Hi

he/they

put me on chain: daceto447@gmail.com

Homestead 23, did policy and LD for three years.

WSDT 2024:

General things:

- Speed is good if every word is audible. Tags and analytics should be slower.

- Tech over truth, but arguments need warrants

- Blatant bigotry, misgendering, etc. will earn you low speaks or L

- If you have questions about what's on here or whatever else, please ask !

- Time yourself

- Be not mean

Things:

- Defaults and such include:

- Condo is usually good.

- Theory arguments about an argument are usually drop the argument.

- Judge kick yes.

- Presumption flips neg.

- For anything topic-specific, assume I don't already know what you're talking about.

- I have more experience with policy and barely did any trad LD debating, and I will care about value things as much as they are present in the round.

- I don't care that much about what you do—you should debate however you want to, and I will try to fairly evaluate what happens in the round. Regardless, here is an order of what I am best for as well as assorted thoughts:

1. Policy is regrettably what I have the most experience with. I like when link chains aren’t too dumb. Politics is fine. Turns are cool. Counterplans should probably compete functionally and textually, but you can tell me what that means. I like T when it’s not Nebel.

2. Ks are cool, but I hope you have read the lit base for and understand the kritik you're reading. I do not read enough and may not understand the more abstract Ks. Specific links are good, vague alts are bad, blah blah. KvK would be difficult for my itsy bitsy brain but I will try my best. I will hopefully be neutral in FW debates.

3. Theory can be silly fun time but realistically I think few things are abusive and usually side with the neg. RVIs are annoying. Other annoying things can be annoying in a good way, but I have a low threshold for answering them.

5. Tricks and phil are things that I probably shouldn’t be/don’t want to be judging.

My email address is boschert@gmail.com

I am new to judging, so I don’t have deep experience on the complexities of debate theory and delivery.

I don’t subscribe to a single judging paradigm but tend to favor a fusion of many. I like stock issues for a clear and eloquent presentation of the issues. I like the appeal of Tabula Rasa, but also know human nature is fundamentally flawed; we all come to the table with biases and presuppositions. There is potency in a well-formed syllogism, but the Game Theory mindset can get too abstracted from reality.

I have a very direct communication style and treasure efficiency and density of information-rich communication, with less flowery and filler words. Your challenge is to communicate the most important and convincing ideas, in as few words as possible. I am a “quality over quantity” type - I am more impressed by the depth and density of ideas with clear enunciation versus a barrage of shallow statements read at a high rate of speed.

Other miscellaneous items:

• In LD, a clearly stated value and value criterion are absolutely critical elements of a case

• I prefer to have your author and date read before you read the evidence

• I greatly dislike ad hominem attacks - argue the issue, not the person

• I’m a huge fan of the Socratic method, and using this well during cross examination is fantastic to see

• I like theory, but not at the expense of reality. Ideas have consequences, so make sure you link the two together

About me: I debated policy at Reagan HS for four years. Yes, put me on the email chain, my email is joaquindehaan@gmail.com

Speed: Speed is fine just make sure that I can understand you.

Tech v. Truth: I will try my best to be a blank state tech judge throughout the round but there are some arguments that I do not prefer which I will go through. I will not tolerate any type of discrimination (sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.). I will report teams to the equity committee and tank speaks if it is directed towards the other team.

DAs: I will be fine with just about any DA presented to me, just make sure to thoroughly explain your link chain.

K’s: I love and respect Ks. Please do not present me a K that you do not understand the literature of.

Topicality: I am fine with topicality but look down on it as a time skew. If you are going for T your 2nr should be a full 5 min of it.

Counterplans: No strong feelings one way or the other just make sure to have a net ben

LD: I am new to this style of debate so I am open to hearing and voting on any type of argument.

I think making sure you present a strong framework is one of the most important things you can do. Just make sure that my framework flow is clean and not a wash.

My name is Linda Dums (Dooms as in Doomsday)

My email is lindadums@yahoo.com

I am still a newer judge so please don't pref me very high if you are very technical. I was not a debater at all. I am learning as I go. You should speak in a conversational speed. I am not familiar with debate jargon and terminology so please try to over explain your arguments in a way that even people who don't do debate would understand. I will evaluate all arguments that I understand to the best of my ability. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you. If you are playing games and tricks, don't bother.

Try to convince me with evidence and reasoning why I should vote on your side.

I do expect debaters to be polite and respectful at all times to everyone in the room: your teammate, opposition, judge and any audience. Do not argue with me.

Above all take a deep breath and have fun!

**Less than 5 debates judged on this policy topic so no acronyms without explanation first plz**

Policy Paradigm (LD at bottom)

Currently head coach of Whitefish Bay High School in Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin since September 2022

Graduated HS in 2014, policy debater from 2010-2014 (2N/1A) with some national circuit outround/bid round experience.

Assistant coached LD and Policy at:

Central Valley HS (Spokane, WA 2014-2016)

Capitol HS (Boise, ID 2016-2017)

Former co-head coach at Homestead High School in Mequon, Wisconsin (2017-2020)

--Yes, I want to be on the email chain. Blerickson95@gmail.com

--Overall, I am not the brightest bulb in the tanning bed, and I vote for the team that quite literally makes the most sense to me. I am not afraid to take the easy way out if I am given warranted reasons why I should. The harder you make it for me, the more work you make me do, the less likely you are to get my ballot, and I think that makes sense and is fair.

--For the love, please time yourselves.

--Your speaks will increase if you don't spend at ton of time at the beginning of cross ex asking what cards were and weren't read :) (I like flowing!)

