

TLDR: Focus on value and criterion in LD, don't misuse evidence in PF, and speak extemporaneously in Congress. Always warrant your arguments in every event. Don't be too tricky. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. Thou shalt not go off-topic by using abusive "progressive debate" tactics such as kritiks, counterplans, or meta-analysis of debate. I am a traditional judge who flows and is tech over truth.

In a debate round, most of all I'm looking for a clear, concise, and robust exchange of ideas. Some ways to work on this are to make sure you're signposting in all of your speeches, planning ahead to ensure that you're fitting the most important contentions and objections into the allotted time, and responding directly to the arguments and objections your opponents put forth in their own speeches. Do all of this without strawmanning your opponents (or committing any other major logical fallacies).

Most importantly, warrant: Don't take it for granted that your judges can see why your opponents are wrong, or that your contentions speak for themselves in response to challenges. Even if I do see these things, I can't score you well unless you are doing this work yourselves in the debate. Don't let any of your opponents' objections make it through the flow uncontested. Always warrant your claims. Cross-apply your contentions liberally in rebuttals so that I don't think you've dropped any of your own arguments.

I'm not a fan of most forms of "progressive debate," as I want you to make accessible arguments relevant to the resolution, not signal your position on whatever is currently in vogue. For example, if the resolution is about whether the United States should raise taxes on the wealthy, and you're arguing in favor of doing so, it is 100% okay (and probably a great idea) to give arguments about how capitalism can leave certain groups behind and how trickle-down economics only exacerbates wealth inequality and thus eliminates equality of opportunity. It is not germane to the resolution, however, to make all of your arguments about how capitalism is nothing but a tool of oppression and we need to abolish it, as this is not what is at question in the resolution. Similarly, I find meta-analysis of debate as an activity in-round to be grating. I will always favor the person/team using their speaking time to discuss the issue at hand in the resolution.

I'm also not a fan of counterplans because they shift the burden of proof in the round to the NEG/CON. The burden of proof belongs on the AFF/PRO. If you don't want to defend the status quo, I think you need to ask yourself why you're spending your free time doing this activity. As a coach and an instructor, the greatest value I see in debate is that it teaches students to charitably look at and adopt perspectives that are fundamentally different from their own. Using abusive tactics to get around doing this robs you of the greatest benefit of doing debate, and robs your opponent of the opportunity to engage in a robust exchange of ideas about the actual topic of the round. Here I'll provide the analogy of papers: if a student handed me a paper that was well-written, but never actually addressed the topic they were supposed to write about (or worse, questioned the process of writing the paper in the first place), they would fail because they did not actually complete the assignment. The same is true in a debate round.

This doesn't mean I just want to seestock cases. Unusual and inventive arguments are often a major plus. Traditional judges don't want to see the same round over and over again, either. Just make sure you're warranting these arguments and that they're topical.

A note on speed: I don't mind spreading and can keep up with it as long as you don't talk like you have marbles in your mouth. But before you spread, consider that you will have many lay judges in this circuit who are unfamiliar with this speed or even hostile to it. Proceed at your own peril. Additionally, I often see debaters spread to try and overwhelm their opponents with cards to respond to without ever substantially developing or warranting their arguments. When I read student philosophy papers, I look for two things before anything else: clarity and concision. The lesson from this is that sometimes less is more because it forces you to focus on what really matters in the round, and as such you develop your arguments around key voting issues far more than you would if you were just hammering your opponent with as much evidence as possible.

A couple of notes on questioning: I'm not a fan of debaters interrupting or steamrolling their opponents. Be courteous and give the other team/person a chance to respond and to ask their own questions during grand cross while still using your own speaking time well. Being the loudest person in the room is not synonymous with being the best debater. I do not flow questioning, either. If you want something that came up in questioning to factor into my decision, you need to bring it back up in one of your speeches.

A final note on my ballots: I try to write pretty detailed ballots because I know how frustrating it is to lose a round and then not understand why, or to be told something vague or even get a blank ballot. I try to make up for this all-too-pervasive problem with debate judging by providing you with detailed feedback. However, I want you to understand that only the comments in my RFD directly factored into my decision. I'm writing comments throughout the round to you individually to try and provide feedback on your cases (especially because I know some of you may not have coaches), as well as your argumentation and speaking styles. Sometimes I will write things in the individual comments section that are my personal opinion on what makes a good case, or whether something is a convincing argument. As a tabula rasa judge, this kind of thing does not factor into my decision unless the other debater(s) call(s) you on anything I mention in one of their speeches. I provide this individualized feedback not to explain my decision, but to potentially help you grow as a debater. The RFD is the real explanation of my decision.

