I'm a recent graduate who's been doing debate for all 4 years of high school. For this, my main event was LD so I'm very familiar with it. I competed in a very traditional district so I do gear towards that, however, I do know how progressive debate works and I'm not opposed to hearing progressive cases. I will judge them fairly as I would TRAD. I like a heavy focus on clash and refutation in debates, seeing opponents refute each other's arguments and evidence, then explaining as to why they have won with these critiques they've made. I prefer voting issues towards the end, but again, I will judge your debate fairly and not use anything I've mentioned as a hard win/loss for you if it's done out of order.

Fast talking is okay, spreading is not. If you are going to speak fast, all I ask is that you speak clearly, with diction, and enunciation so that I can hear all of what you say. What I can't hear or understand I cannot judge on in your favor.

Please be respectful of each other's identities, aka don't be racist, xenophobic, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. I will report this if I see it happen and it will gauge my answer against you if you are disrespectful in this way.

Remember, debate is supposed to be fun and don't let it get to your head or overthink it too much! :)

NSDA 2024 PF UPDATE

If your cards are not properly tagged, cited and cut, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If an email chain is not set up, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If I get so much as a whiff of evidentiary dishonesty, I am dropping you, closing my laptop and leaving the round.

Otherwise, congrats on making it to NSDA. Have fun and do you, boo !

About Me

I attended and debated for Rutgers University-Newark (c/o 2021). I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Coach @ Ridge HS in Basking Ridge, NJ.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjaye (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu

COLLEGE POLICY: I skimmed through the topic paper and ADA/ Wake will be my first time judging this season. Do with this information what you wish.

GENERAL: If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the debate based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging. One recent pet peeve of mine is people just asserting links without having them contextualized to the aff and well explained. Please don't be that person. You will see me looking at both you and my flow with a confused face trying to figure out what's happening. Additionally, do not tell me that perms cannot happen in a method v. method debate without a warrant.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average. While I am a flow centric judge, be it known that debate is just as much about delivery as it is about content.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth! It would behoove you to employ some impact calculus and comparison here.

Save the friv theory, bring on those spicy framework and T debates. Please be well structured on the flow if you are going this route. Additionally, be warned, fairness is not a voter 98% of the times in my book. It is an internal link to something. Note however, though I am all for T and framework debates, I also like to see aff engagement. Obviously these are all on a case by case basis. T USFG is not spicy. I will vote on it, but it is not spicy.

For CPs, if they're abusive, they are. As long as they are competitive and have net benefits, we're good.

On theory, at a certain point in the debate, I get tired of hearing you read your coach's coach's block extensions. Could we please replace that with some impact weighing?

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points, and depending on how egregious your bigotry is, I just might drop you. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once - purely a flow decision)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

I'm gonna have to pass on the RVIs too. I've never seen a more annoying line of argumentation.

In general, give me judge instructions.

On average, tech > truth --- however, I throw this principle out when people start doing or saying bigoted things.

I value respect immensely

FOR LD specifically:

Please address the framework of both sides and tell me why I should actually value yours.

I'd like you to stand during your speeches and stand during cx. It adds more professionalism to the debate and standing in place is a really nice skill to learn to radiate confidence.

Hate kritiks sorry :)

For PF:

I'd like y'all to stand for your speeches and one-on-one crossfire, however, during grand cross sometimes it gets crazy so I don't mind if you sit.

Please don't card debate, like yes you can question the legitimacy of a card and if new information is crucial that wasn't identified the year of the evidence, but arguments based on "they don't address this specific card" is kinda errrr...

Middle School Nationals

Experienced LD debater and Judge. I've competed nationally and locally and have taught numerous novices. So, I am well-versed in circuit-style debate as well as traditional. However, if you are a circuit debater, be aware that not everyone understands the style, so be respectful to your opponent and avoid the use of jargon. I am ok with whatever speed you desire, but if you will be spreading, make sure to share your doc with me by email; (tbello@cherrycreekschools.org). If you will spread, prepare for me to review your written case. I don't mind whatever arguments you run in the round, but I will only flow what you say. It is your job to convince me of your side whatever it may be. List your claims with warranted evidence, and impact them to the round and my ballot. You write my ballot for me, so extra points if you address voters and are organized with your delivery and flow. I like to see well-educated and researched debaters. If an argument is not addressed in the next speech, it is a dropped argument (this means yes, you do have to frontline in the second rebuttal) defense is sticky!!! if you drop terminal defense on an argument I won't vote for you on it, even if it never comes up again after the first rebuttal weigh comparatively ideally beginning in rebuttal, if your "weighing" is just yelling your impact and some buzzword like magnitude at each other, nobody's gonna be happy for me to vote on any offense and frontlined defense that is in final focus, it must also be in summary; be strategic. You don't have to go for everything, and it's never a good idea to do so. That being said, I will only impact drops and defenses if it is mentioned in the round, it is what it is. Confidence is key. Good luck.

Ks - Love them. I'm personally most familiar with cap, set col, and anti-blackness, anything is fine but don't assume I'll automatically know what you're talking about. The most important tips I can give are to contextualize your links to the aff (pulling lines from the 1AC is appreciated!) and to give a detailed explanation of what the alternative does. In general, I think the aff gets a permutation and gets to weigh the plan, but I can be persuaded otherwise, especially on the latter. Good K debates are wonderful! Bad ones are the worst debates to watch.

Larps - God help you

Cps & DAs - Creative CPs are enjoyable, even when they border on cheating. I'm personally cool with states, consult, process cps, etc., but the neg doesn't get a free pass if there's a theory debate. PICs are rad, but word PICs are not rad (unless the word is in the plan text, which justifies it more IMO). Overall, the problem with most CPs isn't that they're cheating, it's that they're bad. DA's are good and essential. Big on impact calculus, make sure to weigh the impact of DA’s vs the advantages of the aff. Generic links aren’t as persuasive as links based in specific policies.

Framework - I think framework is very strategic against Kritikal affs, and all K affs should be prepared to have a FW debate. I tend to lean aff (like 55-45), but FW is definitely winnable. I'm more persuaded by substantive impacts and clash than I am by procedural fairness but feel free to include fairness if you're gonna justify it. Don't just have a framework, use it directly in the round. When you use a FW, you make that one of your voters, and if you don't link them and defend them, you will not be given the win.

Trix - Don't, you'll lose

Theory - Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

If you reference Ed Sheeran or one of his songs in your case, extra speaker points for you. This won't impact the round though, so don't make your entire case about Edward.

middle school nats: feel free to ask me any questions about this paradigm or about debate in general before/after round! and congrats for getting here, its really cool to be involved in this activity at such a young age

Hello

I am Drew! I am currently do hs LD representing Neenah WI (small school debater). I’ve done debate for like 2.5 years, I’ve done mostly trad debate locally but I’ve also had my fair share of circuit debate at tournaments like Glenbrooks and Harvard.

Add me on the chain pls: drew.benthein3@gmail.com (I'm cool if you email me with questions, so feel free to!)

Quick prefs, for more details read below:

tech>truth

1- Trad/Lay/LARP - I know this style well and feel comfortable with it

4 - Ks and nontopical stuf - I know what they are but assume I know nothing

2 - policy/plans/cps - am familiar with this

3 - theory, T - I like it but don’t have a lot of experience with it

3 - phil - same as theory, OVEREXPLAIN PLS

5- tricks- ehhhh

TLDR

I have debated for a while but I am new to judging so pls be patient with me. Tech>truth as much as possible, however I am a believer that personal bias always exists — I’ll try to be as objective as possible unless I have to intervene (in the case of violence and/or discrimination in the round).

In terms of accessibility concerns, I have dyslexia and am a firm believer that circuit debate is kinda ableist when it comes to the tricky, and blippy norms that have developed with spreading huge walls of analytics and stuff. I will do my best to comprehend and it normally isnt a problem for me, but I just figured Id put it on here. Also I love comic sans if you put your case in comic sans I will love you.

Im usually fine with speed, but send docs always even if you arent spreading. If you are spreading rebuttals, slow down, send a doc, or both. If I cant follow that is your fault for not reading a paradigm. I will yell "SLOW" or "CLEAR" a couple times then just stop flowing. Swearing in round is fine with me (anyone who knows me knows my vocabulary is very colorful) however don't make the debate unsafe and be careful around younger people and spectators. If its just like two seniors debating each other, go at it ig, idc.

This paradigm was kinda rushed so if you have any questions before or after the round, feel free to ask!

Generic debate thoughts

Dont worry about rhetoric as much with me, I dont care if you give a quote at the beginning of your speech or not. I try to be tech as possible, so good evidence matters. I love goofy impacts like nuke war but PLEASE have evidence that somewhat proves nuke war. Kids tag cards saying “it causes extinction” and nowhere in the card are there the words “death, nukes, extinction” or anything remotely related. If your actual card doesnt say it, I’m not gonna have a high bar for your opponent beating it.

