I am generally a flow judge and can follow fast paced debate.

Framework should be established and followed throughout the round. Tell me why your framework is superior and back up your claim with evidence in contentions. If there is no framework debate, the round will rely on weighing evidence in contentions.

Contentions should be clearly stated with supporting evidence and analysis. Your evidence should be fully explained and analyzed as to its impact on the debate. I prefer evidence be referred to by subject/topic throughout the round rather than simply the author's name. Know your evidence well enough defend it in cross-examination.

Your case should be organized, focused and come to a reasonable conclusion that convinces me to vote in your favor. Failure to communicate the importance of evidence, weighing values and impacts, or extending key arguments may result in a loss.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

Charlotte Latin School (2022-), formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that sometimes and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I can't do all that work for you.

GENERAL:

COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key!

If you present a framework/ROB, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).

I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.

I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.

Not a fan of tricks.

LD:

Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is, and give me clear judge instruction in the round (the trad rounds I judge have much fewer win conditions, so explain to me why your arguments should trigger my ballot. If I can't understand what exactly your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.)

PF:

Please collapse the round!

I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.

CONGRESS:

Argument quality and evidence are more important to me than pure speaking skills & polish.

Show me that you're multifaceted -- quality over quantity. I'll always rank someone who can pull off an early speech and mid-cycle ref or late-cycle crystal over someone who gives three first negations in a row.

I reward flexibility/leadership in chamber: be willing to preside, switch sides on an uneven bill, etc.

WORLDS:

Generally looking for you to follow the norms of the event: prop sets the framework for the round (unless abusive), clear intros in every speech, take 1-2 points each, keep content and rhetoric balanced.

House prop should be attentive to motion types -- offer clear framing on value/fact motions, and a clear model on policy motions.

On argument strategy: I'm looking for the classic principled & practical layers of analysis. I place more value on global evidence & examples.

Concept Explanation

CREI ORGANIZATION STRATEGY: CREI is an acronym that stands for claim, reasoning, evidence, and impact. The claim should tell the judge what you are arguing. The reasoning should show why your claim is true in your own words. The evidence should show why your claim is true using the words of another. The impact should tell the judge why your argument matters.

RIOT METHOD: RIOT is an acronym that stands for reduce, indict, outweigh, and turn. Reducing your opponent’s arguments means to put the arguments into perspective. Putting your opponent’s arguments into perspective includes breaking the argument down into its core components to show the judge the ridiculousness of the argument, or you can take the weight of their argument and compare it to the other numbers that make the weight of their argument seem small. Indicting your opponent’s arguments is the most common form of refutation. You can indict your opponent based on flawed logic and bad evidence. Outweigh is when you look at the impacts of your arguments and your opponent’s and tell the judge why your impacts have a greater weight using IMPACT CALCULUS. Turning is taking your opponent’s argument and using it to benefit your side. If your opponent presents an argument and you notice it helps your side the same or more than your opponent’s point that out and explain why to the judge.

THREE-POINT REFUTATION STRATEGY:Three-point refutation breaks down the refutation process in an easy-to-manage way. The first step is to say, “my opponent said _______.” Then you follow up by saying “my opponent is wrong because _______.” Then you end by saying “this error is significant because _________.”

VOTER ISSUES:Voter issues give the judge criteria to vote on other than his own. Providing these voter issues will allow you to demonstrate to the judge why you have won the round. Common votes include better evidence, rhetoric, and greater impact weight.

WORLD COMPARISON:World comparisons are a persuasive way to demonstrate to the judge what is happening in the aff/neg (pro/con) worlds. World comparison tells the judge what the world would like if he voted for one side or the other and illustrates why one world is more/less desirable than the other.

IMPACT CALCULUS:Impact calculus is an easy way to illustrate to the judge why your arguments have more weight than your opponent’s. Impacts can have a greater weight depending on timeframe, scope, magnitude, and probability. Timeframe compares how soon the consequences of the impact will happen. Scope observes how many people the impact will affect. Magnitude explains how bad/good the consequences of the impact are (think getting sick vs. dying). Probability measures how likely the impact is to happen.

Lincoln Douglas

Judging Criterion:

I primarily judge on how the debaters engage with the values presented because LD boils down to the values. Focusing on the values requires great LD debaters to rely on mostly rhetoric, philosophy, theory, and history to support their arguments. Using studies and other academic journal works would prove insufficient in LD when they stand alone because the findings only serve to illustrate debaters’ reasoning. Because debaters’ main reliance comes from their own reasoning, they should maintain a conversational pace when speaking.

