Please be respectful and courteous during the round. It is essential that you speak clearly and at an appropriate pace so that I can understand your every word. It is important to debate with solid evidence that flows through to the end. Make sure to follow the framework and address all contentions and subpoints as you defend and attack cases.

Name: Luke Anderson

School Affiliation: Fremd High School - Assistant Coach

Were you previously affiliated with any other school?

Palatine High School Graduate, Bradley University for Undergrad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How important is the value criterion in making your decision?

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

Are voting issues necessary for your decision?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My focus is on a debate where you have presented solid evidence that flows through to the end. Following structure, good sportsmanship and voting issues are helpful and considered in my decision. Most of all be respectful to each other. When you present your arguments in this way, then everyone learns more and can better clarify thier side. Including the impact summates the strength of their side and brings more clarity on the bigger picture.

Hello, my name is Mahek Bhakta. My background in debate encompasses four years of competing in Lincoln-Douglas debate with Belleville West High School, followed by two years of experience as a judge.

Regarding speed, I am open to debaters choosing their preferred pace, provided they clearly articulate their framework and contentions.

Lincoln-Douglas debate is inherently structured to be evaluated within a framework, thus I place value on debaters thoroughly elaborate on and justify the significance of their chosen value and value criterion.

During rebuttals, I expect direct refutations of the opponent's framework and contentions. It is advisable for debaters to extend their arguments, elaborating on their or giving impacts.

I do place a considerable emphasis on the delivery of voting issues at the conclusion of the debate.

Debaters do not have to worry about feeling uncomfortable utilizing debate terminology, as I am familiar with terms including, but not limited to, cross apply, extend, and fiat.

To win in a debate round, it is not mandatory for a debater to win on the framework alone; rather, they must demonstrate the relevance of their framework within the context of their case.

I believe in the necessity of incorporating both analytical and empirical evidence. The capacity to effectively present both analytical and philosophical evidence is fundamental to debate.

Joe Blasdel

McKendree University / Belleville East High School

Updated: 1/7/23

I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree in 2003 (mostly NPDA, some LD and IEs) and have been doing so ever since. I have also coached debate at Belleville East (PF and LD) for the last two years.

This is broken into four sections: #1 PF Specifics, #2 HS LD specifics, #3 NFA LD specifics, #4 NPDA / general thoughts.

#1 PF Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS PF (in no particular order):

1. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponents' arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will also flow the debate on three 'sheets' - the PRO case/answers, the CON case/answers, and the rebuttals (summaries/final foci).

2. I will not flow crossfire but I will still pay careful attention and view it as an important part of the debate.

3. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

4. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#2 HS LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS LD (in no particular order):

1. I have researched and coached students on the current NSDA topic and am broadly familiar with the issue.

2. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponent's arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will flow the debate on three 'sheets' - framework, AFF case/answers, NEG case/answers.

3. I view the value/value criterion portion of the debate as framing the rest of the debate. When the framing part of the debate is not clear, I generally default to a cost/benefit analysis in evaluating the substance part of the debate.

4. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

5. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#3 NFA LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging NFA LD (in no particular order):

1. During the debate, I will flow what's being said rather than read the speech docs. I will review speech docs between speeches and after the round.

2. While carded evidence is obviously important in this format, I also appreciate warranted analytic arguments - probably more than the average NFA LD judge.

3. Having not judged a lot of LD of recent, I'm unsure if I can flow the fastest of debates. If I cannot flow due to clarity or speed, I will indicate that's the case.

4. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

#4 NPDA / General thoughts

Section 1: General Information

In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.

On trichotomy, I tend to think the affirmative has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I don’t see a lot of good fact/value debates, I am open to people choosing to do so. I’m also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.

If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If you’re calling multiple irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.

I’m not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then explaining/warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ‘new’ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ‘new’ PMR arguments.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).

Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I’m open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than the average NPDA judge. I approach the K as a sort of ideological counterplan. As a result, it’s important to me that you have a clear, competitive, and solvent alternative. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, it’s likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.

Performance based arguments…

Same as above.

Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position that’s run; it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework – I’m not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an ‘average’ threshold. I don’t vote on RVIs. On spec/non-T theory, I have a ‘high’ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, I’m probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.

Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?

All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I don’t have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?

All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighing claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?

I tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.