That being said, I dont agree that every argument needs to be supported by card evidence. A strong analytic can go a long way, and a well-warranted argument that you write can easily beat a poorly warranted card used by your opponent. Analytics are great and I feel like they are underused in a lot of framework sections and whatnot.

In general, whether its carded evidence or an analytical argument, I will only evaluate arguments that are warranted. This means uniqueness, link, and impact. A one sentence unjustified claim is not an argument, and therefore will mean pretty much nothing on my flow. I get that this is different for other judges, but I feel like this better promotes positive norms in the debate space.

For speaks, just be a good speaker. Be organized, and show confidence, I will do my best to award them fairly, and I always aim to be conscious of factors that may bias me to be subjective in awarding them. Usually, my range is like 27-30. I'm not scared to give 30s like most judges, but you do have to impress me to get one. Also, I won't disclose speaks, don't ask. Asking me for a certain score will result in you getting a much lower score.

Trad/Lay/LARP

This style of debate is cool. I am most comfortable judging a non-spreading lay round so just do your normal things. Weigh at the end of your speeches, and extend your arguments. New points should not be brought up in the 2NR/2AR, and any new evidence in the 2NR should be directly responsive to evidence brought up in the 1AR. I like clear and concise voters at the end of the round, write my ballot for me. And dont just tell me an argument wins because you read a generic card. Tell me what that card proves and why that matters.

Ks and non-topical stuf

Treat me like I am stupid. I am kind of familiar with basic stuff like set col, cap, identity/performace stuff but I am far from super knowledgeable. Therefore, hold my hand through this stuff. I am not opposed to voting for it by any means, but I will not vote on these arguments if I don’t understand them enough to explain them in my own words after the round.It always helps my flow and understanding to label the parts of your K, like write “link” on the link cards and “ROB” for the ROB section. But I get its a pain to reformat your case for every judge so you do you.

Please have an alt that makes sense or at least is competitive. Dont just read "reject the aff" because that's kinda lazy. Also, its kind of cringe to run an identity case for a community you obviously arent a part of. Your links should be logical and clearly proven.

policy/plans/cps

I have run/hit these cases a lot, I know what they are and how they interact. However, you also need to understand that to run these. A lot of my thoughts under the Trad/Lay/LARP section applies here, weigh and do voters for me. Additionally, assume I know nothing about any niche CPs or plans. If you are referencing some completely unrelated policy action from another country explain it to me because chances are I’m not going to know what it is. Also, your evidence here should be good. I personally dislike as a debater when kids run a goofy policy alternative that seems to have ‘magical solutions’ for every problem in existence, but then they read crappy cards that don’t really say what they claim they do. Again, I’ll still evaluate it, I just won’t be super happy about it.

Also I feel like a lot of PICs are kinda abusive, so Im open to hearing any shells read against them. I will vote on them, but like cmon in most cases its not that hard to just defend the negative in its entirety (PIKs are different tho, I am fine w/ those and think they are interesting see the K section above)

Theory, T

These arguments I personally find interesting and I like running them at circuit tournaments. While I have used and hit them a decent amount, still assume I know nothing when you read them. I am from a small school and a lot of the debate knowledge I have I had to figure out myself. Therefore, be careful with the abbreviations and blippy phrases that summarize common arguments. You will be safer just overexplaining stuff for me because I might not understand as well.

Despite being tech>truth, I feel like this becomes foggy in terms of theory debate because theory usually is a lot more arbitrary. I intuitively default to reasonability when weighing theory, however I believe that it is my job to adapt to debaters as much as possible so I can use competing interps if y’all tell me to. (if you are small school debater or a novice and don’t know what I mean, here is an article explaining what this means https://victorybriefs.substack.com/p/basics-of-ld-theory-by-jackson-lallas )

Also if you plan on reading shells as ‘tricks’ or time-suck arguiments (aka. Friv shells) I will still evaluate them, but as their goofiness increases my bar for beating them lowers. Also be careful running intentionally confusing phil shells too, if I don’t understand it I won’t vote on it.

On disclosure theory - as a small school debater, you gotta have a good reason for me to vote on it. Most of the time, “they didn’t disclose on the wiki so I cant prepare!!” is accompanied by 47 blocks against their case anyways so its clear to me as the judge you are just going for a cheap shot.

Phil

This type of LD is pretty cool most of the time. I am somewhat familiar with a lot of the common stuff like Util, Kant, Virtue ethics, structural violence, justice, social contract, Rawls, etc. however assume me to know nothing. A lot of the really crazy stuff frequented at higher level bid tournaments like Heidegger and Baudrillard I find interesting, but most of the time those cases are super confusing at first. If you read this stuff I am excited to hear it, but I probably won’t understand it unless you dumb it down. I hate to drop any of you phil debaters because it didn’t make sense, but I will be forced to do so if you don’t explain it.

The thing ive noticed with a lot of phil debate that is kind of its downfall, is that 90% of the people who read it seem to read it for the strategic boost that their opponent will not know what to say and drop the fw and then win the round. They spew tons of blippy analytics in overviews and underviews, making it incredibly difficult to catch all of the arguments. With this people usually have the weakest contention level case ever. Please run phil with the intent of debate happening, dont just spew stuff with the hopes of getting a win. If you just wanna read phil join a book club or something, debate is for debating and it should be educational.

Also, if you are going to claim your philosophical author said something or made a certain argument, have evidence for it. I don’t personally read phil much, but either way I shouldn’t use any of my personal knowledge to evaluate arguments. If Kant said something that refutes your opponents argument, don’t just read an analytic that says “Kant doesn’t agree with ___” because that just seems like you put words in his mouth. Read evidence.

Tricks

Depending on the context, these either suck or are the most fun arguments. If you are reading anything tricky against a novice, I am gonna try to find any and all reasons to vote against you. That being said, I find some tricks to be fun. I love joke cases, anything to do with video games (fortnite!!) or just general goofiness I will enjoy. Also, philosophical tricks are less familiar to me, but I am open to evaluating them. I get a lot of tricky debaters don’t like dumbing down their arguments because their opponent is likely to find holes more easily, I’d recommend finding a way to dumb it down for me otherwise I might get lost.I probably won’t care about your one-sentence tricks like “evaluate after the 2NR” if they aren’t warranted substantially enough to change completely how I judge the round. And read anything super blippy at your own risk — if I miss one sentence hidden in a tagline somewhere that is supposed to end the round, that's your fault for hiding it. I get it's annoying, but yall cant expect me to be a robot.

The less fun stuff...

Also, this should be a given, but I will not tolerate any racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. in the round, if there is any of this present you lose and the issue goes to tabroom.

For evidence issues, I'm fine with minor stuff like card issues being debated in the form of theory shells in round, but if you want to make an actual cheating violation I will be the same as most judges and stop the round, and you will stake the round on it. I don't want to be caught in the middle of having to decide if there was clipping or not so if you are going to make that accusation either have a recording or it has to be incredibly obvious it happened. I am gonna follow NSDA/tournament rules for these issues.

Other stuff for small school debaters

https://circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Main_Page — great resource for understanding progressive or ‘circuit’ debate. It has a lot of definitions, pages on common arguments, and there are even debater files that people share.

https://opencaselist.com/ — debate wiki, great place for finding examples of arguments or ‘’’’’’borrowing’’’’’’ evidence

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1lbbfzAMyVWwBckkmunnqPdzxMJIL2k83?usp=sharing — kankee briefs, a free resource for debaters that updates every new topic

https://www.valuecriterion.com/ — cool site that has a bunch of explanations and free files for frameworks, made by past debaters

Hello! I’m happy to be your judge for National-level LD. Looking forward to seeing what you’ve prepared.

I do not like rapid-fire/spreading. I prefer a debater who prioritizes making their points clear and at such a speed where it is able to be understood.

Make sure you find a good balance between aggressiveness and assertiveness.

Good luck

My goal as a judge is to evaluate the power and consistency of each argument and to ensure an informed decision reflective of the debate's material and quality. I approach each speech and debate round with dedication to fairness, clarity, and evaluation of arguments. Logical reasoning, evidence-based claims, and effective communication are all taken into consideration.

I am a lay judge - please go in-depth and be respectful

Hi there! My name is Vicki Childs and I am the mom of two LD debaters - one novice and one JV.

I have judged novice LD for two years now. I would ask that debaters keep their own timing, and also, please don't spread - I'm not quite ready for that yet! Please keep debate jargon and theory to a minimum, and finally please be respectful to everyone in the room.

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and a NIETOC final in Informative. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

I am a traditional judge who coached the Marriott's Ridge High School debate team for four years and I now also coach middle school debate. I have judged over 50 tournaments and I have extensive college debating experience. I judge both on value criterions and contention level arguments. I am willing to hear and consider progressive arguments but I do not prefer them. I do not like excessive speed. I prefer quality over quantity.

Info:

He/They

North Kansas City HS, Policy (2018-2022)--Immigration, Arms Sales, CJR, Water

William Jewell College, NPDA/NPTE (2022- )

Call me Trent, please

put me on the email chain -- trentd434@gmail.com

Email title should be Tournament -- Round # -- Aff (School Code) v. Neg (School Code)

TL;DR

I'll flow what you say--do with that what you will.