The next quality I look for in both debaters is accomplishing the goal of each speech for the debate.For constructive speeches, the debaters should focus on communicating their main arguments to the judge, except for negative using some time to refute the affirmative’s contentions of course.To communicate their constructive arguments clearly,debaters should use the CREI ORGANIZATION STRATEGY or a similar strategy (explanation above).

During cross-examination,debaters asking questions should make sure to only ask questions that let them gain information for their refutation, however,please do not only ask yes/no questions,give your opponent the chance to slip up when they are over-explaining an answer to one of your questions. The questions should be concise so the opponent cannot claim to “not understand” your question and waste your CX time, and the questioner should not let opponents waste their CX time by giving long answers. Therefore,questioners should let their opponent answer their question plus one sentence and then politely cut them off.The questions a debater asks should indict one of three elements in an opponent’s case: reasoning, evidence quality, and impact weight.Debaters answering questions should keep their answers concise and answer only what their opponents asked them, so they do not accidentally give their opponent more ammo for when they start their refutation speech. However, when answering questions,you should not only answer with a “yes” or “no.”You need to explain why the answer is “yes” or “no,” especially when a “yes” or “no” answer damages your argument in the eyes of the public.

During refutation speeches, debaters need to focus on both attacking their opponent’s arguments and bolstering their own. For attacking,debaters should use the RIOT METHOD (explanation above). Along with this method,debaters can use the THREE-POINT REFUTATION STRATEGY(explanation above).For bolstering arguments, debaters should not just repeat their argument in different words; instead,debaters should try to focus on what their opponents said and counter the reasoning or evidence their opponents used during refutations.

Finally,debaters should end the round with a strong closing speech.Strong closing speeches NEVER summarize what each debater said during the round. Instead,strong closing speeches tell the judge why you won the round.The best methods to use to tell the judge how you won include VOTER ISSUES,WORLD COMPARISON, and IMPACT CALCULUS(explanations above). Debaters should also make sure to relate their concluding arguments back to their value and why their value should be preferred during the round.

During all these speeches,debaters should relate all that they say in support of their side back to their value. Remember this is a debate about VALUES. Therefore,the debater who convinces the judge to prefer their value wins the round.Without convincing the judge to prefer your value, you will miss the whole purpose of this format and probably lose.These are the strategies that will make you a great LD debater.

Breakdown:

CONTENT: 70%

Values – 30%

Logical Reasoning – 10%

Impacts – 20%

Supporting Materials – 10%

SPEAKING: 30%

Conversational Pace – 15%

Non-fluencies – 10%

Tone and Non-verbals – 5%

I am a citizen judge and a parent of a competitor. This is my 6th year as a judge for LD and PFD. I have judged local tournaments in South Carolina and a few National Circuit Tournaments.

The quality of your arguments is more important than the quantity of your arguments. I will reflect after the debate on who won the debate. Memorable examples relevant to your argument and insightful logic to explain the reasons behind your position can be decisive at this moment of reflection.

Explanation of your evidence and its relevance to your case is more important than the relative credibility of your sources versus the sources of your opponent’s evidence. I will ask myself if I “buy” your argument based on your explanation of the evidence and its relevance.

Enunciation is important so that I can understand your points. Brisk speaking is fine, but don’t sacrifice my ability to understand you, especially in a virtual environment.

Debate the actual resolution. Tell me why it matters and what the stakes are.

Overall, don’t make me work too hard. If you and your opponent were attorneys, which one of you would I hire to defend me in court?

I am an ex-traditional policy debate coach (Stock issues judge) who has been coaching LD since 1990. I usually administrate tournaments rather than judge except when I have been at Catholic Nat's and NSDA Nat's.

Speed: Adapt to the judge who prefers a few well-developed arguments to spreading. I will flow as fast as I can, but it is up to you to communicate to me the compelling/persuasive reasons why you should earn the ballot. Speak clearly and articulate your words and you'll do fine.

Flex Prep. No. Speak within the time constraints and use prep time to see Evidence.

Evidence Challenge: If you doubt the veracity of evidence, then challenge it at the next available opportunity. Remember evidence challenges are all or none. If the evidence has been proven to be altered or conjured, then your opponent loses. If the evidence is verifiable and has NOT been materially altered, then you lose for the specious challenge.

Arguments: A few well-reasoned claims, warrants, and impacts are very persuasive as opposed to a laundry list of underdeveloped assertions/arguments.

Theory Arguments: Not a big fan of sitting in judgment of the topic and/or its framers with critiques. But I do weigh the issue of topicality as germane if made during the constructives.

Philosophy: It's been labeled Value debate for a reason. I encourage the discussion of scholarly philosophies.