--Maybe I am just old and grumpy but, do not wear your headphones in round, at any time, once the debate starts. Not in one ear only, not because "you'e just the 1N", not because you are the 2A and don't want to listen to the 1AC. I think it's rude, pompous, and just plain obnoxious. No debater in the world is too important to listen to a full debate. It is so disrespectful to the other team, the judge, and everyone who took time to be at that debate. Ugh. I hate it so much. Headphones on during a debate are an auto 27 or lower. That's all :) *Obviously this does not carry through for online debate!

Quick version

Generally good for:

--DA-case debates

--Cheater counterplan debates

--Politics/elections debates

Not as good for:

--Heavy K debates

--Any type of death good argument (I think death is bad, and we should try to avoid it)

--Baudrillard

--Any strategy that is largely based off of debate being inherently bad/irredeemable

Online debate things:

--I would prefer if the person speaking had their camera on, but I am obviously understanding if that cannot happen.

--I keep my camera on for the debate but I turn it off during prep to go sit on my couch and hold my dog. So, please make sure, before you start your speech, I am back on the camera. If I am not and you start, that would be no good.

Longer version

General

--I, for the most part, love this activity, and respect anyone who takes the time and effort to participate. This activity is rigorous, and good for you for even being here. I welcome questions before and after the round. I realize some people won't agree with my decision, and I welcome questions as to how I came to my conclusion. However, what I don't welcome, is blatant disrespect because you disagree with my decision. Slamming your things, muttering rude things under your breath, or screaming at me, won't make me email tab begging to change my ballot. In fact, it will make me really not like you.

--I flow on paper, so I need pen time. I understand and follow the debate better this way, but that also means I am not writing everything down verbatim, so if you have arguments you think are important, sit on them.

--I am very expressive. I have tried to have a better poker face, but I simply cannot do it. You should be able to tell if I am unhappy or not.

--Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. You will lose immediately and receive the lowest speaker points I am allowed to give u

--Prep ends when you’re done prepping and begin flashing/emailing (I can tell if you’re flashing/emailing or prepping, if I see you prepping off prep time, I’ll start your speech time)

--If you clip and it's recorded, you lose. It needs to be recorded.

--I will not evaluate things that happened outside of the debate.

Topic Thoughts

Very few judged on this topic. Plz don't use acronyms without explaining them first.

K debate

--The role of the judge is to decide who did the best debating. The role of the ballot is to tell Tabroom who won.

--Fiat isn't real and that's fine.

--This is my area of less familiarity. Although I have fairly frequently found myself in the back of clash of civ debates, I am less familiar with critical arguments. IR K's such as cap, security, gender, etc. I do not have a problem understanding. I have a harder time understanding high theory, philosophy debates. Pleeease do not assume I have read your author. Do not let this dissuade you from reading your bread and butter K arguments in front of me, just know I need more explanation. I think in good debates this can even just be done in a cross ex.

--I need a reason why the aff is bad. I often find myself voting on the perm because I do not know why the aff is specifically bad for causes more bad things to happen. I am not saying this can't be done, it definitely can be done, and should be.

--I am not here to change how you debate, but it would be disingenuous for me to say my experiences in debate have not affected how I am used to and comfortable evaluating debates. That being said, I tend to think speech times are good, and an hour and a half of discussion is not as good. If we are going to throw speech times out the window, I need to know what the structure is for the remainder of the debate. I.e. when we are done, how I should evaluate arguments in this new format, etc. If there is no structure, I need to know why not having a structure for the debate is good. I do my very best to not intervene, and if the debate devolves into a discussion, the only time I will intervene is to say when time is up for the round. It would be GREAT if that was done for me by one of the teams. I try to talk in debate rounds *literally* as little as possible but I also do not want to make the tournament run behind.

--I have evaluated many framework debates, but I think I am about even voting for and against it. That being said, I think predictable limits are my point of most persuasion. But do what u do.

K affs

--I need to know what the aff does. I just do.

--I do not necessarily need you to defend hypothetical USfg action, but I really appreciate topic relevance.

Theory

Anything is legitimate until you prove to me that it’s not. If you drop these things, you lose*: Conditionality, ASPEC. Flow! Don't just follow the speech doc! Ask what reasons are to reject the team in cx!

*I think sometimes cross applications are sufficient. Or aff outweighs arguments for critical affs. It literally just depends how the debate shakes out, but I would just try to answer them explicitly the first time.

I think fairness can be an internal link or an impact depending on how you spin it. Tell me how you want me to view and evaluate fairness.

Topicality

I have recently realized that I take a little more than the average person to vote on T. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. T isn’t an RVI. Slow down on T debates plz.

For me to vote on topicality, I need: a topical version of the aff (doesn't need to solve the aff, it just needs to show an alternate, topical version of the discussion), a list of topical aff's under your interpretation, a list of what you were deprived of in the debate because of the aff's untopicality OR a reason why I should vote on potential abuse.

Counterplans

I’m a big fan. Counterplans should be competitive and have a solvency advocate, in my perfect world. But hey, I am becoming more and more okay with counterplans that do not have a solvency advocate for some reason.

The more specific, the better. Sufficiency arguments are persuasive to me. I need to know HOW the counterplan solves every portion of the aff, don’t just assert that it does. Process, conditions, delay, consult, advantage etc. I’m fine with; like I said, anything is legitimate unless proved otherwise. I really like smart pics/word pics.