***None of the preferences written below are strong enough to change the outcome of a debate, but adjusting to these preferences will increase your chances of winning, and most likely raise your speaks.***

tech + truth > tech > truth

Being rude/condescending will most likely lead to docked speaks.

I'll listen to almost any argument as long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, transphobic, etc.

I am cool with speed, but you need to be clear. I'll say "clear" twice and then stop flowing until I can understand you.

Life (probably) has value. Extinction is most likely bad, but I'll hear what you have to say

I'll start at 28/28.5 and go up or down.

Post-round if you want. I don't really care. I should have to defend my decision just as much as you should have to defend your case.

Cool charts

Teams should adapt------------------------------X-Judge should adapt

Policy-------------------------X------K

Tech----------X---------------------Truth

X Counterplans aren't fair---------------------------X----Counterplans are fun

Nothing competes-----------------------X--------Summers 94

Conditionality good--X-----------------------------Conditionality bad

Reasonability----------------------------X---Competing interpretations

Death good is acceptable-----------------X-------------You might just be a bad person

DA

Yes. Da's are good and cool. Not much to say here.

Generic links can be okay as long as you contextualize them.

Turns case args need to be carded.

I have a high threshold for new 1ar arguments and must be able to draw a line.

Evidence comparison matters. It'll make me a lot happier, give you higher speaks, and make my decision cleaner if I don't have to sift through your card doc looking for warrants that you failed to make in the 2nr.

Normal DAs: L > I/L > U > Impact

PTX DAs: U = L > I/L > Impact

CP

Condo debate should be condo is good/bad - not sure there's a "good" number of condo

PICs are generally good.

I'll judge kick if you tell me to.

Read all of the perms but also put them in the speech doc.

Perms aren't advocacies; they are tests of competition, impact out perm theory.

I will listen and vote on all types of CP theory. Just win your arg.

K

I'm probably gonna understand your K--with that said, please don't expect me to know all of the lit of your K--explain it.

You should take the time in CX or a block overview to explain the story of the K. Performance style debate is interesting to me but you will have to explain your framework from the beginning.

Fiating your cap alts is funny and people should do it more.

If you go for pomo/deeper theory, I'll most likely need some explanation.

I default to weigh the aff vs the alt, but I can be easily convinced otherwise "Justify your epistemology and THEN weigh the aff" is my favorite counter-interp.

Reject the aff is not an alt. I'm not interested in voting for a K that has no coherent alternative worldview/path to action.

If you read a K you don't understand I probably wont vote for it

T/Theory

Be topical. Or don't. Just win why your approach is good.

I default to competing interps, unless told otherwise.

I truly believe that conditionality is good.

Trying to sneak in a 5-second ASPEC shell will result in a major speaker point decrease and going for it will warrant new 1AR answers because even if the 2AC drops your theory shell, convincing me to vote on ASPEC will require much more block elaboration that "Interp: spec your actor, ASPEC is a voter for clash and fairness"

Extra-resolutional procedurals are often frivolous and silly and should most likely lose to a predictability/I'm sorry I'll do it next round argument.

Disclosure is infinitely good. Please do it.

Case debate

Teams underestimate the importance of case debate. The neg should put lots on the flow on case.

Impact turns are one of my favorite arguments.

K Affs

The best K-Aff teams beat framework on a) a counter-interp with a strong defense of the resolution under their model or b) a convincing impact turn to neg standards.

I've noticed an increase of K affs without a real "ballots key" argument that should definitely lose to the ballot PIK. That trend is probably not good for y'all without a plan.

Please read the ballot PIK instead of frame subtraction.

You do you. Do what you like, and tell me why I care about it.

I'm sympathetic to framework. Procedural fairness is (probably) an impact.

LD

The closer to policy, the better.

PF

Please. No.

Things not to do

don't. steal. prep.

Don't say anything sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic-90% of the time auto loss, 100% of the time you will get as low speaks as possible

Don't use problematic language--Trigger warnings and alternate cases should be available in applicable cases.

Don't be rude to your opponents/teammate/me/other judges-Everyone has worked unbelievably hard, so you should treat them like it.

Don't refuse disclosure.

Don't be mean -- being an aggressive debater is amazing -- don't step over the line.

Don't shake my hand. Please.

If you have any questions email me :)

Please speak at a normal conversational pace. Be clear on the argument and respectful to your opponent. Enjoy the experience.

wells.finch1020@gmail.com for the email chain

Experience- Debating LD, PF, and CX for six years with a little bit of congress and IEs sprinkled in

I just graduated Mountain Brook High School

Ask me questions after the round bc you likely won't see me again

Progressive stuff-idc just know what you're doing

Tech>truth (you still need decent warrants)

DONT READ A PARAPHRASED CASE

Give an off time road map, something like "neg then aff", not "I'm going to start on my opponents advantage 1 and refute this and that and then go to their advantage 2 and do that and this". That's too long, I'll give low speaks for that

Sign post-if I don't know where you are, I can't flow what you're saying

I'll time you but I'm not going to cut you off. I stop flowing after about ten seconds, but you can talk for as long as you feel like, it'll just be a waste of our time.

Dont be mean in cross

Cross- If it isn't brought up later in round I won't evaluate it

Read a case with cut cards

Speed is fine

Give me weighing in pf especially

Clash is super important

Feel free to text me if you have questions after round or if you think that I should know something before the round.

(205)-517-3521

Ask me anything beforehand if you are confused or have any other questions

If you say anything sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, etc I'll drop you with a 0

TLDR

Rising college freshman, did debate for six years

I know what I'm doing, read whatever you want to

Graduated from CK McClatchy High School in 2020. Currently debate for UC Berkeley. Conflicts: CK McClatchy, West Campus, Harker.

he/him

yes email chain please -- nick.fleming39@gmail.com

I flow straight down on my laptop.

These things suck. Everybody lies and says they are agnostic but in my experience nobody but maybe 10 people really mean it. I am not going to pretend like I don't have preferences and won't internally eye-roll and react negatively to certain arguments, but I will try my absolute hardest to stick to my flow (with the exception of the arguments clearly identified in this paradigm as non-starters).

That in mind, here is my general approach to judging and some preferences:

I was largely a k debater in high school but I am exclusively a policy debater in college. I feel comfortable judging both sides of the spectrum. Regardless of the issue at hand, evidence quality matters a lot to me, and I will read every card mentioned by name in the final rebuttals before making my decision.

I think I care more than other judges about judge instruction. Telling me how to read/understand cards, how to frame warrants, etc. will be taken very seriously when the debate comes to an end. Smart, strategic judge instruction and framing will quickly earn speaker points.

I believe being affirmative is fundamentally easy. Having the case and talking last is a near-insurmountable barrier between evenly matched opponents (on most topics). On those grounds, I err neg on basically all theory. This is significantly more true for policy than LD, but my instinct to resolve theory in favor of the neg will remain strong.

Most of my paradigm is about k debate because I have far less feelings about policy rounds. That is not to say I am not a good judge for them. My favorite debates to judge are big, in-depth policy rounds that are vertically oriented and have lots of good evidence. That being said, I have far less instruction to offer you because those rounds are more straight-forward to evaluate. I will reward smart turns case arguments and clever analytics above a wall of cards in these debates.

Planless affs ---

I generally think that debates are better, more interesting, and more educational when the aff defends a topical plan based on the resolution.

I have been in many of these debates, both answering and going for topicality. My time as a k debater raised my threshold for the aff a bit because I have first hand experience with how easy it can be to beat framework with args that suck. If you are going for an impact turn to T without a counter-interpretation, you should probably win offense against model v model debates.

I like impact turns a lot. I am a good judge for heg/cap good, and a bad judge for affs that don't want to defend anything. In my opinion, if you have taken a radically leftist position and forwarded a structural kritik but are unwilling to debate the most surface level right-wing propaganda, you are both bastardizing the literature and being cowards. I will not be convinced that your indictment of settler colonialism/some other superstructure is conviently okay with whatever the neg has impact turned. Inversely, if you are a k team that is ready to throw down on these questions, I will consider you strong-willed, brave, and smart.

Skills/clash solve the case with a big external, a TVA, and a robust presumption push on case is the quickest way to my heart.

Similarly, presumption pushes against affs that are just built to impact turn T are very persuasive.

I am increasingly persuaded by the fairness paradox.

I am unpersuaded by the trend of affs being topic-adjacent and answering framework with "you could have read x DA." I believe this reflects a fundamental, novice-level misunderstanding of what topicality is.

I don't like offense that hinges on the subject position of your opponent or me as a judge. I also very strongly prefer not to be in charge of your mental health, livelihood, or identity. EDIT 11/21: have received questions about this and would like to clarify -- args about value to life, ressentiment, etc. are totally fine. I don't want be in charge of you as an individual -- meaning your role in the community, your mental health, or your sense of self.

