Debate good, me vote

I will vote off of anything as long as it makes sense

Please bear in mind that event records are public, events are geared to an educational audience, and have your name attached. Discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language is forbidden, and its use will result in you being removed. Tabroom might also lock or delete your Tabroom account.

In other words, be mature, and good people.

feel free to ask for more feedback later

Parent Judge

Please be respectful to opponents and the judge.

Speak clearly so that I can follow and please do not spread.

Please don't run theory or abusive arguments.

Off-time roadmap and summarizing is always appreciated!

Pronouns: they/them

*for novices*
Current LD debater of 3 years, debate style tends towards Ks and K frameworks. Familiar with a variety of lit bases up to and including high theory and will evaluate any argument (barring the obviously harmful ones). That being said, I have a high threshold for theory arguments in novice rounds, along with highly technical stuff. I will evaluate it and vote according to the technical level of the debate but I may judge you personally and give opponents some grace on RVI-esque arguments. Go as fast as you’re comfortable going. Be engaging, have fun, try not to be a jerk.

Quality over quantity.

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round. In other words, don't spread.
2. Also don't yell at me. I can hear you just fine.
3. Bonus points if you actually adjust your speed and tone appropriately to your speech.

Evidence

I like evidence, empirical is good, but logical and reasonable is also important. Don't be afraid to evaluate sources, not all sources are created equally. Don't ever have a hanging contention. Don't try to lawyer me with bizarre definitions and loopholes. Use reasonable and common definitions. Don't spend more time on the rules of debate (especially if you are trying to convince me how to vote) than on the actual arguments in the debate itself.

Human life, empathy and giving a preference to those marginalized are things I value.

Organization

I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots. Circle back to your contentions. Be sure you hit your impact and magnitude. Tie everything to your value.

Please speak clearly and at reasonable pace.

Please stand while speaking if the setting allows and have eye contact with the other contestants and the judge.

Please don't debate whose value is better. Weighing your arguments against your opponent's is the key to winning the debate. Clearly state how your arguments outweigh theirs, and again, stress your impacts.

Do summarize why the judge should vote for your case.

Will judge Saturday only. Must be done by 5.
I am a new judge, first time judging LD on 11/5/2022. Mild hearing loss, so speak clearly please. No spreading please. Thanks!

I am a Lay Judge, and this is my first season judging debate. Please do not "spread". I value clear, concise and well thought out arguments that include compelling evidence coupled with strong analytical reasoning. I want to see people responding directly to opponent's arguments, asking clear questions in the cross and summarizing well in the final speeches. Be persuasive. Be competent. Be kind. Thank you!

I am a lay judge, and while I debated at high school and university myself many years ago, I am far from proficient at judging debate. I have judged both LD and PF formats, and get more experienced at every tournament. The main request from me is that you don't "spread." What I am most interested in hearing are focused, original arguments that tie together well. I want to see people responding directly to their opponent's arguments, good clash, asking clear questions in the cross, and summarizing well in the final speeches. Finally, I don't disclose at the end as I like to spend time fully weighing before submitting my ballot. Thank you.

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at 2018 Nationals for it.

I’m a parent judge and mainly focus on LD. To win my vote, please keep in mind:

1. I value clarity more than quantity. Try to make your points clear and concise. Do not rush. If you usually speak low, please try to raise your voice a little.
2. Make yourself comfortable. As long as I can hear you clearly, I don't care whether you stand or sit.
3. Try to find your opponent's weak spots and use every chance to attack it. This will lead to good arguments.
4. Have data (numbers), and evidence ready.
5. Be polite in debate. I like solid arguments but do it in a respectful way.

LD is a hard debate, you might lose today but you will learn something and will come back later. Good Luck!

Parent Judge

Please go slow (slightly above conversational speech is good) and articulate

Please don’t run or Ks

Be respectful to everyone

Hello,

Thank you for participating in today's debates. I look for well-crafted arguments delivered at a reasonable speed.

Please limit spreading. Fully explain your thinking and reasoning. Slow down when making main points (contentions) or when making pointed critiques of your opponent’s argument.

All the best,

Kieran Jacobson

Hello everyone,

I would consider followings in my judge,

1) Speak clearly 2) Respect each other - don't want you to bother your opponent's speaking

3) Make questions/answers precisely

4) Keep time strictly

Good Luck!

Email Address : damonrang79@gmail.com

I am a parent judge. This is my first time with debate and judging.

I would appreciate if you could speak slowly and clearly. Please do not spread.