Background: My name is Alex Boehne (pronounced [BEY-nee] for those interested). In high school, I completed 1 year of Public Forum and 3 years of Lincoln-Douglas at Triad High School. I currently attend Southeast Missouri State University, majoring in cybersecurity with a minor in networking security.

I've got three big paradigms that usually decide the round for me:

1) ((!!!LD ONLY!!!)) Value debate - almost any debater can throw a bunch of facts out there and hope the judge understands what those facts mean, but good debaters can effectively take the cards that they have and link those back to their value and criterion. Remember: your V and VC are ultimately what you are supporting, and your evidence isn't going to be very useful if you can't say why it supports your argument.

2) Flow organization - this was my biggest challenge as a debater, and it just boils down to being able to effectively travel through the flow so I have the opportunity to track your arguments. Just make sure you make it clear with an off-time roadmap how you'll be traveling through the flow, and make sure to go down the flow so I can track your arguments. It's a lot harder to vote for you if I don't know where your arguments are going!

3) Voters' issues - so many good debaters ignore this one and make it way harder for good arguments to win! Make sure you allot yourself time to crystalize your arguments in voters and explain to me why you believe that you have won the round that I just watched.

Other than that, I don't have any preference for conventional or unconventional strategies (excluding abusive tricks), new ideas, or talking speed. When in doubt, I'm happy to answer a specific question you have about the round and how I'll be judging (although this is pretty much all of my thoughts). Best of luck!

Paradigm = CLARITY!

• Prefer traditional LD style of debate. I do not prefer policy style debate OR new progressive styles of debate.
• I am ANTI-SPREADING = This craft is about communication skills and debates intended or the public...so you should be able yo clearly make arguments.
• Clarity over spreading of arguments.
• Not interested in policy debate style (Avoid spreading, avoid cases that are non-topical (structural violence can work as aVC, but make sure it fits into the resolution
• Especially in your opening arguments, make sure that I know exactly what your contentions are, values, etc. Clearquality of evidence over the quantity of evidence. ,so long as you are clear.
• Stress impact, impact, impact: Make sure the stress how the claims you are making affect people, the country, etc. Tell me what's at stake, what the consequences are of each argument.
• WEIGH your impacts! As a judge I am looking for weighted impacts throughout your case, and especially in your voters issues. What is the scope, the magnitude, the urgency...of your claims. etc
• .Sign Posting: This is an essential tool for me as a judge to follow your case. It doesn't matter how good your arguments are if I can't follow along.
• Framework important to me, but not critical (and totally accept conceding a framework if it is not crucial). Just make sure your VC has a lear link to tpic.

Name: Emily Carroll

School Affiliation: Homewood-Flossmoor

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 6 years coaching LD & PF. . Completed in policy debate when I was in high school years ago.

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

Speed of delivery- All debaters should be able to clearly understand each other- you can’t have clash if you don’t know what the other person is saying! I will let you know if I can’t understand you, and I expect you to be respectful of what your opponent can keep up with.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- A good summary speech presents the big picture, and then chooses just a few key arguments on the line by line to address. You do not need to answer every argument.

Extension of arguments into later speeches- Please clearly state what argument you are extending and include warrants and why it matters! Just repeating the name of a card is not an extension.

Flowing/note-taking- I flow carefully on paper. I don’t flow cross x, but I do listen closely and will add to what I have written.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I focus mainly on argumentation; that said, your style needs to be accessible to all debaters.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, and that includes warrants, addressing class on this issue in the round, and impact analysis.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? While not every argument made needs to be addressed, speakers should hit the big points of contention on both cases.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No. To be fair, issues should be brought up earlier in the round so all sides can answer. However, there is a difference between a brand new argument and simply going deeper on a point already made.

I view debate first as an educational activity. My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained. I spend most of my time in traditional LD/PF circuits.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Good luck and have fun!

Dr. Samantha Dolen, Coach, Palatine High School

LD Judging and Coaching: 3 years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blippy arguments make the debate nearly impossible to judge:

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

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

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

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

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

pick what offense the other team has and outweigh it

he/him

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

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

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

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

Decision-Making:

Framing:

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

K's are cool.

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

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

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

30: you were cool in round

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

I have been coaching and judging debate for 9 years. I currently judge Congress, LD and PF, and I coach LD and Congress. I view debate as a communicative activity, so I do not tolerate spreading as it destroys the communicative value of the event.