On speaker points: I don't believe in grade inflation, including in debate. I know this probably seems unfair to you, but what's really unfair is the other judges being nice instead of accurate. The same goes for teachers you think are "hard;" they're doing you a service by giving you a real grade. My scale is as follows:

25/25.5: F/D-

26/26.5: D/D+

27/27.5: C/C+

28-28.5: B/B+

29-29.5: A/A+

30: Rivals the best performance I have ever seen.

The scale can be shifted exactly to match whatever numbers a tournament is using in Congress. I have given a small number of thirties in my several years as a judge, averaging I believe one a year. I obviously have different expectations for JV and Novice. Shift my expectations one step for each division (i.e. a 28 in varsity is a 29 in JV and a 30 in Novice). I'll also be more lenient at the beginning of the season vs. the postseason. I don't do gimmicks where if you do something particular to my paradigm or make arguments I prefer personally, I'll give you a better score; that's also bad judging.

Most of my scores hover around 27.5/28. This is because these are slightly above to above average grades, regardless of what your school has led you to believe. These are not "bad" scores. Start to worry if I'm giving you 26.5 and below, as these are failing grades and I don't give these scores often. A 27 is passing but can't be chalked up just to a bad round most of the time. A 27.5 is a bit wobbly, and a 28 is solid. Above a 28 and you're doing very well. I think my most common score in varsity toward the end of the season is a 28. I will give low-point wins if the weaker speaker gave the better argument(s), though this is rare.

For Lincoln-Douglas: If you're using a moral or political theory from analytic philosophy (i.e. utilitarianism/consequentialism, deontology/rights-based, virtue ethics, Rawlsian distributive justice/justice as fairness, any kind of social contract theory, principles from medical ethics, etc.) please make sure you know what you're talking about. I have way too many rounds where a utilitarian or consequentialist framework devolves into deontology or rights-based theory, and vice versa. Or worse, where a debater uses a contradictory value and criterion, such as pairing autonomy with consequentialism. And these are the simplest moral theories; the bar will be even higher if you choose Rawls or something more obscure. I'm not against you using these theories (in fact, as a philosophy teacher I want you to do so), I just want you to use them well and appropriately. I highly recommend that all LD debaters read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy extensively in order to better prepare for using and coming up against philosophical concepts in rounds. Theories from continental philosophy will be a tougher sell for me in general because they're even more difficult to use appropriately.

No matter what value and criterion you choose, make sure you're linking all of your impacts back to your framework throughout the round. A brief mention at the top of each speech is not nearly enough attention to framework in LD. Also, please don't make your value "morality." That's redundant. All of these resolutions have the word "ought" in them; morality is implicitly valued in the round. You're not actually giving me any real information here about how you're using a theory of value to evaluate the resolution at hand.

For Public Forum: Evidence matters here even more than in the other debate events. Make sure you're reading all of your sources in their entirety before cutting cards. I'm always paying attention, and so are most of the other debaters: if you're using something out of context, you will get called on it eventually by one of your opponents or judges. I will call for evidence in close rounds, so be prepared to hand over your cards. Making empirical assertions without providing empirical evidence will make it very hard for me to vote for you, and misusing evidence will make it nearly impossible. Additionally, spitting out cards and contentions you're hoping your opponent will drop is not the path to my ballot. Well-reasoned and charitable argument is.

For Congress: It is to the whole chamber's disservice to get stuck on one bill or one series of bills. Even if your favorite bill is being discussed and you haven't gotten a chance to speak yet, it's in your best interest not to extend a tired debate. I would rather see fresh debate on a bill that is less familiar to you than continue to see the same arguments recycled over and over again.

Congress is meant to be an extemporaneous event. I don't want your speeches to be pretty and polished like a speech event, or even like a constructive speech in PF or LD. I want you to show me that you have a range of knowledge and interest in an even wider range of topics in current events, and can speak extemporaneously on these topics in the chamber. There's little I dislike more in debate than for a Congress chamber to take a recess so everyone can "write their speeches." This fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of Congress. The best advice I can give Congressional debaters for prep isn't to write polished speeches, but to regularly read (not watch) reputable news sources like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and The Economist. If you must watch your news, go with the PBS News Hour or something international (i.e. the BBC), not partisan entertainment-oriented channels like CNN, FOX, or MSNBC. Podcasts are fun, but not a substitute for reputable news organizations with full-time fact checkers.