I look forward to the debate.

Have fun and do your best!

EXPERIENCE

I'm a parent judge.

I will likely vote down on you if you run a bunch of arguments using fancy terms that I'm not familiar with.

LD

I have some knowledge of what LD debate is.

From my understanding, LD debate should a traditional debate that mainly argues the morals/ethics of a resolution. DO NOT run a progressive case or a policy case, if I hear a Plan, CP, DA, or a K, I will vote against you. Keep that in Policy realm.

Speed should be at a conversational rate, DO NOT spread in LD round. If I can't understand you because you spoke too fast, I will vote against you.

I prefer debaters sharing their cases before the speech so that I can follow, but if you are going to speak clearly and slowly, I don't mind.

Provide a clear framework and weighing mechanism in the round as to why I should vote for you! I especially enjoy the round that are heavily packed with the observation and analysis of ethics/morals of the resolution. Don't just spend all of your time reading cards, actually make an argument!

Feedbacks will be provided on tabroom, instead of giving it verbally. And I won't disclose my ballot after the round.

High speaker points go to a debater who give me a clear and convincing voters and arguments that I can comprehend and follow.

Reasons why I will vote for you:

• Gave me a well constructed argument with valid warrants that has credible source.
• A clear framework that tells me why I should vote for you.
• Structured rebuttals-I prefer you not just reading cards and not explaining why it is important.
• Good impact or framework clash in the round.
• Arguments were logical and backed with evidence + warrants with credible source.
• Some things for you to keep in mind:

*Roadmaps/signposts are helpful

*I am more likely to vote for a smaller number of coherent/well-explained arguments over a multitude of rapidfire/scattershot arguments

*Speak at a speed suitable for a parent judge. If I can follow your opponent's arguments, but not yours.. then I will vote for your opponent.

*Be explicit/structured when calling out contentions/points, and some verbal cue ("next", etc.) when you start a tag

Reasons why I will vote against you:

• Spread in the round.
• Was disrespectful to judge/opponent.
• Arguments were disoriented and muddled.
• Presented logical fallacies and made contradictions to your own argument.
• No clear framework for a debate.
• Aggressive and yelled during the speeches.
• Ran a policy case, DA, K, CP, Plan, etc.

If you do better in providing relevant points that connect to the topic and providing proofs and credible data to support them, you have my vote. I’m looking for a respectful, stable debate. Don’t be overly aggressive or spread.

Parent lay judge. Please talk slowly.

LD Coach 0 years

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain. My email is, lirichard6474@gmail.com, prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.

When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider apriori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins the framework, whichever one they decide to go for. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear topicality link with warrents and weighted impacts, which are the best route for my ballot.

I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.

I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.

Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

Progressive Debates: I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate.

Cross Examination

I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.

I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite, and not look at each other. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.

Speaker Points

If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.

If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.

Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.

I have been increasingly judging LD and occasionally judging Policy, but the comments below apply equally to both forms of debate. Please include me on Email chains. My Email is livill@hotmail.com

As I frequently tell LD debaters, "My paradigm as an LD judge is that I'm a Policy judge." Ha, ha! I am a Policy judge in the sense that I enjoy debating policy issues, but I have become increasingly more enamored with how LD deals with them as opposed to Policy. I enjoy a good framework debate, especially in LD.

A creative, thoughtful V/C really gets my attention. By that, I mean things other than morality/util. If you’re using FW, it’s especially important to relate your case and your opponent's case back to your V/C to show me the best way to frame the argument. A really great debater can demonstrate that their case better meets both their V/C and their opponent’s VC and does so more effectively than their opponent. I am fine with plans and counterplans, but if you're going to run a CP, make sure you understand how to do so. I am fine with theory debates as long as you relate them back to some actual argument. But, beware: I am more interested in arguments dealing with the topic than arguments dealing with the theory of debate.

Whether we’re debating a prospective policy in LD or in Policy, I believe that if we recognize something is a problem, we need to resolve it, which requires a solution. For me, that means stock issues and some kind of resolution of the harms the Aff delineates. You can rarely, if ever, go wrong, by arguing appropriate stock issues. For me, the two primary stock issues are solvency, which is key to evaluating the effectiveness of a policy and inherency, which few teams understand or argue effectively, but, which real, live, adult policy makers use every day to determine responses to problems. I vote for presumption the way any good policy maker would in the public sector – if it hasn’t been proven to be broken, don’t fix it.