Kritiks -

Neg - I consider myself fairly sufficient in most kritik literature and have researched extensively, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't explain your theory. I don't think its fair of me to just fill in gaps for you (for example, deciding in my own head what it means if you "win the ontology debate.") The best way to win in front of me is to have a unique link that turns the case and beats the aff without framework. If your argument is about you and contains no theory, I am a decidedly bad judge for you.

Aff - Impact turn things. Weigh the aff against the alt for more than just fairness -- see my framework thoughts for the neg above. If you are going soft left against the k that is also fine, but sounding nice and in the direction of whatever your opponents say doesn't tell me why the link doesn't turn the case.

Theory -

I am not very good at judging T debates against policy affs. I like reasonability and precision, and my record is pretty decisively aff, despite not having strong feelings about T. At least an outside chance this means I am simply not doing a very good job evaluating the debates.

Usually theory debates are pretty bad to judge because people just spread through their blocks and don't do line by line. I tend to be lenient with all neg shenanigans.

I largely think if cps compete, they are legit. I can sometimes be convinced otherwise, but if your theory argument is just "this counterplan is bad," I am going to be convinced by neg arbitrariness arguments,

All of that being said, I also think most cheat-ey cps don't compete! So if you're aff, you're not tanked -- you are just better off going for the perm than theory.

Please do not go for condo in front of me. I have no idea why the neg thinking they can kick a counterplan or an alternative is a voting issue -- simply saying conditionality is bad is not sufficient for me to nuke the other team from the debate. I have never participated in or seen a debate between competent opponents in which even the most egregious abuses of conditionality effected the decision. If the neg drops it twice, I guess you have to go for it. I can think of very few circumstances where it is a good idea otherwise. Slightly more sympathetic for LD because of 1AR time pressures, but still will lean heavily neg and will cap speaks at 29 for the aff (assuming perfect debating otherwise --- if you go for condo, you should expect your points to be in the 28-28.5 range.)

Online Debate

If my camera is not on, please assume I am not ready for you to begin speaking.

I would very much appreciate if you could record your speeches in case there are internet issues while you are talking.

Even the clearest debaters tend to be tougher to flow in an online format. I understand that this comes with some strategic cost, but I will reward you with speaks if you go a little slower than usual and make sure to be extra clear.

LD:

Edit 2/11/23

If you do not ask for a marked document in your debate, I will add .1 to your speaker points. Unless your opponent legitimately marked cards, your speaker points will be capped at 29 if you ask for one. Flow better. Asking about what was and wasn't read is CX time. Every time you ask "did you read x" that's minus .1 speaker points.

EDIT 4/10/22: adding this after judging ~120 LD debates:

1. There seem to be issues with clarity plaguing this activity. To try and discourage this, I will do the following things: a.) I will never open your documents during the debate. I will read cards after if you tell me too. b.) I will say clear 5 times, after that, I'm not flowing c.) If, on the other hand, you are clear, I will give way too high of speaks. Some of the best teams in this activity sound great -- its clearly possible to win without being unflowable.

As my record indicates, I overwhelmingly vote neg in LD debates. Usually, this is because the 1AR runs out of time and drops something important, and I feel like my hands are tied on new 2AR args. That in mind -- 1ARs that set up big framing issues, start doing impact calc, and cut out superfluous arguments in favor of barebones substance will be rewarded with speaker points and usually the ballot. Aff teams, the entire activity seems to be stacked against you -- so debate accordingly, and don't waste time on useless stuff like condo.

I am gettable on Nebel/whole rez, but don't usually find it particularly persuasive. Seems counter-intuitive.

Please go easy on the theory -- I get that its a big part of the activity, but if your plan going into the debate is to go for a theory arg, you shouldn't pref me. I am usually going to vote neg.

I am not 100% familiar with all of the LD nomenclature so I may need a little explanation of things like "upward entailment test" and other LD-specific vocab

No RVI's ever under any circumstances

running list of arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

new affs bad

no neg fiat

plan focus allows you to say the n word in debates

my opponent did something outside the round that they should lose for

RVI's

Misc.

- Consider me dead inside -- moralizing and tugging on my heart strings will only earn you negative speaks - debate is not about individual feelings, and I will not consider yours when deciding your round.

- I strongly believe that you should be allowed to insert rehighlightings of evidence that has already been read in the debate if you think it goes the other way/want to add context to an argument. Please do not abuse this by inserting a million rehighlightings, but I will be hard to convince that it is not okay to do so in moderation (especially in the 1AR.)

- Please do not ask me for high speaks -- you lose half a point every time you bring it up

- I will only flow the person who's speech it is (edit: Feel less strongly about this during the 1AC/1NC)

- It is a damning indictment of our community that I even have to say this, but the debate will end immediately if it gets even remotely physical at any point. This includes touching other debaters' property. If this is any way surprising, confusing, or offensive to you, strike me.

- There is nothing more off-putting to me than debaters who take themselves too seriously. Please stop acting like this is anything other than a silly game we all want to win at.

• In that same vein, being rude does not make you cool, funny, or brave. Snarky CX comments, saying mean stuff in speeches, etc. will make me dislike you and actively hope that you lose the debate. If I think you are too rude, I will say something after the round and take pleasure in giving you bad speaks. If it gets to the point where I am saying something to you, you should assume I bombed your speaks. If you are a team that can't make your arguments without being mean to other debaters, strike me.

Public Forum (copied from Greg Achten)

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

As an alum of the NSDA (2008), and a true Lincoln-Douglas debater who's competed at Nationals, I value excellent logic, respect, structure, and philosophy in debate. I flow every round old-school style and am able to handle spreading. If you see me stop writing, it's because you're going too fast and need to focus on being a persuasive public speaker as well as an amazing debater. I love debate, and will be enjoying every minute of your argumentation, rebuttal, and cross-examination, so know that I respect the work debaters put in ahead of time to prepare, and the nerve it takes to do this event.

I'll be flowing arguments the way you present them. I'll carry arguments across when you ask me to, and I won't flow it if you don't say it. Values are a big deal to me, so I'm always hoping they feature prominently in final arguments. This is the defining feature of LD debate, and I believe talking about values ought to be a bigger part of how we interact with each other as humans.

I'm a first time judge, and I will do my best to provide constructive feedback and praise. 

Some things I look for:

Clarity. Do not assume I know anything. Speak with intention to build your points.

Preparation. There is no substitute for quality research. Being prepared with facts, evidence and citations that support your analysis and logic goes a long way toward being convincing. Also, use the time given to actively listen and construct your rebuttals.

Respect. Active listening, speaking at a reasonable pace and engaging the judges and your opponent in a respective way to bring out the most discovery and collaboration in the debate is a skill worth mastering.

Most of all: have fun and let's enjoy this experience.

Hello! I'm a graduated Speech and Debate Student, and former captain of my high school varsity team.. I'm well versed in the LD format [and really love progressive debate] and have qualified at the district level (for NSDA) on numerous occasions. I am the state runner-up for two years and state champion once for Big Questions style Debate in the Arkansas circuit. I've competed in several national tournaments and placed with both high speaks, and high placement. In other words, I understand the rules of these styles of debate. Do not assume that I don't, and I will vote people down who break rules.

Under no circumstances will I accept; false evidence, discriminatory evidence, and unnecessary profanity (if you're quoting something, you're fine, any other time and I'm tanking your speaker points).

On my judging habits, I'm a Tech over Truth most of the time. In other words, I'm willing to vote for the opposing side if you drop points. All you have to do is impact weight. That being said, if I believe something does outweigh and it was never directly mentioned in the round by either side, I'm still willing to vote on it. VERY IMPORTANT - I will always vote truth over tech for junior varsity unless I have a very good reason not to (i.e. dropping an entire case).

In terms of argumentation, there is a couple of things to avoid. The biggest one for me is overused impacts. I'm not a big fan of a super long linkage to nuclear war or climate change = extinction. However, something I absolutely love is super unique or nitpicky arguments. If you want to run it, go ahead. I prefer Traditional style debate, but I'm willing to listen to Progressive style IF YOUR OPPONENT IS! If the opponent says no, I will judge the round like a traditional judge. I can flow spread, but warn me if you're going to.

NEW FOR NSDA NATIONALS 2024 -

Congratulations on qualifying for NSDA Nationals! These tournaments are some of the best you'll ever compete at, and getting here is a sign of a mature and wonderful debater. Couple of things to consider here at NSDA. One, progressive styles of debate are frowned upon in this circuit. I'm willing to listen to it, but other judges might not want to. Two, I am human, just like you. I understand this tournament is the biggest event of the year, but my decisions are based on what I hear in a round, not what you hear. Three, offensive language of any kind is unacceptable at a tournament of this caliber. You will automatically lose if you commit verbal attacks against your opponent, use racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. language, and most importantly, you will automatically lose if any evidence is fabricated or made up. I have no leniency at Nationals. Use Speechdrop for cases. If you don't know what it is, look it up.