LD: Framework should be a weighing mechanism or lens through which to view the round. I am fine with collapsing frameworks, winning under either framework, conceding framework, etc. as long as you show me how to weigh your case under that framework. I am willing to entertain any type of argument (excluding any hateful rhetoric) but it must be well-executed and defended for me to buy it. Impacts are important. Weigh and crystalize in your voters. The less thinking I have to do about the round, the better :)

Email- JKaminskii34@gmail.com

TLDR (updated 11/4/22)

1. Speed is fine, you won't go too fast
2. Win the flow=win the round
3. Presumption =neg
4. Theory is cool, run it well (Interp, violation, standards and voters. RVI's have higher burden)
5. K debate is even better
6. Defense needs to be extended
7. I default to magnitude/strength of link weighing
8. You can run any and all args you want, but they cannot be problematic/discriminatory/ attack your opponents. This will be an auto 20 speaks and L.

My debate experience:

Current assistant PF coach at Trinity Prep

3 Years of NFA-LD Debate

4 Years of Public Forum debate

Paradigm-

It should be pretty easy to win my ballot. In my opinion, debate is a game, and you should play to win. Here are the specific things most debaters would want to know.

PF

- I am cool with speed, so long as you don't use it to push your opponents out of a round. I will call clear if you become hard to understand, so keep that in mind.

- I will evaluate all types of arguments equally unless told otherwise.

- I am willing to listen to things like K's and theory arguments, so long as they are impacted out in the round.

- I really enjoy framework debates as well. I think these can be particularly beneficial for limiting the ground your opponents have in the round.

- I am tech over truth, which means so long as it is on my flow, I will evaluate the argument regardless of my own feelings on it. I will also not flow arguments through ink on the flow, so be sure to engage with your opponents answers in order to win the link level of your argument.

- Summary and FF should be somewhat consistent in terms of the direction they are going. Inconsistencies between these speeches will be harmful, especially when it comes to evaluating the strengths of your links and impacts

- On that same note, I want to see some sort of collapse in the second half of the debate- going for everything is typically a bad strategy, and I want to reward smart strategic choices that you make.

- I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round. I am cool viewing the round through any lens that you give me, so long as you explain why its the best way for me to evaluate the round. If absent, I have to intervene with my own, which is something I hate to do.

- If you want me to call for cards, you need to ask me to do so. In that same regard, I wont intervene unless you leave me no other option.

- I dont flow CX, so if you want me to hold something that was said as binding, you need to bring it up in all of the subsequent speeches.

-Speaker points, in my opinion, are less about your speaking performance and more about your ability to present and explain compelling arguments, interact with the opposition, and provide meaningful analysis as to why you are necessarily more important. Content above style

-On a more personal note, I want the rounds that I judge to be educational and allow debaters to articulate arguments about real world issues, all of which deserve respect regardless of your own personal opinions. I have seen my partners and teammates experience sexism, racism, and other types of discrimination, and I have absolutely zero tolerance for it when I am judging.

-If you have any other questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me. I also will give feedback after rounds, you just have to find me and ask.

LD

- All of the above applies here as well. There are a few extra points that may be helpful.

- I will always evaluate framing first, so long as there are competing positions. If values are the same, just collapse and move on. These can be either traditional or more progressive/kritical frameworks.

- For the NR/2AR, don't go for everything- there simply is not enough time and debates are not lost by making strategic decisions to go for one or two arguments instead of extending the entire case.

- I dont need voter issues- just go top down the AC and NC and win your offense/extend defense.

- Impact calc is necessary- PLEASE weigh your impacts. I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round.

Name:

Michael Landstrom

School Affiliation:

Amos Alonzo Stagg High School

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

This is my first year. I have judged at 1 tournament.

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

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

Speed is not a deciding factor unless I cannot follow your arguments or elocution is sub-optimal

How important is the value criterion in making your decision?

As it frames the argument, I do think it is important, however, the arguments themselves are more important.

Do you have any specific expectations for the format of the 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal and 2 Negative Rebuttal (i.e. line by line/ direct refutation and/or big picture?)-

I have found that a line-by-line/direct focus gives me the ability to more accurately analyze the speakers’ arguments.

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

I value argument a bit more than style. How you argue something is important, but I don’t think it’s as important as what you are actually arguing.

In order to win a debate round, does the debater need to win their framework or can they win using their opponent’s framework?