I like a good T debate, but, not on cases when virtually any rational person would agree that a case is topical. I am far more likely to buy that a case is “reasonably” topical than I am to agreeing that it must meet some arcane Neg definition of a term like “it” or “is.” Also, this absurd argument that everyone should disclose their case before the round begins will gain no traction with me. One of the benefits of debate is learning how to respond quickly and effectively to new ideas and information on your feet. If you’re not prepared to debate the topic, stay home. There are other reasons to reject most Affs that involve arguments on actual issues, so use those issues instead of whining that you’ve never heard this case before.

I’m generally not a fan of K affs but sadly (for me) I will listen to anything and judge it as neutrally as possible. If you’re going to run a K aff, please be sure it has some dim unique link to the topic. Ditto for Ks run on the Neg. Also, and this is particularly for K Affs, please don’t take the tack that because you got up and read a speech or performed in front of me that I am legally, morally and ethically required to vote for you.

I am also a “policy” judge; after over 25 years as a Foreign Service Officer in the United States Department of State, I know what a coherent policy looks like and how, in the real world, policies are developed and implemented. Cases that don't offer a real policy with at least some nebulous solution to the problem, i.e. cases that offer some ephemeral philosophy that a judge is supposed to implement through "in-round solvency ballot-signing" are relatively unattractive to me. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but only when the Neg won't make the most minimal effort to argue the case in context of stock issues or policy-making.

I also look at who won which issues: who won the most important stock issues and which policy solved the problem more effectively with the fewest disadvantages and made the better sense, so, ultimately, it's about persuasion as well. I will vote for cases I don't like and don't think are topical or inherent, for example, if the Neg either fails to respond effectively or simply can't win the argument. I will not make your arguments for you or infer what you meant to say.

THINGS THAT LESSEN YOUR CHANCES OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND WINNING MY BALLOT: Really long, long, long taglines, especially ones that contain large amounts of philo/psychobabble gobbledegook. If your tag line is longer than the piece of evidence you cite, that’s a problem. Debaters who don't pause between taglines and the evidence will lose me. Stock DAs with no unique link to the current Aff being debated will bore me and it’s hard to take them seriously. Poor refutation organization is a killer - if you don't tell me where you're going, it's hard to follow you and you significantly decrease your chances of me putting the argument where YOU want it. Please understand that I flow arguments, not authors. When you extend an author whose name I have not flowed, I don’t know where to put the extension. Anyway, you’re not extending evidence as much as you’re extending an ARGUMENT. When you extend your argument, tell me which specific contention, advantage, argument or subpoint you’re refuting. Line by line is good! I really, really HATE debates that become primarily about the theory of how we're debating the issue than about the issue itself. In terms of speed, less is more. I like to be persuaded and if I can't understand what you're saying, then, you're not very persuasive. Please speak up and speak clearly, especially if it’s an online tournament.

This is Qi, I am a parent Judge, and I am new. To help me and to help you, please use the conversational speaking speed, so I could understand you and follow you.

I value the winner by the following performance:

1. Well-constructed arguments with valid source.
2. Focusing on your point of view from different angles while you argue than the volume of your voice to win.
3. Asking clear questions with strong logics connected while you cross your opponent.
4. Answer directly to your opponent's questions.
5. Argue with the topics than dealing with the theory of debate.
6. Timing, quality of words than quantity.
7. Be kind, polite, relaxing and make it a fun game to think, learn and grow.

Good luck and thank you!

Sophomore debater at Newport. Run whatever you want but if it's progressive please explain the argument well. You can talk at a faster than conversational pace but if you want to spread please set up a email chain(andyluoyx@gmail.com) or speechdrop. Tech>truth. Focus on the arguments that actually matter, also please weigh and/or give voters.

1-LARP/Trad

2-Theory

3-common K's like set col and cap

4-Tricks(extra speaks cuz funny but idk how ill evaluate them)

5-Phil/weird K's(please explain really well) and talk slow

If you ever get to see this paradigm it's prob going to be an out round but in prelim rounds I'll give between 27-30 speaks(extra speaks if you do something interesting/funny)

I'm proud to say I've never sat(even though I've only judged 2 rounds and they were both 2-1s lol)

Don't be sexist/racist/ableist etc. or else it'll be an auto L20

The most important thing is to remember to have fun and treat your opponent with respect. Good luck!

I am a parent judge, and former high school Lincoln Debate State Champion. I have judged many Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debates at middle school and high school tournaments. Arguments that focus on societal impact with direct linkages to clear data/facts carry weight. And- stay on topic.