Framework: There is a Value that each side is pursuing as their goal. There is a value criterion that is used to measure the accrual of the VP. The last steps include why the Value is superior and why the VC is the best way to measure that value.

Decision-Rule. While repetition often aids learning, I prefer that you tell me what the established standard for judging the round has been and why your arguments have met/exceeded the threshold. Write the ballot for me.

PFD: I have coached and judged PFD since the event started.

I prefer a framework and a few well-developed arguments to the spread. Point keywords as you read your case. Be polite in C-X and ask closed-ended questions. Tell me why your arguments are better by weighing impacts.

Ryan Parimi - Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Email: ryan.parimi@gmail.com

About me:

• Recent college grad--majored in English with minors in German, Chinese, and Business. Went to a very conservative school. Taking a gap year before law school.
• College and high school debate coach/teacher (LD, PF, Parli)
• High school and middle school mock trial coach
• College moot court coach
• Founded my university's debate program
• Founded a speech and debate camp in Jakarta, Indonesia
• Summer debate instructor at Yale, Drew, and U. of Washington

General Debate Stuff:

• A coach once called me a debate "hipster"; though I enjoy a lot of the more "progressive" arguments, my philosophy of debate still centers on clear arguments and conversational, persuasive speech. After all, you’re trying to win me—not just win arguments in a vacuum. I want to be convinced. Talk to me, don't just talk at me.
• I like aspects of both traditional and circuit debate. I wish the traditional community wouldn't let its fear of everything turning into policy keep it from adopting some helpful circuit norms, and I wish the circuit community would stop trying to convince itself that a total departure from traditional debate turns the activity into anything but an esoteric game with no real-life application.
• Examples of cases that would be great for my taste: a Cap K that links reasonably to the resolution, argued in a more traditional style; a traditional case that demonstrates a deep understanding of the philosophy behind its framework; a tech case that restores my faith in humanity by making semi-reasonable arguments and doesn't force me to flow 10 subpoints of copy-paste garbage from the debate wiki.
• Tech over truth (within reason). You should probably run your tech case for me if you're torn between tech and lay.
• I ♥ when impacts, late-round weighing, and voters connect to your framing.
• LARP begins and ends with an L :)
• I actually know all of the NSDA's evidence rules.

Speed:

• Prioritize clarity over speed. Spreading is lame, but I can flow it and won't vote you down solely because you chose to spread. If you spread, please be good at it: your articulation better not go down the drain, you better stay organized, etc. Bad spreading will tank your speaker points. Email me your case or give me a printed copy before the round if you plan on spreading.

Framework:

• I’m fine with traditional and more modern frameworks. Just make whatever you’re using clear. Be aware that I have a very good understanding of the philosophy behind most frameworks...don't try to BS me on Kant or Rawls or something. I will know. That being said, I believe it's on the debaters to call each other out on stuff like that. I'm going to flow it unless it's crazy.

• Please don't throw the framework debate away. It's what makes LD special.

Kritiks and Theory:

• I haven't judged a ton of Ks because I come from a pretty traditional circuit, but a well-developed K could certainly convince me. Similar to the philosophy behind traditional frameworks, I'm familiar with the critical theories behind most Ks.

• Theory arguments are fine when there is actual abuse--just explain clearly. Don't throw in an RVI just because, save those for something truly egregious.
• I hate disclo and will not vote on it with one exception. Look: disclo sucks, and I'm not even sure why we still let people get away with trying to win on disclo in 2024. Part of debate is learning how to analyze and respond to arguments on the fly. Yes, it's hard. No, I'm not going to give you a win for whining about it being hard. Here's the one exception: if you didn't share your case and you're super spreading (like 400 wpm) to the point where flowing is literally impossible, I will give you the L if your opponent runs disclo.

Other random stuff:

• I like reading Alexander Pope, collecting shoes, listening to Chinese rap, and exploring Marxist criticism.

• I will follow the NSDA rules for LD whenever questions come up that the rules address. I follow tradition/best practices for anything else. If you have questions about specific preferences, just ask before the round.

You should be polite, but you should also know that being obsequious will not gain you extra points.

Please don’t use debate-world jargon. The people judging are not debate team members, so using words that mean something totally different in their world (the real world) is not effective.

Don’t be overly pedantic. If your argument is premised on a word game (e.g. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.") it just seems silly.

Hyperbole (e.g. "Half the human population will die if you don't vote for AFF!") can be viewed as insulting to a judge’s intelligence.

As a judge I can't see your cards, so getting into an argument with your opponent about cards is kind of meaningless to me.

The best debates are about articulating ideas and presenting evidence to back up those ideas. Focus on persuading your audience—in this case, the judge—not each other.

Make it a debate that would impress Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.