For all LD competitors -

I understand that some of you come from progressive circuits. I know how to flow it, and I would love to hear it. However, please remember that at a lay circuit like this, it's not wise to read this stuff if your opponent is unfamiliar with it. Because of this, there are a couple of things I refuse to vote on within rounds here at Nationals. One, I will never vote on disclosure theory here. It is unfair to assume all schools know or have access to the NDCA Wiki, especially when this isn't a qualifying tournament. You immediately lose any interp under that T-shell because I have no reason to believe it's uniquely important at a tournament where everyone is equally skilled. Secondly, I do not tolerate any identity cases or contentions if the identity is not yours. There's no reason why you should read something like African-American identity K's if you're not African American. I won't vote you down for reading it, but it will be nearly impossible for it to be a voter for me. Finally, please remember that I uniquely understand the rules. It's my responsibility as a judge to vote according to the NSDA unified manual. Any violation of these rules will be noted in RFD and personal feedback. Rule violations are also a voter for me, so if you notice it, call it out. I try not to vote on rule violations that haven't been mentioned, with the exception of abusive rule violations (i.e. new arguments after rebuttals). If you drop something after rebuttal, you don't get to talk about it for the rest of the round. Extend your arguments if you want me to vote for you. Good luck!

Good luck, and if you have any questions after the round is over, feel free to ask me, or email me at hicksremington94@gmail.com. For my LD peeps out there, start an email chain before the round, and you'll start off on 28 speaks.

P.S.

Ask me about three kobolds in a trenchcoat before the round starts. VERY IMPORTANT.

I'm an incoming high school senior with two years of LD experience, along with three years of Congress and Forensics. Please add me to the email chain: khildebrandt@new.rr.com

TLDR: I'm fine with any arguments as long as they aren't offensive. Please offer a warning for anything that could be triggering. Please treat each other with respect and have fun. If you have any questions before the round, please ask.

LD (or PF or Policy):I'm okay with speed, but the faster you go, the more likely I will miss things you say, so use speed with caution. If you are going to spread, please share cases. I'm most familiar with lay debate, although I can judge Ks, counter plans, theory, etc. If you run dense arguments like complex philosophy or kritiks, I'm likely to not understand them. I don't vote on tricks unless both sides are running them. Tech over truth, though you need warrants for your arguments. Theory is evaluated first and then framework, so please spend time weighing under your framework. Please please do voters! I will rarely connect the dots for you. When you extend, explain what you are extending. Try to avoid power tagging. Finally, signposting helps everyone in the round.

Congress: I've competed on the national circuit, so I am not a parent judge. Congress is a debate category, so please interact with the other competitors as such. That means: Try to trap your opponents in cross (but don't talk over each other because then you both look bad). In your speeches, please interact with other representatives' arguments. Also, impact out your arguments.

Speech categories: Feel free to get theatrical. I generally value content more than delivery. I like creative hooks, analogies, and transitions as long as they make sense. Be confident.

Personal Background

As of Feb. 2023, I have competed/judged speech for 5 years and judged debate for around 3.5 years. I also participated in theatre/musical theatre and MUN in high school.

Speech

I can always give time signals and will usually ask if you would like any if I forget to, please feel free to ask for them

Generally anything goes, I never really expect you to make any significant change in speech based on a judge’s preferences.

That being said for interp my ballots often end up being highly technical(Pantomime inconsistencies, vocal inflection at key moments, etc.) as I want to give you as much actionable feedback in my comments as possible, however the ranks may not seem to match as often the more non actionable reasons of the RFD supersedes in importance for my decision.

For platform/limited prep I generally want to see some physical organization that mirrors your speech organization(walks to separate points, etc.).

Debate

• I keep time and I expect you to keep time for both yourselves and your opponents, keep everyone honest

• for speeches I generally give ~2-3 seconds of grace to finish a sentence unless in a panel, do not abuse this privilege

• Spreading is fine as long as articulation is good, although scale back some for PF such that a lay judge can fully comprehend your arguments(whatever that looks like for you)

• If a format has Cross, I generally want to see you do something more than just clarifying questions, ex. Like probing for weaknesses that will be expanded on in your next speech

• Fully realizing your impacts is very important especially in the final 1-2 speeches even if some repetition is required

• Unless instructed otherwise, feel free to run almost anything at your discretion Ks, Aff-Ks, Plans, Theory, etc.

• That being said your links need to be strong for me to vote for it

• Specifically for Ks, I often want to see a R.O.B argument to give me a reason to vote for you in the round even if I do buy the K

• Specifically for Theory, the communication of what the theory argues/shows needs to be clear

• Unless you can explain one of the above to a Lay judge with ease I would advise against running the above in PF

• At the end of the debate I will often give verbal feedback (exceptions being if a tournament runs on a tight schedule with flights, I have been double booked in the speech and debate pool and need to make it to a round, the tournament is running far behind, or I am instructed not to do so), after this verbal feedback I may if I have a clear winner(unless instructed otherwise), otherwise I will not

What's up, I'm Grant, 6'2, 185 lbs, I like long walks on the beach and late nights out ;)

About me:

I'm from Lincoln, Nebraska where I just graduated in 2024. I started debating as a freshman in Lincoln-Douglas Debate until in the middle of my sophomore year I decided to switch over to Congressional Debate(Congress is a debate event) and in my senior year I was the highest ranked PO in the state. I was ranked 4th Place at the Nebraska State Tournament and that year I qualified for Nationals (In state tournament and national qualifiers I only PO-ed).

LD:

I'm a very "traditional" judge. I ended up quitting LD in high school because I have a hard time following Ks and Theory and all that crazy stuff but I won't drop you just for running a K or Theory, as long as you are showing a clear link from your points to your topic and I can understand it. I can usually follow along decently with spreading, however, if your opponent calls speed (or asks you to slow down) and you don't slow down, I will drop you. Debate needs to be as inclusive as possible and if someone is unable to understand what you say, they can't make any arguments against what you are saying. Please give Trigger-Warnings when you even just mention something that could be a traumatic situation. This isn't for me, this is simply out of respect for your peers so that they aren't made to feel uncomfortable during your speech. If you give the greatest speech the world has ever heard, but you talk about how Sally Anne got murdered by her abusive Ex-Husband without letting us know before-hand or making sure that we are aware that sensitive topics will be brought up, I'm still going to rank you lower because it's disrespectful to the other competitors.

Congress:

I did Congressional Debate for 2.5 years in high school until I graduated. I went to the 2024 NSDA National Tournament and ranked 4th in my state I did a lot of PO-ing my senior year so I always make sure to rank POs highly. Make sure you are backing up your claims with either evidence or basic logical reasoning. Clash is what keeps congress a debate event, not a speech event. I think eye contact with your fellow representatives is important. You aren't there to convince me, you're there to convince them to vote on your side, I'm just there to grade how well you present yourself as well as how well you convince your peers. Please give Trigger-Warnings when you even just mention something that could be a traumatic situation. This isn't for me, this is simply out of respect for your peers so that they aren't made to feel uncomfortable during your speech. If you give the greatest speech the world has ever heard, but you talk about how Sally Anne got murdered by her abusive Ex-Husband without letting us know before-hand or making sure that we are aware that sensitive topics will be brought up, I'm still going to rank you lower because it's disrespectful to the other competitors.

I think that's all I have. If you need to contact me for any reason, I'll add my email, but just be aware I don't check it too often.

Email: grantjungers@gmail.com

Thanks! :)

Background

I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.

General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)

Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:

1. Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
2. Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
3. Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
4. Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
5. Defense is not sticky in PF. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

General Debate Philosophy

I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.

Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of the world beyond debate will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Regarding speaker points:

I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 20 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."

Do not yell at your opponent(s) in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.

Structure/Organization:

Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.

Framework (FW):

In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.

In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.

Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Regarding the decision (RFD):

I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their debate.

A few exceptions to this rule:

• Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
• Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack/defense didn't happen. It will not go your way.
• Regarding links/internal links: I need things to just make sense. Make sure things are decently connected. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What is happening?” then you have lost me. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.

I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.

Regarding Progressive: I'm not an expert on this. I am a content debate traditionalist who has through necessity picked up some things over time when it comes to progressive tech.

A) On Ks: As long as it's well structured and it's clear to me why I need to prioritize it over case, then I'm good. If not, then I'll judge on case.

B) On CPs: Don't run them in PF. Try not to run them in LD.

C) On theory: I have no idea how to judge this. Don't bother running it on me; I will simply ignore it.

Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework and weighing. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.

Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.

SPEED:

I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.

Irrational Paradigm

This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.

1. No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

I have coached several styles of Debate for two years now (mostly Congressional, LD, and PF). During a debate round, I will favor a debater(s) who is courteous/respectful, who presents organized and easy-to-follow arguments, and who gives clear/reliable/robust evidence to support those arguments. I don't mind spreading, but I prefer when debater(s) speak at a speed in which you can still fully understand every word they are saying. To win my ballot, please bring fully prepared arguments to the table and treat your opponents as you would like to be treated.

Parent Judge

Please be respectful to opponents and the judge.