Do not spread, and slow down on justifications in your last speech. I will not consider Kritiks and topicality. I strongly discourage counter plans. If you have any questions, please ask me before the start of the round. Be kind, respectful and courteous to your opponent- or you will lose points. I'm looking forward to an engaging, and fun debate!

Hello Debaters!

I competed in both LD and Policy while I was in high school; two years of both at open level. Ever since then, I've been judging both formats when available for quite a while, and as of late have begun picking up Policy, LD, and Public Forum ballots.

Due to my history, my judging style is still heavily based upon how I acted in round as a competitor. I rely predominantly on the flow, but I still strongly look to any well-constructed policy/case arguments in round.

Philosophy-wise, I am first and foremost a Tabula Rasa judge. Playing against a clean slate with your opponent (and with your partners) creates the most pure form of debate; it is in my mind that entering the round attempting to meta-game the debate by over-analyzing what your judge is biased towards butchers the debate itself. I will try my hardest in round to be as impartial and accepting as possible to begin with; however, I am human, and all humans have biases. If you can glean these (hopefully small) edges in round, then all the better for you!

The only other major factor of debate that I feel necessary highlighting is my perspective on K's/ Theory arguments. To put it bluntly, I will be having a much harder time accepting these arguments as compared to my judging peers. I've seen K's used almost exclusively as a method to steer the round toward a certain argument, regardless of resolution, as a form which are designed to be a lot less preparable than anything actually topical. I've had far too many negative experiences as a judge to accept any of these as a strategical decision; Anything short of a K being used for in-round insults is strongly discouraged.

1AC K's are right out.

As far as speed is concerned... It probably won't be much of an issue? I wasn't the fastest debater in the world, and I am a touch rusty, but I should be able to keep up with the speed of most standard debate rounds that I'm operating in. What may be an issue, however, is clarity. I will try my best to warn any and all debaters who are not speaking clearly in round, and if said warnings are ignored, your speeches will simply not be flowed.

One final note - I'm a judge, and judges like things easy for them. Concise, clear, and signposted speeches (especially towards the end of a round!) make it a lot easier for me to follow arguments without having to apply too much mental horsepower after the round, and it makes my life easier to make yours better. Please don't just blindly signpost covered arguments as dropped, however - I'm not quite that lazy!

-Eric McCormick

My History: I competed in LD, Impromptu, and OO for four years at Anacortes High School (2008 - 2012) I have been an LD / IE Judge since then (11 years) and I am now the Assistant Debate Coach.

Email for chains:emcintyreroth@gmail.com

For All Events: This is paramount to me - be respectful of your opponent. I will take away speaker points if you speak down to, act rude during rounds, or mock your opponent. There is a fine line between being sassy/confident and being disrespectful - at your age you should know the difference. Speech & Debate should be accessible for everyone, and not everyone is competing at the same level yet. Treat them respectfully regardless. For some people, this may be their first time competing. It costs nothing to be kind - in fact it is the bare minimum.

Discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated in any of my rounds. I will contact your coach, I will contact TAB.

Side Note: If you have observers / are an observer in any of my rounds, and I see you making faces at your friends, whispering, laughing at someone presenting (unless HI, DUO, or intentionally humorous speeches), using your phone while someone is presenting, or being generally disruptive and rude, I will ask you to leave as soon as the speech is over.

If you are uncomfortable with observers in the round, let me know. I will always ask before a round begins.

For LD:

Come prepared. I do not want to wait 10-15 minutes for you to pre-flow, rework your case, etc. Taking a moment to share docs with those in the room is one thing, or jot down last minute notes. However, my time, your opponent's time, and the time of the competitors following you is also valuable. We all know how easily tournaments get pushed behind.

I value clarity in rounds. I can follow speed, I do not like super spreading. I am a flow-judge, If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. Quality > Quantity.

Know your evidence and your arguments. It is clear to me when you are presenting evidence but have no understanding of the material.

I will vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents. (I am admittedly not a fan of K's but will vote on them.) I don't particularly like the whole "debating debate thing".

I am absolutely a more traditional judge. That being said - if you can convince me to, I will vote on almost anything. Be clear on WHY I should vote for you however. Clearly show me the impacts. Why something is warranted. Clear, concise voters.

I like to see clash in a round. Strong V/C. Solid Framework and how your case ties it back to your V/VC. Clear Impacts. Links. Definitions.