I think debaters should win their own framework. It is possible to win using their opponent’s framework but I find it stronger to win your own.

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

Very necessary. I do not place a high value on argumentation that is ungrounded in evidence. That being said, the evidence analysis is equally, if not more, important. It is easy to misinterpret/misrepresent the implications of statistics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's have some great rounds!

Experience: As a “seasoned” debater and judge with 2 years of experience in High School debate at Belleville East and 1 year of college debate at Mckendree University, I bring a detailed understanding of the format, rules, and principles of debate to my judging role. I did both LD and Public Forum in high school so I have experience in both events as a competitor and as a judge.

Philosophy: I believe in evaluating debates based on the clash of ideas, logical reasoning, and persuasive argumentation rather than relying solely on technical skills or speaking prowess. I prioritize clarity, coherence, and depth of analysis in arguments. Speed is not an issue for me as long as I can understand your arguments. Argumentation is the sole purpose of debate so make sure you are addressing all of your opponents arguments and extending your own. Not only are you trying to convince me your side/argument is better, but you are also trying to prove it and that cannot happen if you are dropping arguments. Cross X is between you and your opponent so as a judge I do not flow it. You and your opponent should not be facing each other, you should be facing me but that does not mean I am actively involved. Make sure to bring up any points from Cross X that you would like me to flow in your speech.

Vibes: Overall, have a good time and argue your heart out. This is a learning experience and designed to be educational and enjoyable. Also this is a positive space so please be CIVIL with your opponent. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to ask. Good luck!

:)

New: I'm Aurelia Montgomery, a judge coming with Belleville West. I've been judging for two years, exclusively in the Illinois circuit. I have no problem with speed of delivery. VC is very important to me. I have no specific expectations of formatting. I really like voter's issues (please do them!!!) but I can make a decision without them. Please extend arguments. In the case of argument vs style, argument will trump every single time. I don't have a preference on framework. Yes, there does need to be at least baseline evidence, although rhetoric is appreciated.

Old: Very heavy on framework (debate content is important, as are etiquette and following courtesy norms), it is the most heavily weighted factor in my judging philosophy. Cases and rebuttals still have to be factually correct, but the philosophical basis is more salient.

I expect debaters to be kind to each other, debate is a friendly practice in polite argument, not an opportunity to be rude to your opponent. This also ties into etiquette, points can (and will, depending on context) be lost if the debater doesn't follow courtesy norms (biggest ones being standing/facing the judge when talking, and ensuring everyone is ready/letting the judge know when you start). Going over on time is part of these norms, and points could be taken off depending on severity and reoccurrence.

But again, decisions rely almost entirely on framework, excluding extremely inappropriate conduct and flawed (ie fabricated or clearly misapplied) evidence. That also includes opinion that is presented as evidence.

I am a former Lincoln/Douglas and collegiate debater and a current litigation attorney. I learned many important skills during my time in debate that are applicable to various real world settings. Real world communications do not involve speed reading. A judge in a courtroom would hold me in contempt if I made an oral argument by seeing how fast I could read my notes. Likewise, I do not like speed. I like debaters to present their cases in a logical and persuasive manner. I also appreciate clash. Clash is best obtained when both debaters signpost their arguments and tell me where on my flow an argument should be noted. Finally, I appreciate being told why I should vote for you. Make it easy for me to record your arguments and to vote for you and I probably will.

Last thing- I am a fan of including the opinions of philosophers and historic figures in your cases. We may be debating current issues but I bet Aristotle, Socrates, Rawles or Bentham have offered opinions that are applicable to the topic at hand.

Last, Last thing- Have fun. This is a fun and rewarding activity. Don't take this or yourself too seriously.

About me:

Hi! I’m a former four-year debater (fall ‘19-spring ’23). I competed in PF, LD, and Congress (as well as the local speech circuit). PF was my primary focus in high school, but these days I tend to see more of LD. If you have any questions for me, please feel free to ask before the round starts.

General paradigm:

I’m all good with spreading (speed-reading). No matter how quick, I’ve probably heard worse before. Keep in mind that this is not necessarily the same for your partner or opponent. Make sure that everyone in the room is comfortable with it, otherwise you run the risk of losing the clash.

I love to see a framework argument in both LD and PF. In LD, having a value and criterion is a must. In PF, a framework is optional, but if one is provided it will factor into my decision. If the opponent does not attack its inclusion or suggest an alternate framework, then the provided one is implemented. Make sure these frameworks are not dropped. They must be mentioned in EVERY speech.