My mantra has always been, if you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'. Cheating counterplans can get the job done and if there is no theoretical objection to reject the argument, you may be in trouble. That being said, compelling reasons why that specific cheating counterplan is bad can sometimes convince me to reject the argument. Again, it's ~debatable~

*The only counterplan I think is silly and likely won't vote for is a PIC out of the ballot. Never got it, never will, likely will always think it's silly.

Aff: Solvency deficits need to be impacted. But WHY is the federal government key? Also, I would really like if permutations were more than just "Do both" at the end of the debate, but if the neg never presses you on what this means, I will likely give the aff a lot of leeway throughout the debate on what that means/how it functions. This is important--negative teams are deciding what the permutation is and how it functions for the aff and it is just destroying the aff. Tell me what your perm means and how it functions, if you let the neg do it for you I can bet it won't turn out well for you.

I am hearing a lot of "perm shields the link to the net benefit so it solves". WHY. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHY. HOW. WHY AND HOW. I am begging you to give me some sort of permutation explanation.

That being said, “Protect the 2nr” is a persuasive phrase to me in situations that call for it. I will kick the counterplan for the negative, if it's conditional, unless I am given a reason not to by the aff.

Disadvantages

A disadvantage has: uniqueness, a link, an internal link, and an impact. 2 card disads make me sad and I am immediately skeptical of them.

Disad-case debates are my favorite. What I was told as a novice still applies today: tell me the story of your disad. How does the link/internal link chain work to achieve the impact, etc. Disad overviews are important (cards in overviews are cool too); turns case arguments are basically necessary to my ballot. Tell me how your impact relates to the aff.

Case

Engage the case! Do case debate!

LD Paradigm

I debated at two LD tournaments in high school: Nat quals and NFL (now NSDA?) nationals my junior year. I coached LD for 3 years before coming to Homestead. I have coached/judged very traditional, value-criterion LD debate, and I have also coached/judged progressive LD debate. I am truly fine with either. For more progressive LD debate, my policy paradigm applies. A couple caveats:

--T or theory is not an RVI. I realize the time skew in LD debate. T or theory is not an RVI. I will vote on theory, just not silly ones.

--Shorter speeches than in policy, so I think a bunch of short off-case positions are less preferable than less, more in-depth off-case positions. But do what u need to do.

--Tricks? nah

--Meta-theory? nah

--Cutting evidence from debate blogs? nah

--In-depth, educational debates about the topic? Yeah!!!

Have fun!! :)

I debated policy in Texas in the late 1990s, and then I debated at Northwestern. I have a PhD in rhetoric and argumentation, and I teach at UWM in the Communication Department. I have been judging debate in WI since 2018, and I started coaching in 2020.

I can flow at most speeds as long as you are clear, but I appreciate it when debaters slow down and explain and weigh arguments. I'm open to all well made arguments. Please remember that a tag/claim is not a full argument. I appreciate clash and strong argument development. I follow the debaters' lead for reasons for voting, but saying that "I outweigh" (for example) is not an argument-- you need to explain why you outweigh and why that matters. For PF especially, please remember that the affirmative has the burden of proof.

Update for 9/21: Please slow down for virtual debate.

updates 1/21:

I don't think that true objectivity is possible, so I won't claim to be tabula rasa. However, I do my best to remain open to arguments and set aside my biases. I am not open to hearing racist, sexist, homophobic, etc arguments. I am also a professional rhetorician, so you will have a challenging time persuading me that discourse doesn’t matter (although the relationships between the material and discursive is up for debate). I’m fine with kritiks, plans, counterplans, framework debates, util impacts debates. I don’t see the logic in how the neg can run a counterplan unless the aff has run a plan, but I’ll listen to the arguments justifying. I’m not strong in classical philosophy, so slow down and explain those arguments. I teach and publish engaging critical theory, so I am stronger in those arguments. If it’s helpful to see my list of publications and classes that I’ve taught, my faculty webpage is somewhat up to date (but I’m really doubt that would be helpful).

I judge based on my flow, and I tend to have a good flow. If you tell me that an argument is a reason for voting, I mark that on my flow and spend time thinking about that in my decision. If you don’t give me a reason for voting, I’ll do my best to sort through the arguments and make a decision. I adore when debaters number their arguments and keep their arguments organized. I will always priorities flowing the tag and key arguments in the card before the author’s name. So if you are extending evidence, it’s a good rule of thumb to give the author’s name and a shortened tag (instead of saying “extend Jones ’20,” say “extend Jones ’20, the impact is global warming,” or if you have been numbering, “extend number 3, Jones ’20).

Speed: I'm fine with speed, and for most debaters, I have had no problem flowing. I’ve been getting some audio glitches in virtual debate. As long as we are virtual, please keep those tags super clear. I've also noticed that as I get tired, I start missing some arguments when debaters are going fast in rebuttals. I'll do my best to keep up, and I don't penalize debaters for going fast. If you want to make sure I don't miss something important, emphasize it clearly.

Bottom line: tell me why you win and how I should make my decision. Please don't let me try to figure out how to weigh competing arguments because that's when debaters start finding me to be unpredictable. Make your case for how I should weigh those arguments.

David Henning—LD Debate Judging Philosophy

2024 NCFL National Debate Tournament Edition

School Affiliation: Director of Debate at Sheboygan South

School Email: dhenning@sasd.net

LD/PF/Policy Rounds judged this season: 53/1/1

Lifetime (LD/PF/Policy): 460/76/2101

Years Judging: 40

IMPORTANT—READ FIRST. Over the course of the last few years, I have noticed several disturbing developments in LD. Stuff I never thought I’d have to discuss. I have that at the end of this philosophy, after the always relevant quotes. Given that we're at nationals, I hope that none of these comments are necessary. Please read allof my paradigm before preferencing or debating in front of me.