All that being said - congratulations on making it to state this year. You’ve all worked so hard to be here this weekend, so bring what you got, and lay it all out on the table. You have a very strong pool of competitors here. Good luck to you all!

Novice: I'm a little bit skeptical of progressive argumentation in novice, but, like, not totally skeptical. Your high-theory K maybe can wait until next year, but I'm down to hear counterplans, plans (obvs not in PF), and (GOOD) theory that isn't something that you threw together for a timeskew. That said: 1: Quality over quantity at this point: I'll evaluate spreaded arguments (if your opponent can flow you! If you're in novice, and I hear you say "slow" and your opponent doesn't slow, I will absolutely listen to speed theory - educationally, I'll tolerate speed in novice because you have to practice it somewhere, but if it excludes somebody, I think that massively outweighs it's potential longterm educational benefit: I'll evaluate pretty bad speed T in novice favorably if I think it describes what actually happened to a debater in the round.) up to a pretty fast point, I just think you're better off reading fewer arguments you understand well than more arguments you understand poorly and 2: The job of the second rebutalist in LD is to tell me how I'm going to vote, not to read a hundred new arguments. Tell me, in the first sentence of your 2R, what my Reason For Decision says, and I'll give you 30 speaks if I think it's an even plausible summarization of the round.

General: I would consider myself, by and large, a tabula rasa judge. That doesn't mean, if you feel like it, you can't convince me otherwise, it just means that I will begin with the idea that I should be convincible of most anything. I won't evaluate morally reprehensible arguments like "racism good" or "patriarchy good", and there are cases where I will step in, end a round, and make a decision if I feel a round has gotten to a sufficiently inappropriate place - ie if I think a particular student is facing inappropriate behavior towards them (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) in the round. This takes a pretty extreme level of misbehavior, but it's not impossible.

I was a K hack when I debated NPDA with Western for four years, and Bellevue College for 1. There's a decent chance I understand your lit base. There's a decent chance I don't. There's a good chance if you do a decent job of explaining, I can keep up. Even if I know the lit base, please allow your opponent access to the round - I don't care if you know I read Butler for a year, when you're telling me about how mournability is the internal link to violence, you're explaining for my flow, not just for me.

I probably have fairly average standards for theory. I'll probably hold theory I think is unserious to a mildly higher standard, but I'll vote for pretty much anything that's clearly won.

I have some sensory issues, so I may clear you, or slow you, to be comprehensible. For me, access is a combination of speed and clarity, it's just that I have a lower threshold at which things become absolutely incomprehensible. I can flow some degree of speed, but I've been out of debate for five years, so I'm a little out of practice - if you're very fast, you'll have to slow for me. Also, my experience in flowing is with a weird high speed cardless format: you can't blow through cards like I'm an expert in your format, I'm not!

One other exception to Tabula Rasa - If you've told me a thing is an ethical obligation, or about debaters' identities in round, I will do my best to answer hard questions that I'm left with at the end of the round. I think if it's an ethical decision I'm being asked to make, and I don't have a clear answer provided by the flow, I can't avoid my obligations just by shrugging and saying it's unclear. No promises I'll come to a conclusion you like if you leave questions open at the end of the round, though!

Hello I am a novice judge. I am looking forward to gaining experience as a LD debate judge this season.

I prefer a typical conversational speed of debate, and appreciate a metered and intentional pace that does not rush.

I consider criterion a major factor in my decisions, and look for strength in the presentation of values.

I will decide the winner of a round by assessing the key arguments with consideration of the strongest persuasion for their position.

I will take notes during the round that are focused on the key arguments.

I encourage demonstrating respect for your opponent at all times, while representing conviction for your position.

Briefly, I tend to be a tabula rasa judge. Overall I favor evidence, and prefer speech clarity to rushed speech.

I am new to judging. Please speak slowly and explain your arguments clearly in front of me. I am strongly biased against logical fallacies.

TLDR: Substance first. Depth over Breadth. Speed mostly fine (Yes Clarity still matters -_-). K's n stuff fine. Not the biggest fan of T. Be organized.

I don't usually count flashing as prep unless it becomes a problem. Only ever had a problem in Policy and (funnily enough) Pufo rounds.

Email: graythesun@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

Prep:

All Prep is running prep. I'm not setting a timer, I'm using a stopwatch for all prep. Watch your own time.

Flex-Prep is valid. As in, asking questions during Prep time. I prefer if Flex-prep is more used for clarifying arguments rather then finding tricky questions... you had your chance in CX.