Similarly, I’m fine with a definition debate, as long as there is clash.

Jargon and technical language are allowed, but they will not win you the debate. At most, they may affect speaker points. The debate is about the holistic argument and not individual word choice.

I weigh the debate based on what arguments are flowed through each speech most effectively (in relation to a framework, if provided). I will not jump from one point to the next on my own. Please lay it out clearly and in an organized manner for every speech, or else I will not be able to justify carrying it through the round. Strong clash (particularly on frameworks) is preferred, but, in the end, the debate is what you make it.

Also, I will not flow CX. Please include in your speech any points that you would like to be on the flow.

Voter issues are a MUST in PF. In LD, I am more lenient. If you carry your framework throughout the round, it is fine to suggest that I weigh the argument on it, rather than the opponent’s voter issues.

The use of ad hominem and/or being disrespectful to other individuals (opponents, judges, etc.) will weigh heavily in my decision. I strongly discourage it. Debate has nothing to do with attacking individuals and everything to do with attacking arguments.

Overall, just be respectful and have fun!

Specifics to March LD 2024 (Criminal Justice):

• Please make your arguments concrete. Criminal justice reform is happening in the SQUO in America and beyond. Give me examples of programs. YOU be the one to set the definitions of rehabilitation. Instead of being so theoretical, show me what this actually looks like, please!
• I am OK with counterplans on neg especially for this topic.
• Remember that by round 6, your judges will have heard many of the same arguments. Maybe try to spice it up a bit with something unique!
• Have the best time this weekend :)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

Hello! I am an English teacher and a debate coach of 5 years, and I judge both PF and LD. First and foremost, I want everyone to have a good experience during your round!

In both LD and PF,my #1 priority is this: argue respectfully! If you are rude to your opponents or exceedingly arrogant in your speeches, it will result in a loss of speaker points.

2nd Priority: make my life as a judge easy. Tell me what to do! They dropped your 2nd subpoint? Tell me! Want me to flow something through? Tell me! You're the experts here, and I'm just trying to keep up. Don't assume that I'll catch everything that you catch in a round :)

CLARITY AND SPEED: I value clarity over speed. Obviously sometimes speed is necessary to ensure your speeches will fit in the time limit, but if I miss a tagline or a name of a card, it's only to your detriment!

CONCRETE ARGUMENTS: 2nd point on clarity-- remember that while you have spent a lot of time and effort researching your topics, your judges have not. Before you make your more intricate or unique arguments, spend some time in your FW or contentions explaining the basics or the fundamentals of your case! Give concrete examples when you can!

PRIORITIZE THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE TERMINOLOGY: Sorry, clunky, but I don't know how else to say it. Debate should be an accessible space for all, and when it's convoluted with hyper-specific debate terminology and lingo, it make it so hard for this really great activity to be somewhere that people don't feel totally intimidated to join. Also, I'm NOT a former debater. Everything I know I've picked up from coaching in the past 5 years. I vote on arguments, not on technicalities.

ORGANIZATION: I appreciate a nice, well-organized, line-by-line rebuttal!!! Attacking your opponent's cases in order is a huge help to me for flowing.

CROSS: In general, I listen attentively and may write a few notes of good points brought up during CX, but I would prefer anything from CX to be flowed to your later speeches.

IMPACTS: Impacts! You can have all the cards you want in the world, but you need to be able to explain them and explain the impacts of your cards on your case. Again, I'm an English teacher, and I consider your impacts/explanation of cards to be just like your analysis of quotes in an essay. Without it, the essay falls apart!

SPEAKING: While it doesn't weigh much on my decision of who WON the round, I do also appreciate when a speaker uses inflection and proper emphasis in your speeches. Be convinced of your case and convince me to believe in it! I love a good stylistic speech. Keep me engaged! This will definitely impact your speaker points.

WEIGHING: I do prefer clearly listed voter's issues and weighing mechanisms, but not including weighing mechanisms won't necessarily cost you the round.

If you have any questions, just ask! Thank you and good luck!!!