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

Please don't run theory or abusive arguments.

Off-time roadmap and summarizing is always appreciated!

Please send full docs to danielkuold@gmail.com for the 1AC and 1NC, and be clear for the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR

Traditional judge - Ask me in round.

Parent judge with limited debate experience. I appreciate crystallization and a more conversational paced speaking style. I appreciate it when I feel like a debater is speaking to me instead of at me. Thank you.

If you feel like sending me your case, I would love to follow along as you read it. If not, no worries.

My email is: Sandra.LeTruong@gmail.com

I was a junior during the 23-24 school year. I competed in LD, World Schools, and Extemp during the duration of this competitive year. LD was my main event.

Too long didn't read:

The main thing I care about is that you keep your arguments topical, though your opponent does need to point un-topicality out for me to care about it. You should also maintain a somewhat slower speed.

Speed:

I am not yet comfortable with speed, and this is an NSDA tournament so I'm assuming that you'll all be anticipating a somewhat slower delivery speed. In short: don't go too fast, make sure to speak clearly.

Disclosure:

Middle School Nats forbids disclosing results, so I will not disclose results.

Flowing:

I will be flowing on a laptop.

Theory:

It is unlikely that I will vote for theory if it isn't topical, we're debating the resolution, not the consequences of my ballot. That being said, if you drop theory or do not properly respond to it I will not do the work for you, and your opponent will likely gain the underlying voters. If someone points out why your arguments aren't topical, I won't vote for them.

Progressive Arguments:

I am not that familiar with a lot of progressive argumentation strategies, but if you explain things in a topical and digestible manner I'm open minded.

FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL NATS! IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT SOMETHING MEANS IN THIS PARADIGM THATS OK YOUR OPPONENT PROBABLY DOESNT EITHER!!!! JUST ASK ME BEFORE THE ROUND STARTS!

Hi, I'm Aidan (he/they). Send a doc for your constructives and new cards and stuff, EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT SPREADING. It makes things easier to follow and sometimes I reference things in rfds:aidan.lishner@gmail.com

WI LDer since 2021, pretty high up there in state rankings and I've done decent at some nat circuit tournaments.

TL;DR

Tech>truth every day of the week. I will vote on pretty much anything that isn't sexist, homophobic, racist, etc. (you know, the usual). Please don't run a race or queer K or anything like that if you're not part of that group. I won't immediately drop you but if your opponent calls you out and provides voters, I'm very likely to buy and vote on that. Speed is fine, make sure you send a doc. If you're gonna go fast during rebuttals, send analytics and/or slow down somewhat.

Quick prefs:

LARP/Trad/Lay: 1

Topical Ks: 1

CPs/Plans: 2

PICS: 2

Heavy phil: 3

Nontopical Ks: 3

Theory: 3*

Tricks: strike me because i'm not going to pick them up and if somehow you get me as a judge whilst running tricks, don't get mad when I drop them.

* see the detailed section below for theory

Category-specific details

LARP/Trad/Lay:

Super comfortable with this. WI circuit is very much a traditional circuit and I can handle anything you throw at me, so run whatever you'd like. If you're gonna run a goofy link chain leading to nuke war or some other giant impact, make sure it makes sense. My biggest pet peeve is when people start with a seemingly normal link chain (e.g. the plan does this, that causes instability) and then BAM nuke war!! That being said, if your link chain makes sense, and you explain it well, I'll pick it up. When it comes to those giant impacts, global warming is probably the most realistic and probable, so take that as you will.

Other things you want to run are totally fine as well. I love a good structural violence vs. util debate or even struct vio vs. struct vio. If you're running something that doesn't have tangible impacts, you better explain it well and how it holds up against your opponent's offense. Otherwise, go crazy with trad, I love it!!

Topical Ks/K affs:

I'm familiar with these too. Links to the rez/aff cas must be good. If they don't make sense, you don't have a case. You should have a framework of some sort, especially a role of the ballot. Alternatives need to make sense and provide a clear way you solve for the issue you're presenting in round. Other than that I'm pretty open to anything you throw at me. Don't run a K for a group you don't belong to.

CPs/Plans:

The biggest issue with these is that half the time they're not competitive. I need to see why your plan is mutually exclusive from the other side, especially if you're on neg, because if it's not competitive you leave yourself open to an easy perm. Do a good job explaining why I should prefer your plan, and make sure you're weighing just like you would with any other type of case. I don't really like super specific plans because I think they tend to be a bit abusive but I'll vote on them, especially if you do a good job explaining it and why it's better than the other side's plan.

PICS:

Most of the stuff for CPs/Plans applies here. If anything, spend extra time explaining your case. If it's a super weird or hyper-specific topic I need to see why your PIC stands and how it functions within the round. Provide clear voters always.

Heavy phil:

I can handle complex phil if you do a good job explaining it. If your opponent is confused, chances are I am too. The biggest problem I have with dense phil is that debaters tend to forget about case-level stuff. If you have a great framework and 50 warrants for why your framework is better, that's great. But I also need to see why your framework matters. Convince me with evidence about the topic that your framework applies the best to the arguments provided in the round.

Also, specific to phil stuff: If your opponent asks you what you're running in cross and you are unable to provide a clear answer, I'm going to take that as a sign you don't understand your case. You should be able to defend and clarify everything about your framework if you're going to run a case centered around it.

Nontopical Ks:

I need to see what the link is. If the links are unclear (much like with a normal K!), I'm not going to buy the impacts that result. I want to see some sort of framework, whether it's a standard or a ROTB. Honestly a lot of the stuff with the topical K section applies here too. MAKE SURE YOUR SOLVENCY ACTUALLY SOLVES!!!! If you're going to talk about something that isn't related to the topic, then I need to know why I should prefer it and how you know it's going to work if I'm going to vote on it. I tend to dislike nontopical Ks that are full of jargon and big words because I often find that debaters use that to confuse their opponent. Again, if you're not able to easily and clearly explain your arguments in simple terms, that's going to make your position look less credible.

*Theory:

I'm fine with theory. If there's actual in-round abuse, I'll vote on it. Provide clear warrants and a good standard. Don't automatically go for "drop the debater" unless there's a really big issue and you feel like you are genuinely being abused.

I HATE DISCLOSURE THEORY. But, I will vote on it. There are a couple of conditions, though. I have the ability to look at records on Tabroom. I will know if you are a more experienced debater running disclosure against a novice or even a varsity debater from a traditional circuit. I will not buy your theory if that's the case. If you really think you deserve to win, then prove to me through actual skill in debate that you deserve to win. Don't jump immediately to a theory shell that you know your opponent won't be able to respond to. That being said, if you're a less experienced debater and/or your opponent is running something super complex and weird and they didn't disclose and it's obvious you have absolutely no clue what to say, I'm more likely to buy your disclosure theory. If debaters are around the same skill level, then I prefer that you just have a normal debate because honestly, disclosure theory sucks. Don't run it if you know you're going to kick it and use it as a time suck.

ANTI-PROG THEORY IS STUPID. This is probably the dumbest thing ever. I've seen theory shells that are like, "Debaters should not run prog arguments against less experienced debaters" and I roll my eyes inwardly every time. Theory is one of the most progressive arguments in debate. If you don't want your opponent to run a progressive argument because you're claiming you don't understand prog, don't run a super progressive argument like theory. That just makes you look hypocritical. Granted, if your opponent fails to respond to it, I'll probably vote for your theory, but it's a high threshold.

ANTI-SPREADING THEORY. Meh. Run it if you genuinely can't handle spreading. Again, I can tell if you're actually experiencing issues and I'll use context clues to help my decision. If you're running this because your opponent is incomprehensible, at least try to respond to something they said on top of the theory. Even if it's just extending your case, it gives an extra layer of defense that might hold up if your theory doesn't. Also, feel free to call "SLOW" or "CLEAR" if you need to - if your opponent doesn't do either of those things then that's a clear voter and warrant for anti-spreading theory. Don't respond to anti-spreading theory with the response, "This is a bid tournament, I should be able to spread at a bid tournament to win!!" I won't buy that argument, because if you're really going for a bid you should be able to win without making the round inaccessible for your opponent.

FRIVOLOUS THEORY. It's really funny. I probably won't completely drop a debater for it unless their response is really bad. Don't say, "Oh, this is friv theory, so you should drop it because it's stupid." That's NOT a response. Provide a counter interp and warrants and a standard. If you fail to do those things, you will lose the theory debate. My bar for novices, JV kids, or traditional debaters is much easier to reach when it comes to friv theory because they're not used to it. Run it at your own risk. If the entire debate devolves to a really stupid and funny theory debate about why disclosing Fortnite records is or isn't good for debate, that's probably the best case scenario I see for friv theory debates and I will likely give both debaters good speaker points.

Tricks:

Save them for Halloween. They're annoying. Don't run them. I probably won't pick up on them and that means I won't vote on them.

Speaker Points

I will try to give out generally good speaks to maximize your chances of winning a tiebreak or something to get to elim rounds. My system for awarding speaker points depends entirely on things you do in the round to increase or decrease your score, so if you want really good speaks, then you need to do the work to deserve them.