Framework:

As a judge I really like framework, it tends to make for an easier decision. I.E. some arguments that are argued don't really fit within frameworks in round, and I can just drop them. If there are competing frameworks I expect you to debate them, and end up with one superseding the other. That being said... if you have the same or similar frameworks, unless you're gonna describe what the nuanced difference is and how that changes the valuation in round, it's almost better to just agree that the Fw's are the same.

Contention level:

I definitely prefer depth of argumentation over breadth, knowing your evidence is key to educating yourself on the topic. I will always buy a warrant from your evidence that's well explained and utilized over one that isn't. A lot of responses to arguments made against a card can be found within the card itself. This doesn't mean you should just re-read the card. This does not mean that you can reread your card or tagline and be good.

Hello, I am a parent judge and have judged for a few L.D. tournaments, started judging in 2022. New to Public Forum.

Please speak slowly and clearly, I appreciate road maps.

Please avoid Kritiks, Theory, PICS, if you do, I may not understand.

Thank you and good luck.

Hi, my name is Christine Pyle

I am a coach and participated in debate in school many years ago.

Fast talking(spreading) is fine, however clarity is key.

Signposting is preferred - organization helps not only me but you

If you are utilizing impacts to enhance your case, follow through with those impacts in your case to the end of the debate.

I'm looking for good case structure, compelling arguments, good use of crossfire, and that arguments with weight are flowing through to the end.

**Judging Paradigm for Lincoln-Douglas Debate**

Welcome to the round! As a judge in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, I approach the evaluation of arguments with a focus on values and philosophical principles. Here are some key aspects to keep in mind:

1. **Value-Centered Debate:**
- I expect debaters to engage in a clash of values and ethical principles rather than relying heavily on plans or counter-plans.
- Clearly articulate and defend the value that underlies your case, and explain how it should be prioritized in the round.

2. **Framework:**
- Present a clear framework that guides the round. Explain how the values and criteria should be weighed and why they are most relevant in determining the winner.
- The framework should serve as a lens through which all contentions and impacts are analyzed.

3. **Contentions:**
- Develop well-reasoned contentions that directly relate to the established framework.
- Provide solid reasoning and evidence to support your contentions, and show how they contribute to the overall value clash.

4. **Clash:**
- Engage with your opponent's arguments, demonstrating a thorough understanding of their position.
- Highlight the points of clash between your case and your opponent's, and explain why your position is superior within the established framework.

5. **Resolution Analysis:**
- Clearly connect your arguments to the resolution. Demonstrate how your position upholds or challenges the resolution, and why that matters in the context of the round.

6. **Quality of Analysis:**
- I value depth over breadth. Provide in-depth analysis and warranting for key arguments rather than presenting a wide array of superficial points.
- Logical reasoning and the ability to link evidence to the overall framework are essential.

7. **Speaker Etiquette:**
- Be respectful and professional throughout the round. Avoid personal attacks and focus on the merits of the arguments presented.

8. **Flexibility:**
- While I appreciate a well-prepared case, the ability to adapt to your opponent's arguments and effectively respond in crossfire is crucial.

Remember, the round is not just about presenting arguments but also about persuading me that your ethical framework is the most compelling. Good luck, and I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging debate!

Take a breath. You're doing okay.

I am Joshua Shepherd, I am a coach from Ingraham High School. For the moment, treat me like a lay judge. I am open to technical arguments but will more easily follow lay arguments.

Additionally, I have some issues with an auditory processing disability. Speaking in a fast conversational voice is fine, but spreading is actively painful for me to listen to. I may ask you in a round to slow down. If I ask you and you don't, I will not flow your arguments.

1. Quality over quanitity
2. Talk at a reasonable pace
3. Be respectful
4. Don't use overly complicated terms
5. Have a well-structured arguement

tech>truth

larp , t --- 1

tricks --- 2

k, phil, k-affs --- 3

email: harrison.tangyt@gmail.com

fine with spreading, slow on tags

Background: started with an LD camp in 8th grade and did PF for all four years throughout highschool. I'm relatively experienced with tech debate.

Speed: go as fast as you want but anything > 300wpm (if you're unsure just send a doc) I'll need a speech doc. If not I'll say clear if I need you to slow down.

Prog: run anything you want I'll vote on the flow. My PF background doesn't give me the most experience so you might want to be a bit more deliberate in warranting out prog arguments. Generally I don't like frivolous theory but again I'll vote on it if you win.