My experience with academic debate: I began my debate career during the Carter Administration. I was a policy debater in high school and college during the 1980s. I was an independent (mostly high school) policy debate judge for many years. This is my fourteenth year as Sheboygan South's debate coach, and I was a college policy debate coach for four years. This is my seventh year of coaching L-D debate. I've had some success both as a debater and as a coach. And I have many funny debate stories.

My Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, but please don’t insult my intelligence or agency. Don't tell me I "have to" do or vote for something. Ignore my philosophy at your own peril. Ask if you are unsure. I’m coming closer to Bill Batterman’s Critique of Argument paradigm as applied to LD, since some policy debate paradigms make little sense in LD, although hypothesis testing has some appeal. I like original, unusual or counter-intuitive arguments when done well. Do not assume that anything is inherently good or bad. Far too many debaters assume that things like wasting money, destroying the Constitution or climate change are inherently bad and fail to read impacts to them. I don’t care about “wasted money” and want you to put the bodies on the flow. Hopefully all of them. Provide impacts and analysis if you’re not doing so. And be aware that I oppose "common sense," especially in a debate round.

Technology Time: For this tournament there is 10 minutes allotted to deal with technological issues that may affect the round. If you think you might have tech issues, say something so we can get it resolved. See tournament rules for more information.

Argumentation: A well-written, structured and reasoned case is essential for both debaters. That includes substructure. Be aware that evidence matters, so does evidence quality. Provide qualifications, when possible, for the sources you use and tell me why your evidence is of high quality and/or better than the evidence used by your opponent. Clash directly with the arguments your opponent makes. That means the line-by-line rather than just an argument dump or an overview. Tell me specifically why you achieve your value as defined by your value criterion (or achieve your opponent’s) and why that means you should win the round. Do impact calculus, telling me why the impacts of your case are worse than or outweigh that of your opponent. This is probably the most important thing you can do in the round. Provide a few clearly explained voting issues near the end of your last rebuttal and make a convincing call for the ballot.

Policy Debate or “National-Style” Arguments: I debated and coached both high school and college policy debate, and judged policy debate for 30 plus years. I like policy debate. I am open to pretty much anything you can throw at me. That said, I don’t think LD is a particularly good forum or format for many of the policy arguments. Kritiks, counterplans and disadvantages are necessary, but in LD they are nebulous since there isn’t an agent of change in the resolution, affirmatives usually do not offer a specific plan, and whether there is fiat in LD is another issue altogether. How can the K, CP or DA link if there isn’t a plan? Those running such arguments will want to keep that in mind and explain very clearly how their arguments are linked to the aff or the resolution. Likewise, an affirmative claiming solvency or advantages must meet that same burden. The same holds for kritiks, at least those based on policy action.

The format issue may be even more important. In policy debate, you have more speeches with which to refute and extend arguments. Ks, CPs and DAs introduced in the policy 1NC mean that both aff and neg can get to third line arguments. Fewer speeches means less developed arguments. You physically cannot get past first and sometimes second line argumentation in LD. Speeches are shorter than in policy, which means less time to develop such arguments and read cards. The end result is that debaters just read their argument, the opponent reads their first line answers, and that’s it. For complex (or really cool) arguments, this is unsatisfying and shallow. I really don’t have a solution to any of these issues, and I don’t reject policy arguments in LD, but this is something to keep in mind.

Topicality: Don’t, unless it is particularly egregious. I dislike topicality. Unless you can show me actual, in-round abuse I’m not interested. Don’t tell me that the aff reduces education when you’re doing just that by running lousy topicality arguments.

Framework: Framework is usually so poorly argued I rarely see the point. A framework is an integral part of Lincoln-Douglas debate. By this I am referring to the value and value criterion for the round and/or the role of the ballot. You must specifically define and explain your value, hopefully something better than an ill-defined “morality.” That’s subjective and pretty much every social or cultural group has their own morality. The Nazis had their own “morality”--horrible, but defined. The word "ought" does not imply morality. Define and explain your value criterion. Tell me how your case will best achieve your value as defined by your value criterion. You may attack the framework and case of your opponent or demonstrate how your case better achieves your opponent’s value as defined by their value criterion. Argue the superiority of your value/value criterion to that of your opponent. Be clear with your analysis. If there is a Role of the Ballot you must explain that also. If there are policy arguments, you must say why you outweigh your opponent’s arguments.

Debate Theory: Theory has its place, somewhere, but it is never argued well in LD rounds. Don’t read cards from some debate coach at me. Why is that coach more qualified than you, me or someone judging in the next room? OK, why are they more qualified than me? Explain your theory positions and tell me why they matter in this round. What are the in-round impacts to your theory argument? Are there impacts on the activity itself? Does my ballot have a role in your theory argument? If you are claiming some kind of “abuse” of theory, show me the actual in-round abuse—potential abuse is not enough—and tell me why it should be voted against. I can’t remember the last time I voted on an abuse argument.

Quotes Related to my Judging Philosophy (ask if you have questions)

“It’s a basic truth of life that we tend to give more credence to the opinions of people who know what they are talking about.”---Kel McClanahan.