Lincoln-Douglas

Name: Lisa Savage

School Affiliation: Benet Academy

Were you previously affiliated with any other school? No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other relevant information (optional)? None.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Public Forum: Evidence matters here even more than in the other debate events. Make sure you're reading all of your sources in their entirety before cutting cards. I'm always paying attention, and so are most of the other debaters: if you're using something out of context, you will get called on it eventually by one of your opponents or judges. I will call for evidence in close rounds, so be prepared to hand over your cards. Making empirical assertions without providing empirical evidence will make it very hard for me to vote for you, and misusing evidence will make it nearly impossible.

For Congress: It is to the whole chamber's disservice to get stuck on one bill or one series of bills. Even if your favorite bill is being discussed and you haven't gotten a chance to speak yet, it's in your best interest not to extend a tired debate. I would rather see fresh debate on a bill that is less familiar to you than continue to see the same arguments recycled over and over again. Congress is meant to be an extemporaneous event. I don't want your speeches to be pretty and polished like a speech event, or even like a constructive speech in PF or LD. I want you to show me that you have a range of knowledge and interest in an even wider range of topics in current events, and can speak extemporaneously on these topics in the chamber. There's little I dislike more in debate than for a Congress chamber to take a recess so everyone can "write their speeches." This fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of Congress. The best advice I can give Congress debaters for prep isn't to write polished speeches, but to regularly read (not watch) reputable news sources like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and The Economist. If you must watch your news, go with the PBS News Hour or something international (i.e. the BBC), not partisan entertainment-oriented channels like CNN, FOX, or MSNBC. Podcasts are fun, but not a substitute for reputable news organizations with full-time fact checkers.

Add me to email chains: sharpedebate@gmail.com

Short Verison:

*I specialized in LD in high school and moonlighted in PF when someone needed a partner. PF paradigm - Flow is the most important thing in the round, please be clear; I'll be deciding on the flow. I'm not new to debate, so I won't be voting off the last speech but the big picture of the round, who has the most positive impacts in the round. I'm a progressive judge so do whatever you want, just be respectful of your competitors.

Tho I prefer that folx don't run bad geopolitical link chains leading to nuclear war - if the links don't make sense I won't care.

TLDR:

* I really don't like racism, sexism...etc. I won't vote for hateful arguments.

* Warrant your arguments! Names of authors mean nothing to me. I won't vote for you if you just read cards.

*Weighing is very important (especially with a Value/VC/Roll of the ballot)

*Prioritize impacts, the strategy is important

*If you are going to value Morality, please explain it. What moral framework are we working under

*Be Clear

Former Debater at Homewood-Flossmoor

Lincoln Douglas was the debate-style of my high school career so I am very familiar. I started in traditional Lincoln Douglas and ended my career running Kritiks so I am comfortable with both styles of LD. I can understand most spread, but make sure your opponent is comfortable with the speed and be clear. If you are not clear, I am not flowing. You can go as fast as your mouth and lungs will let you, but if you are not clear it will most likely be detrimental to you. I will say clear twice. If you don't adjust I will probably stop flowing. Refrain from bringing your opponent's identity into the debate space, especially when it comes to sexuality, race and/or disability. I have seen and experienced many rounds where people assume wrong about someone's identity, and it becomes offensive. With that being said, if you are non-black running arguments about anti-blackness (or in general), make sure it's for the right reasons, and don't use authors that write for the black population.

Plans: Call me old-fashioned but I don't think that Affirmative needs to provide a plan in any LD debate topic. But I am not against plans in LD.

Theory: 80% of the time I do not like theory debates because it can get very messy. While I view theory to be a necessary part of debate I hate frivolous theory. To be honest, I don't care if someone's case isn't on a debate wiki, I am not 100% against voting for stuff like that but the reason why its imperative for people to explain the need to disclose.

Kritiks: I think they make debate interesting and sparks great dialogue. But please run a meaningful Kritik don't slap one together before a round that isn't well thought out. I tend to like Kritiks that challenge the topic/arguments, just because there tends to be more clash, but Kritiks about the debate space is fine. I haven't had the time to read a ton of literature in college, so don't assume I know an author.

Hi! I’m Elizabeth. I did LD at Evanston Township for 3 years and have coached there for five years.

- FOR STAGG ON 1/27 -

I have experience judging PF and I've found that it's fairly similar to a traditional LD round, which I've been judging for five years. I will flow everything in your speeches, I pay attention during CX, and I will judge based on the flow. Ultimately you need to do your best to weigh your arguments against theirs or I will be forced to weigh for you.