Please give me a clear path to the ballot. You can win the round even if you're in an objectively worse position by the last speech if I find it easier to vote for you instead of your opponent.

I am a lay judge.

Please speak clearly, slowly and NO spreading, I will not be able to judge what I can't hear.

Please be nice to each other and have fun.

Before you start your speech time (after prep/off-time roadmap), please ask me if I am ready.

I would appreciate if you gave me an off-time roadmap.

Please summarize why I should vote for your case.

Well-prepared contestants are always a breath of fresh air: you exude confidence effortlessly when you have solid understanding of your topic(s), have ample examples and relevant quotes to support your case.

Show your confidence through smooth speech delivery; do not speak too fast and risk the chance to emphasize your points clearly and strongly.

Try not to read directly from your notes and don't forget to every now and then acknowledge the room (judge(s)/opponent(s)). Your sessions get interesting and exciting when you try to engage your listeners!

Always be open to constructive criticism. It can help to make your case stronger for the next rounds.

Always be respectful to your opponents and judges.

Have fun!

• Speak slower.
• Explain your points clear and cite sources
• Use simpler points and explain how you are going to approach siding your points

I am an experienced judge in a variety of events, with a particularly long history with Public Forum Debate. I have competed in PFD and other events throughout my education, coached and judged for a decade, and taught courses that consider questions of public policy.

_______________________________________________

FOR INTERPRETATION EVENTS:

I try to give a lot of feedback to help you bring your piece to that next level of performance. In judging, I try to evaluate the degree to which you, as the performer,

Here are some of the things I give the most frequent feedback on:

Effective use of all your 'tools' (inflection, emphasis, pacing, pauses, volume, nonverbals, 'tech,' strategic cutting, etc.) to help support and enhance meaning. Do the most important (funny, dramatic, etc.) moments really "land"? Is it easy to tell what a character is feeling, and is it relatable, interesting, and impactful? Are you able to take good advantage of 'opportunities' in the piece? (That is, places where your performance can or does 'wring out' as much humor/drama/etc. as possible from a moment)

The degree to which you use and showcase (and have set yourself up to use/showcase) variety and range in your performance. You're trying to both evoke emotions and enthrall the audience, and that is best supported by a delivery that transitions between various 'speeds' and tones. Additionally, I'm more likely to feel your performance deserves a high rank if you were able to effectively juggle a lot.

The clarity of the piece on a narrative level. Do I always have a clear sense of 'where' we are, and why? Am I lost on the major story beats, character evolution, or arguments? Do I understand where things started, where they wound up, and why that ending is significant?

(Speech events are similar, though the focus is shifted a bit to focus more on things like reasoning, organization of ideas, and use of evidence, as well as clarity, persuasiveness, and effective use of 'voice')

For Interp and Speech events in particular, please feel free to stop me if you see me after a round! I'm very happy to give you feedback on your performance, including suggestions for things you might add, tweak, emphasize, etc.!

_______________________________________________

FOR DEBATE EVENTS:

I prefer to judge from the perspective of a 'policymaker'; that is, while by-and-large limit my judging to what teams actively argued in the round, I prefer arguments that are plausible, well-substantiated, and of prime relevance to the topic at hand. Public Forum in particular was always intended to debate questions of policy in an accessible, sensible, and engaging way, and I encourage speakers to keep that in mind.

Arguments that are logically rigorous, built on evidence from credible sources, and clearly speak to the resolution’s demands are preferred.

Arguments that rest on technicality, are unsubstantiated, do not appear meaningfully relevant, or that are otherwise implausible on their face* will only hold if your opponents fail to address them. Even if unaddressed, particularly 'squirrelly' arguments may fail on their face against a reasonable observer's scrutiny.

Additionally, if you have strong evidentiary support it is in your best interest to helpshowcase that it is strong support.

Spoken APA-style citations (author, year) are fine for a lot of things, such as establishing context and laying a foundation (and other things that probably won't be questioned in the round).

However, if there is (or you expect) a key clash over the veracity, certainty, or magnitude of a claim/impact, that might be a good place to introduce a strong source in a way that shows it is strong.

I have no idea whether (Johnson, 22) is the leading expert in their field or some guy who posted an article on Medium; if it's the former, TELL ME, and don't be afraid to USE the authority of your source to bolster your claims, especially when your opponents are relying on "common sense." If you point out that your source is a relevant expert, your opponents will need to go further than "doesn't make sense to me because [unsubstantiated skepticism]" to undermine the claim.