“Add it up, it all spells duh.”---Buffy Summers

“Yankee detective are always on the TV, ‘cause killers in America work seven days a week.”—Joe Strummer (The Clash)

“They tell lots of lies about me. They say I killed six or seven men for snoring. Well, it ain’t true. I only killed one man for snoring.”---John Wesley Hardin

"Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift."---Bob Dylan

“Facts are stupid things.”---Ronald Reagan

"Sometimes I think this job is too much for me."---Warren Harding, on the Presidency

“People say Bob, what do you do with the money we send you? We spend it.”--- Pastor Robert Tilton

“The most popular songs are always the worst.”---Natalie Maines

“Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp.”---Bob Dylan

"The numbers don't lie. . . I got a hundred forty-three and a thirds percents of winning."---Big Poppa Pump Scott Steiner, and reprised by Maxwell Jacob Friedman

"That was the equation! Existence! Survival must cancel out programming."---Ruk, planet Exo III

"You talk about your Olympic gold medal--big whup. I was all-county in the triple jump."---AJ Styles, to Kurt Angle

"The judge's jokes are always funny."---Dan Hansen

"She's a monster of staggering charmlessness and monumental lack of humor."---Richard Burton on Lucille Ball

“A stitch in time gets the worm.”---Buffy Summers

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.”---Mark Twain

“The Good Earth—we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy.”—Kurt Vonnegut

"Wrong thinking is punishable; right thinking is as quickly rewarded."—The Keeper, planet Talos IV

". . . there are no truths outside the gates of Eden.”—Bob Dylan

"What is truth, if you know what I mean?”—Lionel Hutz

"When Stalin says dance, a wise man dances."—Nikita Khrushchev

"Nothing really matters much, it’s doom alone that counts."—Bob Dylan

and

“You know, it actually can happen. I mean, the chances of it happening are very rare, but it can happen actually. Which is crazy. Not that it—the chances of it are, like, you know, it's like probably “pigs could fly.” Like, I don't think pigs could fly, but actually sharks could be stuck in tornados. There could be a sharknado."---Tara Reid

LD General Issues

This is not English class or forensics. Do not write your case as if it were an assignment that you are going to turn in to your teacher. It’s not an essay. Nor is it an oratory or persuasive speech. Do not “preview” the names of all of your contentions, and then go back and read them. Start with the first contention. Then go to the second contention (if you have one). Provide me with some substructure. I don’t want a preview like you would do in a school paper or presentation or a forensics speech. Previewing messes up my flow. And note that you must use evidence in your case.

Put the citation first, before you read your card, not after. Many judges try to get the tag and the cite. I won’t know it’s a card if you read the cite after your evidence, and then where should I put the cite? You’re already on to the next argument or card. Read the tag line, name and date, then the body of the card. Provide the complete citation in a small font size (8)—that means qualifications, source, the link if it’s an on-line source, date of evidence, date you accessed the evidence and your initials. If you fail to provide a complete cite, or even a partial one, then all I have is some writing by someone with a last name and a date. I can’t treat that as evidence if I can’t see the full cite should it be necessary for me to do so. This does not mean a list of internet links at the end of your speech. That’s useless for debate (and academic) purposes.

Provide the Correct Date. This is the date the article or book was published, not the day you accessed it online. Virtually every online article lists the date the article was first published. Use that date. If the article was updated, and you are accessing the updated article, use that date.

Do Not Use Ellipses ( . . . ). In academic writing it is acceptable to cut out chunks of text you do not want to use. That is not OK in debate. You must keep all the text of the card. If you do not, judges and debaters don’t know if you cut out something important, like “not” or “never.” That’s taking a card out of context. Shrink the text you are not reading to a small font size (8). Both Paperless Debate and the Google Debate Add-on have a shrink feature. Use it. If your opponent notices ellipses in the body of your card and points it out in the round, then it is no longer a card. If ellipses are in the original, indicate that.

Do Use Brackets [ ] sparingly. Brackets are appropriate for brief explanatory or clarifying text. A few words, maybe a sentence. Use sparingly and only when essential. If you’re adding multiple sentences to your card, you are altering the card itself, and that is inappropriate. Adding a lot of text is akin to taking a card out of context or fabricating it altogether.

Delivery Style: Speak loudly and be clear. That is the most important thing. I work hard to try to get down as much of each speech as possible on my flow. Speak toward me, not your opponent. If it is especially noisy then speak louder. Your points may suffer and I may miss arguments if I can’t hear you clearly. I don't care if you sit or stand. Don't walk around. I don’t care about eye contact or gestures or a forensics-style polished or memorized speech. That stuff is meaningless in a debate round.

Do not expect 30 speaker points. The magical speaker point pixies have been very active the last few years. I have never seen so many 30s given out by judges. No one I have seen this year has warranted a 30. I have not given a 30 in fifteen years. 29s are relatively rare, but I do give them. I gave a 29.5 and seven 29s this season. And remember (coaches and judges take note of this) that there are tenths (or halves) of a point, and I use them regularly. The strangest thing is that I have not changed the way I award speaker points. I was once one of the highest speaker point judges, and now I am one of the lowest. But don't worry, I haven't given less than a 25 in seventeen years.

Heed my “louder” and “clear” warnings. Many debaters ask me if I am OK with speed. I answer yes. I seriously doubt if you're fast enough to give me trouble. But clarity is much more important than rate. Often it goes like this: I answer yes, the debater then proceeds to speak at a much faster than normal (conversational) rate, but is unclear. I shout “clear.” No change in delivery. A little while later I again shout “clear.” No change. In my previous philosophy I said I may deduct a speaker point after repeated “clear” warnings. I will now deduct a half speaker point if I have to give a “clear” warning after three. At some point I will give up shouting “clear” and your speaker points will suffer a little more. You have been warned, because clarity is key.