For Extemporaneous Debate, most of the above goes in various degrees. If one person runs a framework in this event, I'll weigh it against whatever framework is the best fit for the other debater's arguments (usually cost-benefit analysis, occasionally a rights-based theory). I won't just default to the person who has an explicit framework since it is not a norm to always have one in this event. Other than that, this is a rapid-fire version of the other events. The most important thing is to warrant, warrant, warrant, whether we're talking about arguments, evidence, tangible impacts, or a framework. Like with PF, spitting out cards and contentions you're hoping your opponent will drop is not the path to my ballot.

For Big Questions, the NSDA briefs are usually weird and unhelpful. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is your friend. Think very carefully about what makes a good argument, and nuance is most often the key with these kinds of resolutions. Trying to do something tricky or gimmicky (such as saying that objective morality is real because of natural selection instead of arguing in favor of actual normative moral truth) is usually going to work less well than offering a substantive, multi-faceted account of the issue at hand. However, I'm not totally opposed to these kinds of arguments and have voted for them in the past. Just tread carefully as the bar will be higher for them.

This event (usually) isn't about the empirical, but the metaphysical, and you should approach it as such. This means that looking for "evidence" from science instead of philosophy is often the wrong tactic. Reasoning and logic is evidence, as shown by the entire history of thought. Think about it this way: you can't find numbers in the natural world, but rockets still wouldn't work without mathematics. The same goes for logic, which is just verbal mathematics.

Paradigms

I am a flow judge that uses old style pencil and paper.

1) Signpost (tell me what argument in your opponent’s case your talking about)

2) Prioritize clash and contention-level debate

3) Provide me clear voter issues (why should you win the round)

4) Please DO NOT speak too fast (so that I can’t write down your arguments) or too slow (so that I’m waiting for your arguments) – try to maintain a comfortable pacing with your case

5) I do not consider any arguments brought up in Cross-X – use the Cross-X questioning to your advantage during your rebuttals (which I will write down on my flow)

6) Most importantly, be respectful and have fun. This is all a learning experience!

Debate Experience:

[4 years] High school: PF, LD, Congress, World School, American Parliamentary, and more; competed at nationals

[Present] College: IPDA, LD-Policy, British Parliamentary; competed at nationals

Judging since 2019

General Paradigm for ALL debate formats:

I value RESPECT and DECORUM above all. No shouting, being rude, cutting opponents off, making faces, openly expressing annoyance of opponents' arguments, certain body language, and more; these are valid reasons to deduct speaker points. Getting excited about an argument and going full into it does not count as disrespect. I judge based on age group. There is a fine line between firm and rude. If I see you being rude, I will give you low speaker points, but I won't make you lose the round.

I am a LOGIC judge, if something doesn't make logical sense, you'll lose the argument

I love ANALYTICS, analyze the evidence

Be organized

Clear contentions

Spreading or speeding is okay if you are coherent. Policy debaters, refer below

Off-time road maps, please

Follow the flow of the round- don't make my life harder than it has to be

I like jargon, its helpful and I am familiar, except for IPDA

LD-Policy + Policy Paradigm:

Run anything, I don't care, as long as it works. DA, T, CP, K, etc, all work, just make it make sense. I may be educated but I don't know the whole dictionary, so make sure to explain in simple terms at the end, like 2-3 sent final summary. Second, make sure you still attack the general Aff plan and why it does not work. I need both, just in case, to default.

I can not express this enough if I don't understand your arguments, then it's hard for me to vote for you.

Be organized and make sure you upload clean documents after your speech. No shady things, for example, copying your speech twice to make the document hard to navigate...really? Make sure to do this right after your speech ends, so your opponent has time to use the clean doc.

Spreading:

(1) Only do it if you want to relay more information and can speak clearly, if you have not practiced reading your document and are choppy + taking breaths in, do not spread

(2) make sure your opponents are okay, debate is supposed to be fair, equitable, and educational

(3) make sure to explain anything important, if I miss something and you don't explain it, that's on you

Links + Impact + Solvency - without it you won't win

Just because you read a card doesn't mean you're done. Explain its impact

I flow the cross. Anything important should still be brought up in the subsequent speech

LD Paradigm: Traditional Judge

Focusing on the V and VC

Clash is important

Links + Impact + Solvency - without it you won't win

I don't flow the cross, anything important, MUST be brought up in the subsequent speech

PF Paradigm: Lay Judge

Clear contentions, strong evidence, links, and impacts

I don't flow the cross, anything important MUST be brought up in the subsequent speech

Other:

Have any questions, need coaching, or help?

Contact me @ nuveriat@gmail.com

Need accommodations, let me know

I am a flow judge.

1) Signpost & provide an Off-time roadmap. Very important!