I'll start at 28. Good things will boost your speaks by +0.1 to an entire point. This includes but is not limited to: using all of your speech time, clear enunciation, being respectful to your opponent, preemptively marking what you didn't read after your speech, not yelling (loud projection is fine. don't scream), organization of your speeches, and asking for pronouns before the round starts. In short, good strategic choices and being a good person are going to give you better speaks. I will give you +0.1 speaks if you put your case in Comic Sans because [a] it's an accessible font, [b] it's funny, and [c] it shows you read my paradigm.

Bad things that I don't like that will dock your score include but are not limited to: being mean to your opponent (even if they're being mean back, showing that you're more mature is going to make me like you more), mumbling when you're talking/bad enunciation and clarity, yelling, and swearing in round (a couple of cusses are fine but don't sprinkle an F-bomb into every sentence).

If you ask me to disclose speaks after the round I will not be happy. I won't dock your speaks but it's kind of cringy. As long as you do a good job with the above, you'll likely get somewhere between a 28.5 and a 29.5. I will disclose speaks if I have them decided but if I don't, that's a you issue.

30s are rare. Don't expect them. That being said, do everything you can to get a 30! It's a flex! And if I feel that you really deserve that score, then I will give you a 30!

General stuff:

My dog is named Wally. He's a pug. If I'm judging you online, feel free to ask to see him and I'll see if I can find him and show you.

Debate is primarily a communicative activity. It's also really fun if you have an open mind. It's ok to feel upset with a loss but remember, just seeing an L doesn't mean that you got absolutely steamrolled. Good debates boil down to a couple of key points and margins for winning are VERY close, so don't feel bad if I don't give you the W.

I will give some verbal RFD and provide a detailed written RFD. Unless a debater doesn't want me to disclose my decision or tournament rules prohibit that, I will always disclose who won and who lost.

Have fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Waste more weekends away from your family in debate please!!!!!!!!!!!!

Welcome to the wonderful page of the Renee!

For debate, the main things I look for is how well you back up your arguments with evidence. The evidence should support your central line of reasoning well and should be factually true and usually pretty recently dated, depending on your debate format. I can give more things I look for before round if need be. Also, be respectful to opponents :)

For unprepped speeches, I look for structure, creative plots/ideas/evidence, and good analysis of why your evidence connects to your points and why your topic matters. There should always be a main theme to your speech.

For prepped speeches, I look for a fluid, well-delivered speech that addresses interesting ideas. Usage of pauses, dramatic effect, facial expressions, tone, etc. are things that I typically look for.

Feel free to ask me any questions about these before/during round(not during a speech)! Please ask me if you have any doubts! I'm mostly a chill judge, but still am reasonable. Good luck to all of you!

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien-st. lucy's: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ harker: fall 2024 - present

--

Recently rewritten paradigm, probably best to give it a quick skim!

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am good for policy teams that do topic research and aim to not go for process cp backfiles every 2nr. I am also good for k teams that do topic research and answer the aff and go for 2nr arguments that are substantive (not "role of the ballot"). I am bad for ld teams that go for ld-specific things ("tricks"), but am good for ld teams that are well-researched and read policy or k arguments.

More LD-specific notes/thoughts at bottom of paradigm.

--

Topic Knowledge:

I don't teach at a policy camp in the summer. I am involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research, and have vaguely kept up with the camp evidence updates. Most of my early-season topic knowledge is a result of hearing Chris yap at me about how he has a law degree in this field. So, consider my topic knowledge to be a less-smart version of Chris. Will update this section of the paradigm if/when that changes. Independent of this, I am generally a bad judge for arguments that rely on understanding of or alignment with community-developed norms -- I don't form my topicality opinions in July and then become immovable on them for the remainder of the season.

--

email chains:

ld email chains: nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

please include an adult (your coach, chaperone, or even parent) on the email chain if you are emailing me directly -- just a good safety norm to not have direct communications between minors & adults that don't know them!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am aggressively pro-disclosure. Disclosure is one of the elements of debate that is most important for small-school and novice accessibility. If you do not disclose, I will assume that you prefer the exclusionary system where only big schools have access, and I will punish your speaker points accordingly. I am so aggressive about enforcing disclosure with all teams (big and small school) because I believe in the mission of the open evidence project and other similar open source disclosure practices. tldr disclose or lose!

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

--

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

--

Planless affs:

I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.

You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

--

T/framework vs planless affs:

In a 100% evenly debated round, I am likely better for the neg than the aff. However, approximately none of these debates are evenly debated. Either team/side can win my ballot by doing the better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:

The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good in this instance or in general. I have historically voted against aff teams that made arguments along the lines of "vote for me or I'll quit debate."

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

--

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

--

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

--

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

--

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about theory other than that some amount of condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

No judge kick. Make a choice!

--

LD-specific section:

-you might think of cx judges in ld as people who despise judging ld and despise you for doing ld. i try to not let this be true about me. all of my issues with ld can be grouped into two general categories: 1) speech times/structure (not your fault, won't penalize you for it), and 2) the tendency to read unwarranted nonsense, such as "tricks," shoes theory, etc (you can avoid reading these args very easily and make me very happy)

-i am a horrid judge for tricks and frivolous theory. please just go for another argument!

-i am okay for phil. i don't have any personal opposition to philosophy-based arguments, i just don't coach/judge these arguments often, so i will need more explanation/hand-holding. many phil debates recently have involved tricks, which has soured me on this argumentative style, but i would be happy to judge a straight-up phil debate:)

-you don't get 1ar add-ons -- there is no 2ac in ld

-i teach at ld camp every summer, so assume i have some idea of community norms, but don't assume i am following trends super closely

--

Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational

-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc

-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument

-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such

-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc

-a debater's moral character is determined by whether they read policy or k arguments

-evidence ethics should be a case neg, as opposed to an opportunity for reasonable preround discussion and an opportunity to correct mistakes

-"tricks"

-debaters get to make arguments about how many speaker points they should get

-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist

-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar

-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter

--

Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:

-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic

-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies

-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate

-"role of the ballot"

-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate

-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr

-the affirmative may not read a plan because of "bare plurals"

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

My paradigm is very simple. I want to hear your points, I don’t want you to spread. Simple as that.

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

Hello, I am Nicholas Mento and I am from William Tennent High School. I've done mostly LD, BQ, IX, USX.

My Rules:

Use your phones to time

Rebuttals: Should address the opponent's case or argument directly

I do not prefer or typically vote for counter plans, I prefer to argue the resolution.

Off-time roadmaps are allowed before rebuttal speeches but keep them very brief.

Cross X: Please state the questions clearly and try not to stall too much or repeatedly ask for questions to be restated. I value the Cross X

Speed Talking/Spreading: If you want to talk fast, that's fine

Any questions please let me know and if you have any questions please ask before the round.

Also, please please give voting points in your last speeches those crystallisations are huge.

Good Luck!

Nicholas Mento

LD: I LOVE FRAMEWORK!!!

All debate:

tech (in terms of tech/truth, i believe the term 'truth judging' is actual nonsense). this means i evaluate everything unless tab forces me not to (violent behavior or arguments that have been explicitly highlighted by tab to stop for are them 'forcing me')---anything else is NOT tech

if something tab says is bad happens, i stop the round. if you think something bad enough has happened or that i missed it, stop the round and point it out to me. tab will still decide lol. if tab refuses to decide, the team that stops loses and ill give speaks based on the number of speeches given.

some people say 'im tech because dropped arguments are true' and then say 'but an argument is ONLY a claim and a warrant.' this is nonsense. in semantics we have propositions, and both the 'claim' and the 'warrant' are propositions. the warrant is a proposition that is purported to justify the claim, but that warrant also seems to require further justification. thus if we mandate warrants we must either 'warrant down' propositions until a self-evident truth appears (something i can look at and establish as unequivocally true), or pick an arbitrary point to stop. this means there are three models of debate here. i call them: constructivism (all propositions are assumed to be true), arbitrary nonsense (requiring X amount of 'warrants down'), or destructivism (propositions must be proven absolutely true). i think destructivism is impossible for two reasons. A. self-evident truth doesn't exist; B. even if it does, there's not enough of it to establish all of the claims we need for modern debate. arbitrary nonsense is very bad for infinitely many reasons, but we should isolate a few. i think it is formally incoherent in that whatever number of "warrants down" required should also apply the bottom of the warrant chain, thus invalidating any chain of logic. i also think that it is arbitrary in that like, saying "you only need to justify the proposition one level down" (which is the most common view) is no different than saying "i need three levels down." this also doesn't solve the problem of warrantless claims, because any proposition can be purported to be a justification for another i.e. "you should vote aff because pigs are green."