Have a way for your opponent to see your case and evidence. Use NSDA File Share in the competition room. You can also put the document in the chat. Use email chains if that fails. Include the judge in the chain. Should evidence be challenged in the round, judges and competitors must have access to this.

No New Arguments in Rebuttals. New arguments in rebuttals diminish or eliminate the opportunity for your opponent to respond. I will not vote on or consider new arguments in rebuttals, whether your opponent points this out or not.

Other issues. A roadmap is short, just the order, like aff, then neg, or the other way. Don’t tell me every argument you plan to make, or all the things you plan to refute. And you refute or rebut opponents' arguments, not "rebuttal" them. Don’t read a bunch of definitions at me—it’s usually pointless and is difficult to get down on the flow. Use all your prep time. Even if you don’t think you need it (you do), I need it to write comments. I will be unhappy if you don’t use all your prep time. I disclose and provide comments, and I encourage you to ask questions after my decision and comments.

Jovan Hernandez - LD Debate Judge

School Affiliation - Homestead High School

Email: chidori4444@gmail.com

Experience with Debate: I have competed in LD Debate for 3 years of my high school career and have gone on to compete in both State and Nationals. With that being said, I have 1 year of judging, so I hope to give out insightful and constructive ballots that'll help in the future. Also, to make sure, I am NOT a policy or PF judge, so, if I do judge that category, excuse my ignorance.

How I Judge:

Speed - I do not like speed, but as long as you're not spreading and going at a pace that Eminem would be jealous of, then we're good.

Framework - Your framework should relate to your case meaning that how your case goes has to be able to link into both your value and criterion. Frameworks should be relatively easy to understand and be easy to debate, however, if you're able to explain a hard-to-understand framework in rebuttals, then go for it.

Theory Cases - Do not do them. If you do a Theory case, do so at your own risk because I have little understanding of them and if you can't clearly define each parts of the case and how your case is better, Im not likely to pick it up.

K's - The most crucial thing for me is that the alternative has to be able to solve your opponent's harms and whatever you present as being flawed within the Status quo, if you can't do that and the opponent is able to argue that your alternative doesn't work, then it will be weighed heavily against you.

Clash - Clash should be both a battle of analysis and card attacks. Addressing the evidence within a card and the argument that surrounds the cards presented is crucial, so, being able to explain each card's faults and the faults of the case is needed, otherwise it's two debaters spewing facts(which do not care about your feelings) at each other.

Topicality - There has to be something that the debater (either NEG or AFF) has done within their cases that goes against the resolution meaning that the debater cannot use this argument because it's going against the resolution and can be disregarded.

Evidence Reading - This is absolutely HUGE. When reading your evidence, please, I mean PLEASE, read your tag, author, and date BEFORE you read the actual evidence. If you read your tag in conjunction with the evidence, it all blends together until you get to your author citation, so, it'll sound all the same and having a subheading for the evidence allows everyone to clearly define what card you are reading and make the read be a lot more structured. This is just something that helps me out with flowing your arguments better and keeping everything in a orderly fashion

Hello, I am a new judge, I vote on the flow. I debated for 4 years in LD in high school on the local and nat circuit, I only evaluate the flow and I value clash and lbl, otherwise you wont get my vote

I like arguments to be clear and structured, thanks

I primarily ran Util when I was on the traditional circuit, which is what I presume most of NCFLs will be, I value strategic use of time and crossex. Speaks are determined by strategic moves such as collapsing.

Email me at: davidjia39@gmail.com

My email is johnson@muhs.edu

LD

I am a debate coach who was a competitor at Nationals in World Schools and Congressional Debate, and was mainly a PF debater when competing. That being said, I have coached and judged LD extensively in the past year.

Please ensure that we are debating the LD format, not Policy-lite. That means a few things.

1. Values and Value Criterions are extremely important and are central to who will win this round. If you do not keep these well-connected to your arguments, it will be difficult for me to weigh your arguments as strongly if they do not connect back into your VC.

2. All-out spreading is not necessary or appreciated. If you are speaking so fast that it is impossible to flow your arguments, then I cannot weigh them in good faith. Win on the strength of your arguments and analysis, not by trying to overwhelm the opponent. Quality over quantity.

3. If you choose to use them, run K’s well. If they are not run in well, it ends up muddying the waters of the debate and taking time away from other approaches you could probably use more effectively. K’s are complex strategies- explain your points clearly and tie them into the larger debate.

4. LD debates involve morals, values, philosophy. Please use these things that make this format distinct.

As for more general points, here are some preferences I have as a judge.

Signposting and roadmaps, both in the introduction and throughout the speeches, are greatly appreciated. Keep your points clear and well-organized. Just because something is clear in your head does not automatically mean you are communicating it effectively.

I am not a fan of T-Shells in general. I would prefer to see a debate about the topic at hand, not a debate about the format in a general sense. This does not mean it is impossible to win with one, but please engage with the topic and with your opponent.

Ask good questions, and build off of them in your speeches. In the same sense, try not to waste time on rambling, disorganized answers. Keep CX dynamic and fast, and make it valuable. If something is conceded in CX, don’t just ignore that it happened. I certainly won’t.

Be ethical. No racism, homophobia, ad hominem attacks, or anything of that sort will be tolerated. You are all capable of good decorum, so show it! Approach the round with good faith, and debate as such.

Please use weighing and voters in your later speeches. Analyze the round and show me why you win.

I am a parent judge and prefer no spreading during debates. If you use jargons, please explain. Please be respectful, speak clearly, and provide organized and logical arguments.