2) Prioritize clash, both contention-level and framework-level (or collapse/concede fw if necessary)

3) Connect contentions & impacts to the framework.

4) Outweigh on voters.

5) Extend arguments

6) I can somewhat handle speed, but don't spread (it will tank your speakers)

7) While I won't flow CX, make sure your questioning leads you somewhere. Try to poke holes and stump your opponent's case, rather than asking worthless questions to fill time.

8) All arguments are welcome.

8) Be respectful and have fun. This is all a learning experience! If you make me laugh or if I learn something new – easy 30 speaker points :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPEAKERS
30: I wish I could frame your speeches – hard to imagine a better speaker.
29.0-29.5: You left no doubt about who won and are an excellent speaker.
28.0-28.5: You were effective and strategic, and made only minor mistakes.
27.5: You hit all the right notes, but could improve (e.g. depth or efficiency).
27.0: You mainly did the right thing, but left something to be desired. No Signposting.
26.5: You missed major things and were hard to follow;
26.0: You advanced little in the debate or the round was messy; Spreading.
25.0-25.5: You are not ready for this division/tournament.
Below 25: You were offensive, ignorant, rude, or tried to cheat (Report to tabroom).

I am a fairly new judge and debate coach, so I prefer it when you talk more slowly and concisely. Even though this is a competitive activity, be respectful of time limits. I appreciate organization. Highlight signposts as you go through the contentions of your case so I know where to flow your arguments.

Build your case in a linear way that clearly supports your framework and provides sufficient evidence to assist me in determining a winner. Don’t spread; I don’t want to hear that your opponent did not attack your contentions if you give a laundry list of items that is so long no one would have time to attack them all.

Give me a brief off-time roadmap before each argument. As far as framework is concerned, I see it as a tool through which to weigh the round, so you need to defend your framework. If you happen to lose your framework or it collapses, extend your arguments and tell me why that extension is vital.

I want to hear specific examples, evidence and statistics, not just generalized statements that yours is more important or better. I enjoy a debate that utilizes less common examples of how the resolution impacts society. I take notes regarding your contentions and cards, and my decision will be based on how clearly this information actually supports your framework as well as how it is presented and organized. When disputing your opponent’s case, be respectful and disparage the contentions or framework and not the person.

Focus on voter issues as you summarize your case and be sure to tie your voter issues back to your framework. I want you as the debater to identify the clash between the AFF and NEG. Your voter issues NEED to represent the MOST IMPORTANT clash in the debate and convince me why I should vote for you!! In summary, be clear, be concise and be convincing.

Name: Melissa Whitaker

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 2

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery- I prefer a moderately paced speech. If you speak faster, it will most likely be harder for a judge to follow your speech.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- I prefer a brief off time road map as it helps me to organize my flowing more easily. However, if you provide that roadmap, please stick to it.

Extension of arguments into later speeches- If you continue to extend your argument and your opponent has not attacked it, I will likely flow it through.

Flowing/note-taking- I flow everything except cross-examination.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I value argument over style

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? I think it should be extended into the rebuttal.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No

I debated for 4 years in high school, I have been judging LD/PF for 11 years and coaching LD/PF at Fenwick High School for 8 years. I will be evaluating each team based on their clarity, logical coherence, evidence, rebuttal, delivery, cross-examination, and respect. I will be looking for the team that presents the strongest argument overall, based on these criteria.

In general, I am open to nearly every argument; with a few exceptions/variations.

1. Theory - I am fine with it. I find some theory debates to be quite interesting, however I will not vote on frivolous theory, especially not on disclosure theory.

2. Kritiks - In general, I think they can be very educational arguments. However, I am not a fan of performance arguments. I just do not enjoy them. Plain and simple.

3. Plans/CPs/Disads - Even though I believe these often stunt an otherwise incredibly intellectual atmosphere, there are exceptions to this rule. If you can run a good plan, I can see myself voting on it. As for counterplans—no PICs. Please. I do not find that these make for a decent debate round.

4. Voters Issues - Please have them.

Speed is okay but I will say “clear” if I cannot understand you or if you are speaking too
fast; because if I can’t hear it, I can’t flow it. Be intelligible and make sure to signpost

Signpost so I know where you are in your argument. All arguments are welcome. Framework debate not as important, but make sure to connect your case to framework. If you do debate framework, connect case to your opponent's framework as well. State your impacts clearly.

Your speaking is the number 1 thing I look for, as presenting your arguments clearly and with passion is very important to me. During cross-examination, I listen for good questions and will keep them in mind. Additionally, in final speeches, please give clear voting issues.

And be sure to have fun!