I assume I won't see much "progressive" debate but I'm certainly open to it as long as you provide justifications for your method.

To summarize:

· Performance and Ks>CPs/DAs/policy stuff AND traditional LD>>theory that isn’t tricks*>>>"phil" I guess? The kind of phil that is actually tricks.

· If you run tricks, you're better off striking me.

· I think part of being a good debater is making me care about what you're saying in addition to making me understand it.

· I did traditional LD as well as nat circuit (or "progressive") so I’d happily judge a traditional LD round if that’s what you’re here for!

Additional things you may find helpful:

I spent my junior year running various race/queer/colonialism K’s. I spent over half of my senior year running a performance aff so I’m 100% open (and excited!) to hearing anything performative. I think debates about the debate space are really cool and educational. I also think debates about the hypothetical implementation of a plan are really cool and educational. So whichever one of these wins me over is entirely dependent on the round in front of me.

I very much agree with my high school debate coach, Jeff Hannan, on this:

“I will make decisions that are good if:

you explain things to me; you establish a clear standard, role of the ballot, value, or other mechanism and explain to me how I can use that to make my decision; you compare or weigh offense linked to a standard.

I will make decisions that are bad if:

you expect me to do work for you on the flow or among your arguments; you assume I know more than I do.”

This probably means that if you want to run a bunch of blippy offs to spread your opponent out, I am not the judge for you. We will probably end up in a situation where you feel like I've missed something, and then everyone is sad. I would much prefer a deep analysis on one or two offs. But either way, the more you try to write my ballot for me the better things will go for you. Like please just give me a weighing mechanism and explain how you win under it at least pls pls pls or I will not know what to do with your impacts.

Framework things that are important to me:

To expand on my last point...please weigh your impacts back to your framework or at least back to something!!! I've noticed debaters doing this thing where they say a bunch of impacts but don't compare them (weigh them) and then I have to do all the work myself which can leave debaters disgruntled with my decision. Truly all I would like you to do is weigh the impacts in the round to your framework and it will take you a long way.

If your frameworks are basically the same I'll ultimately collapse them to make my decision. If you have impacts that only link under your framework then by all means argue the heck out of the framework debate! BUT PLEASE NOTE: "they don't link to their FW because I actually link better as shown in my contentions..." is NOT a reason to prefer your framework, it's just a solvency argument.

Stuff on Ks specifically:

I love a good K debate! Familiar with settler colonialism, afropess, and queer stuff.

If you can explain/impact the rhizome or hyperreal stuff to me and actually make it interesting then you can go ahead and try but you will have to explain VERY well and slowly.

I really enjoy any K stuff that relates specifically to education and discourse.

If you kick a K about an identity group you're not a part of (especially for frivolous theory omg) I'm going to definitelyyyy knock your speaks at least.

Stuff on theory specifically:

Generally convinced by reasonability because it often feels like theory is in fact frivolous or a waste of my time.

I don't have a negative predisposition toward RVIs but if the debate is coming down to that it’s probably already making me sad.

If there’s legit abuse then by all means call it out. On disclosure specifically: if they read something predictable or obviously within your resources to respond to just fine, I will be nonplussed. However, if they're reading something super specific or non-T that a reasonable person couldn't predict, I'm totally fine with disclosure theory.

*The more genuine and not-blippy your theory shell is the more I will like it. My favorite kind of debate that I ever did was debate about the debate space so I actually think theory is very cool ~in theory~ but in practice people use it to waste their opponent’s time and that seems antithetical to education to me.

Additional additional stuff:

Not to be a stickler but I'm not a huge fan of LDers saying "we" unless it's meaningfully symbolic for some reason. I won't knock down your speaks but I will internally sigh and wonder why you want to be in policy.

Please put me on the email chain (elizabethasperti@gmail.com). Even in my debating days, I didn’t have a great ear for speed. But I can understand spreading, please just be clear. I’ll say “clear” if I’m not understanding you. So don’t stress too much about being too fast just...try to be clear? Also if you're ever wondering if you should send your analytics, send the analytics.

If your opponent can’t understand you, I see that as a failure on your part, not theirs. If you can’t understand your opponent, please feel free to say “clear.” I have no idea why that’s not seen as “acceptable” in the debate space. That kind of just seems like a basic right a debater should have in the round.

For everyone:

Please be respectful to each other, and please try to have an illuminating debate.

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

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

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

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

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