Ks / Theory: I'm willing to vote on these, just explain each part very clearly.

Email chain: Yes please. julielee121@gmail.com

Speed: I'm ok with faster-than-conversational pace, but no spreading, please.

Please write my ballot for me and do clear impact calculus / weighing in your second rebuttals.

Good luck.

Brief Bio:I am a parent judge and this is my third year judging. When I was in high school in the 1980's, I was a Lincoln Douglas debater on the national level.

Speaker Points: Clarity, inflection, and passion will contribute to the speaker points.

Pacing: You may speak as fast as you need to, but know that clarity and intelligence of arguments are much more important than speed to me. I will most likely not understand spreading so slowing down and clarifying will help me follow the flow and track your arguments better.

Flow: I will be flowing the construction arguments and rebuttals. If you would like a specific part of the argument or cross examination flowed, please indicate this.

Debate: I usually run more traditional arguments. I am definitely open to more technical arguments, but please explain the argument fully. Evidence and the applications will also help me understand the validity of the arguments, but I will look more at the main themes of the debate. I am much more interested in ideas than evidence. I am also open to creative or unique arguments- this contributes to the layers of the debate. I always look for a good amount of clash, and know that this will also add to speaker points. I typically view spreading as just a way to confuse the competition, and identifying a dropped argument should not be an easy way to attack the opponent, but a chance to explain why your argument applies further. I value new and entertaining ideas, quick and applicable responses, and strategically structured cross- examination questions. Good luck!

My email is: mmitch1@gmail.com

Please be respectful to yourself and your opponent during the debate.

My name is Jon Neumann. I debated many years ago in high school, but this is my first year judging debate. I work as an attorney and I litigate complex product liability cases on behalf of injured plaintiffs.

What I like to see in a debate:

1. Speak clearly and at a moderate pace. I will announce "clear" if necessary, but know that doing so will entail a reduction in your speaker points.

2. I will consider "weighing" as a positive evaluation factor. Demonstrating to me how your case outweighs your opponent’s through impact calc is extremely important.

3. After you read a block, please explain how the block applies to your opponent’s argument. If you read a block without indicating what it’s attacking, I likely won’t understand your attack.

4. Try to go line by line (answering your opponents arguments in the order they raise them). This makes rebuttals clear and easy to understand.

5. Be assertive in cross examination. It will affect your speaker points.

6. I like extinction and societal well being arguments, but I need clear linkage to the extinction impact. Really sell the extinction.

7. Please try to utilize all of your available time, but do not exceed the time limits.

What I don’t like:

1. I tend not to side with structural violence cases. If you run a structural violence case, I need you to really convince me that your framework and impacts are the most important.

2. Unorganized rebuttals. These make debates extremely messy and hard to follow.

3. Don’t run Kritiks. I’m inexperienced when it comes to more complex cases (counterplans are fine).

4. Don’t disrespect your opponent or your judge. Debate should be civil.

About me: I did three years of policy debate at Reagan HS and I currently attend Marquette University. I’m open to answering questions, although, I will probably not have all of the answers.

I will not tolerate any type of discrimination (sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.); this will result in your speaker points being lowered and being reported to the tournament.

Debate is about having fun! Please be respectful towards everyone in the room and have fun. Also, yes, include me on the email chain my email is brendaeparedes@gmail.com

LD Paradigm:

I'm new to judging LD but I'm a tabs judge, I will vote on anything if it's explained well. I'm okay with speed, just keep a respectful and organized round.

Policy Paradigm:

Tech v Truth: I will try, to the best of my abilities, to be a tech tabula rasa judge. I will vote on anything, yes that includes untraditional affirmatives, as long as you thoroughly explain it to me

Speed: I’m okay with moderate speed, if it gets to the point of incomprehension I will say “clear” three times before I stop flowing. Please slow down so everyone can fully comprehend your arguments. Also, I prefer for the negative team to have 2-3 off that are fully developed and explained; rather than running an obscene amount of off-case that are going to get dropped after the 1NC.

Disadvantages: Your link chain should be thoroughly explained to me. I’m not the biggest fan of big stick impacts but I understand that this is pretty much what novices are limited to, therefore I will vote on it.

Topicality: I don’t like when topicality is used as a time skew. If you’re running topicality make sure you fully commit to it and explain it thoroughly.

Kritiks: I love kritiks and a good kritik debate. Please make sure you understand the argument though and know how to explain it to me. I will be very disappointed if the kritik flow is a wash and turns into something that is up in the air.

Counter-Plans: My flow on a CP debate shouldn’t just be the Aff stating a perm. Make sure you thoroughly explain to me why the plan, perm, or CP is the best

Impact calculus and clash do that please, I’m begging

Hi! I'm Ananya!

As far as experience goes, I did four years of PF debate here in Wisconsin. I'm a college junior, so I have experiencing judging.

Here are my preferences:

As for speed, I will flow what I hear. Please speak understandably and clearly.

I will not flow crossfire to weigh in the round, but I'll pay attention to what is being said to give you feedback on questions.

Please consistently flow your arguments and rebuttals throughout the round. I will not flow something if it is mentioned in the constructive and then only brought up in the final focus.

FOR PF: PF is heavily evidence-based, so I value weighing evidence against one another. If you think your evidence is more relevant to your argument, explain how it outweighs your opponent's evidence. Expand your evidence and provide a link chain to your impacts.