Convince me that your side’s overall proposition is the best response to the resolution; don’t lose sight of that as you consider the clash between individual arguments, etc.

I do consider 'tech' elements in both wins and speaker points, and will favor teams that perform effectively as debaters. However, I see your ‘job’ as presenting (and defending) a persuasive, plausible answer to the question(s) posed by the resolution –remember that even a skilled, round-dominant, and strategically-minded performance can fail to accomplish that goal.

I expect you to debate the resolution; any time spent on meta-arguments (theory, kritiks, etc.) that neglect that core question will need to be very thorough, convincing, and meaningful, otherwise they likely amount to wasted time. I recommend focusing as much time as possible on the core issues at hand.

I can generally keep up with fast speaking, but I definitely still miss things in faster deliveries. It is your best interest tomake sure that the most important things are clear to your judge/audience.Additionally, I prefer speaking with focus, clarity, and word economy over covering that same ground with less efficiency, especially for the purposes of speaker points.

*To a reasonably educated person, not necessarily to an expert.

Hello!

Student judge here (senior). I've been debating since freshman year. I prefer seeing a traditional debate, with lots of Impact Calculus that ties back to the framework.

I'll be skeptical of progressive argumentation, especially in novice. If you're going for it, really explain it for me. The simpler the better.

Absolutely no spreading.

Off-time roadmaps and signposting are greatly appreciated!

Give me lots of voters at the end.

I am a parent judge, but did policy debate in high school:
• It's fine to speak at a brisk pace, but wouldn't recommend spreading. I will only vote on what I am able to flow. If you speak too fast or aren't clear, I can't flow it and hence won't consider it. Feel free to do a 10 second speed test before the round starts.
• Be explicit/structured when calling out contentions/points, and some verbal cue ("next", etc.) when you start a tag. Roadmaps/signposts are also helpful.
• Give me clear voters. Your 2AR/2NR should be writing the RFD.
• I am more likely to vote for traditional LD/lay policy-style arguments over debate theory/technicalities

Hi, I'm David Zeng, a high school senior. I mainly do speech and I'll be judging novice LD.

Spreading is fine. No theory plz.

Be mature, be good to people.

Hi there, I'm Blake! Look forward to meeting you!

About me: I'll graduate from Newport High School in 2025 (now a senior) and I serve as co-president and Lincoln-Douglas co-captain of our school's Speech and Debate Club.

Competitive Experience: I've made elimination rounds at multiple local Washington tournaments, and I placed as LD quarterfinalist at the state tournament for two years in a row. Debated LD since freshman yr.

I primarily read lay/traditional (coz it's WA) and have come to enjoy it. I still admire prog more, and love going for theory arguments (structure of debate, discussing "rule" / norm setting, etc).

Paradigm:
- Run any argument you like, EXCEPT if it involves hate speech.
- Please elaborate everything. Make sure you explain your links, evidence, specific advocacy, etc, especially if you plan to run a dense kritik or counterplan or framework.
- Giving voters and summaries help immensely, specifically in rebuttal speeches.
- Speed and fast talking are ok. I can yell "clear" or "slow" if I start to lose track of your arguments, given your permission. If you're legit circuit spreading, I may need to see your case to keep up - we can set up e.g. an email chain or Speechdrop in that case.
- For fun!! Boost your speaker scores - feel free to attempt if I'm the only judge in the room!!
+1 speak if you add a meme / joke into your speech that is relevant and appropriate to the debate. No discrimination or personal attacks pls.
+1 speak if you randomly start spreading for 20 seconds in a lay debate and go back to conversational pace :D

*Ad break - helpful resource!*
Feel free to check out LD Debate Prep [https://lddebateprep.org/], a 501c3 nonprofit that I founded, to help everyone learn about LD from introductory to advanced content through free articles and silly memes. I love teaching LD, so please give me feedback on how I can improve it!

Arg prefs:
Theory: 1 (the less friv the better)
LARP/Policy: 2
Kritiks: 2
Lay: 3
Phil/Framework/PoMo K: 4
Tricks: 5

More cool facts about me! I'm Canadian (straight out of Edmonton, Alberta), I play badminton, and I unfortunately do not prefer maple syrup with pancakes nor have I ever rode a moose with the RCMP to school :(
I played hockey up til 5th grade. Broke my arm and shoulder blade on two separate occasions. Shoutout to the Canadian healthcare system, bro revived me twice.