FOR LD: In evaluating Lincoln-Douglas debates, I prioritize a clear and philosophical approach. Debaters should articulate their ethical framework with depth and clarity, relating it effectively to the resolution. Strong resolution analysis, organization, and argument depth are crucial, favoring quality over quantity. Cross-examination should be used strategically and respectfully to expose weaknesses. Explain the role of the ballot and why I should vote for you, adapting to various debate styles while maintaining fairness and respect. Overall, a well-structured, clear, and nuanced presentation of arguments, along with respectful conduct, will positively influence my judgment.

I want clear voters during the final focus and weigh your impacts. This can really make or break a round. Final Focus is truly only to recap and recount your strongest arguments; don't try to make it an extended rebuttal or try to bring up new evidence or arguments.

Provide interesting arguments and analyses. I want to hear new things!

Have fun!

I debated PF for four years in high school and have been judging PF for 3 years. This being said this is my first year judging LD.

As such, I am able to roll with technical arguments, but I usually base my round off of value criterions and contention level arguments. I am a flow judge, I listen, take copious notes, and when I give my decision, I clearly state why I picked one over the other. I am cool with speed, but make sure you present your argument coherently otherwise I will probably miss your argument and will not flow it through the round. I am a big fan of clash and particularly look for debaters to challenge their opponents on their points with a crafty and well-timed rebuttal, in other words, are able to think on their feet. Other than that, be courteous towards one another, and have fun it is your debate after all.

I'm a former policy debater and judged it throughout college and after. I'm happily returning to judging after an absence. LD is new for me in 2022. Please include me in your email chain: truckstopnun@gmail.com

IN GENERAL:

I aim to adjudicate based on what you present to me (i.e., tabula rasa), but I'm not partial to kritik about debate itself; that seems like changing the rules of the game mid-play to me. Counterplans are fine, but so are generic DAs; just give me vigorous clash with whatever you have. I love to hear analysis and rationale.

As far as jargon goes, I prefer you to approach it like you would citations for publication: i.e., give me the full title/headline/name upon first mention, then abbreviate/slang it for the rest of the time. For instance: "Capitalism Kritik" becomes "Cap-K", but "IDF" could be either "Israel Defense Forces," "Insurance Development Forum," "International Diabetes Foundation," "International Dairy Foundation," "Immune Deficiency Foundation," and so on—hence why I'd like the terms before abbreviation. I've been around a long time and have a head full of these things, so please help a girl out.

I flow every speech thoroughly—including CX—so I appreciate organization and roadmapping a lot, even if it's as brief as, "I'm starting with DAs, then I'm going case." Likewise, signposting is helpful for my flow.

I'm fine with spreading, as long as you are able to enunciate well; speed comes with preparedness. If you become nigh intelligible, I'll probably wave my hand in a "slow down" motion or call out "Clear" if you're particularly mush-mouthed. Incorrect pronunciation without qualifying reason [I'm not referring to dialect or folks with a primary language other than English, but more the "nuclear vs nuculer" variety] is a pet peeve, but not basis for judgment; it just makes me think you haven't spent enough time with your cards. Please: learn how to pronounce the names of the people and places in your cards! Personal names can be hard and cause you to stumble in your speech (and in turn lose your place), while country names you should be familiar with already (for the most part).

I want you to use your rebuttals to sum up why I should vote for you, to give me your analysis of the entire round and why your side has clearly proven superior in this argument. I don't want to be pummeled with, "This is a voter! And this is a voter! You must vote XYZ! And you must vote XYZ!" over and over, ad nauseum. That does nothing to convince me. I'll decide what is a voter; you just give me explanation of why that particular point is so important to the debate and your interpretation is the correct one.

Also, not every single piece of evidence you have—addressed by the other side or not—is a voter. Please don't use them as blunt instruments to hammer at me. Evidence backs up your argument; if the argument isn't sound to begin with, that evidence is just going to dangle in space—not carry the entire round (in most cases). I don't want to you to waste your precious rebuttal time repeating the empty phrase, "This card is a voter! This card is a voter, too!" Sure, tell me they've dropped arguments or have acccepted your framework, or even that your card is more recent or from a more reputable source. But if the other side has dismantled your entire case, why should I care if they didn't touch that extra card sitting under your supposed impacts? That will not win the round. Rationale as to why that one dropped card is a linchpin for the entire argument might.

I don't tolerate rudeness. This is an exciting, educational activity that is meant to help everyone become more confident public speakers, dogged researchers, constructive verbal combatants, and robust thinkers. If you demean, mock, get snippy, or cop an attitude with your opponent, I will dock speaker points and may weigh against you, depending upon severity of offense.

FEEDBACK: I don't give much verbal feedback aside from disclosing whom I find for if the tournament requires it; I'm too busy weighing my flow and typing up the ballot. I may not have all the reasons for decision sorted into complete, deliverable rationale yet. It's not meant to be a slight or intimidating—I just have a lot to convey and not much time to do it. I will give brief insight into why I voted the way I did when judging online, but it won't be extensive for the prior reasons. I believe it's my duty to provide you with a thorough, written record of the round, which will be more reliable for future reference than recollecting a quick discussion.

POLICY SPECIFIC: During CX, you should be able to answer questions directed to you; an interjection by your partner is fine, but they are not the one under CX so I expect you to pick up the burden. Negs, If you want to run more than one T argument, fine—but make sure you're actually following through and *debating* them, not using them as verbal caltrops tossed in front of the Aff and abandoned like chaff. Don't waste our time, please.

I am a lay judge. Please speak clearly, do not speed and don't run theory cases. Ensure you argue your framework well, and singpost your speeches clearly. If you intend to run a counter plan, know how to do so, (if you are novice you probably don't know how to do so).