^ in this model, spamming arguments like "you should vote neg because [something that does not imply the first proposition]" is answered by "group the vote neg arguments---their warrants don't logically imply that you should vote neg, but our arguments do." alternatively, i think "go to the vote neg stuff. group these---warrantless" also answers it well enough.

dropped propositions are true

^ the only exception to this model is unjustified 'new' propositions made in the 2AR---these get excluded because the negative does not have an opportunity to respond

i think a proposition is 'new' when it appears in a speech and has not appeared in any prior speech. i do not, by default, exclude new propositions in any speech except the 2AR without justification for why i should---HOWEVER, i think justifying this past the 1NR is so easy you should basically never lose.

i think new propositions are justified whenever they contradict or qualify a new proposition made by the opponent in the prior speech. that includes claims they make about your stuff.

when writing the ballot, i only evaluate propositions that are in the final rebuttals.

some people say they have 'defaults' when they judge a debate. this is not full tech judging, because it includes a certain bias (though minor and forgivable). default enjoyers might object to me and argue that in a DA vs case debate, neither side establishes util as a reason to vote either way---thus, defaultless judges should have no way to vote.

to resolve this, i believe that debaters can make 'implied propositions'---for example, the proposition 'you should vote aff because our plan prevents 500 people from dying" implies that i should vote aff if the plan prevents people from dying. the proposition "you should actually vote neg because the plan causes 1000 people to die" forwards that instead, i should vote aff if the planNET prevents people from dying. the affirmative has two responses to this: agree to this weighing and contest the death count, or contest the weighing. most affirmatives agree to the weighing, and thus my 'default' has been establishes. these things tend to work themselves out in real debates.

'dropped' propositions occur when a speech articulates them, and then by the next speech of that same side, the opponent has articulated no proposition that contradicts or qualifies those propositions.

0% risk of a proposition being true is only possible if the claim that it is untrue is dropped. 100% risk of a proposition being true is only possible if the claim that it is true is dropped. so long as there is a proposition that contradicts or qualifies a proposition (even if one of them is MUCH stronger: i.e. "nuclear war causes extinction by creating ash clouds that drop global food supply which causes a cycle of further nuclear escalation until all food is gone and everybody is dead" vs "no it doesn't because uhhh... i forgor"---the nuclear war = extinction enjoyed has about a 99.99999% risk of their proposition here, but not 100%), it will never be 100% true.

evidence hasNO special status to me as a judge unless tab forces me to give it special consideration (ev ethics) or you say i should somehow. i think that in a model where both teams send evidence without debating about it, citations are inserted, analytic arguments that increase the veracity of the paragraphs under them (your author quals, date, etc make your propositions more credible!). however, i don't think there's any reason that debaters can't just paste an author's words as an analytic--you could read a 1AC stripped of all citations and i would just eval it as if its propositions are slightly less credible. sidenote: i do not actually weigh the propositions under ev as being truer unless brought up, or unless im told to look at them as inserted stuff, ie "our ev is from two days ago," or "look at this author's quals---we're right." the other team can contest this.

a ballot is justified by claiming that i should vote aff or neg (sometimes this is implied)

X% risk i should vote AFF implies (100-X)% risk i should vote NEG

if it is 50% for both, this state is equivalent to both sides being silent (neither justifying anything), in that case i vote NEG because i expected the AFF to justify something first

if a ballot has not been justified for either side by the end of the round, i vote NEG. this is not because of a 'resolutional burden of proof,' but because the affirmative speaks first and thus i expected them to say something before i expected the negative to. rounds, where both teams sit down immediately instead of speaking and forgo cross-examination, are good examples of this, as are rounds where the affirmative gets up and gently speculates about the dearest emotions of colors without saying that this is a reason to affirm. i think this is an important distinction. ill construct some model rounds below after clarifications

Round #1

1AC: Red is an angry color.

1NC: Silence

2AC: Red is an angry color.

2NC: Silence

1NR: Silence

1AR: Red is an angry color.

2NR: Silence

2AR: Red is an angry color.

Ballot: Neg.

Round #2

1AC: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

1NC: Silence

2AC: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

2NC: Silence

1NR: Silence

1AR: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

2NR: Silence

2AR: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

Ballot: Aff.

Round #3

(You get the idea.)

AFF: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

NEG: Silly! Voting AFF doesn't follow from that.

Ballot: Aff.(Why?: AFF has articulated the proposition that I should vote AFF because red is an angry color. The NEG points out that this justification doesn't imply that I should vote AFF. However, the NEG never articulates why I should vote NEG, and the AFF continues to argue that red being an angry color means I should vote AFF. This means I believe that there is a very low risk the AFF proposition is true, and a very high risk the NEG proposition is true. Because there is a very TINY reason to vote AFF, and no reason not to, I vote AFF.)

Round #4

AFF: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

NEG: Blue is a sad color so you should vote NEG.

Ballot: Neg.(Why?: This debate is the type that drives me insane. Because the risk that I should vote for either side is equal, I vote NEG because nothing has been justified and I expected something from the AFF first.)

Round #5

AFF: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

NEG: Silly! Voting AFF doesn't follow from that. Blue is a sad color so you should vote NEG.

Ballot: Neg.(Why?: The likelihood that I should vote AFF is mitigated by the NEG proposition that it doesn't follow from red being an angry color. The likelihood that I should vote NEG is unmitigated.}

Round #6

1AC: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

NEG: Silly! Voting AFF doesn't follow from that. Blue is a sad color so you should vote NEG.

Subsequent AFF: Silly! Voting NEG doesn't follow from that. Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

Ballot: Neg.(Why?: This is equivalent to Round #4 risk-wise, which triggers a NEG ballot.)

debatable things

debate seems to make the most sense whenever affirmative teams justify the resolution's truth. the resolution is an ambiguous proposition and topical plans are examples of that proposition alone.

Extra-T: i do not believe that extra-T is a relevant remark personally. consider:

X = The resolution should occur.

Y = Some certain extra-topical action is occurring.

In the case where the extra-topical action is the difference between winning or losing substantively (the only case that matters), the logic can be constructed as:

If Y, then X.

However, Y is not true because the extra-topical action is not occurring. Thus, the only relevant deciding factor of the substantive debate ought to be the topical portion of the plan. if the negative doesn't make this argument, I'll eval it. i have not seen a good response to it though. i guess you could say "ignore logical implications because it's... [X procedural benefit]" but i think the neg arg that this nukes all debate forever is strong.

kaff: i am very bad in these debates because i think that (and i may just be stupid) debaters rarely set up a clear 'win condition' for me to evaluate, so i end up kind of screwed. i think if you are a kritikal affirmative you should be very explicit "we win if we prove that X is good..." etc

avg speaks is 28.5 or 3 in oklahoma

Oklahoma speaks guide:

1 - you were not only a bad debater, but your behavior in this round particularly irked me

2 - bad debating

3 - fine debating

4 - good debating

i think trufanov's ontology of debate arguments is important, but slightly incorrect in places.

the plan is a 'mandate'---something that must always occur in the world the aff weighs. the most likely occurrences surrounding the plan are 'normal means.' CPs must compete by having a net benefit predicated on the exclusion of some mandate in the plan. DAs, on the other hand, can link only to normal means functions of the AFF, but the probability of that normal means function would mitigate those DAs.

positionality is a bad model, planicality is alright, resolutionality is prob true

CPs: textual comp is incoherent, truf is probably right that functions like not doing whatever is implied in an "only if" CP are extractable for perms

CPs IMO do not rejoin the plan. this view has multiple justifications but is much too complex to articulate here. going for this arg in front of me is honestly likely to persuade me if you debate it well technically and i wont reject it. i have not yet seen a good answer to it.

Ks: non-FW Ks lose to affs that know how impacts and weighing works (there is NO WAY the rev happens fast enough to solve the 'root cause' of imminent Iranian escalation). FW Ks i THINK lose to FW when evenly debated. im not 100% sure. good K debaters are better technically than their opponent---Ks are cheating and that's not a bad thing. the block should be chock full of tricks and the 2NR should go for whichever trick the AFF mishandled.

procedurals come before substantive debate

Policy:

Run whatever argument you want in front of me

Tech over Truth

CASE

I like cases that have strong internal links to their solvency. That means I have a higher threshold for Aff solvency with loosely strung internal links. Affs with multiple impact scenarios with 1-2 advantages are preferable to Affs with 3-4 advantages with one impact scenario.

After the 2AC, you should not rely on reading cards to answer or make case args. Use your brain, analyze the warrants of each card and explain why they are wrong/ right. Doing so will give you more speaks and make you much more likely to win case.

OFFCASE

Ks

I'm familiar with Ableism, Afropess, Cap, Fem, Imperialism, Orientalism, Set Col, Trans

Feel free to run Ks I'm not familiar with, I'll work to understand them and evaluate ur args the best I can

It will look bad if you run Ks with contradicting offcase positions imo

For example, [Cap K + Econ DA], [Imperialism K + Military Readiness DA], etc. but is not a voting issue unless your opponent makes that argument.

CPs

Your counterplan means that you have the chance to solve the impacts of the aff and a net benefit.

There is a very very low chance I will vote on a counterplan that doesn't specify what it actually does or doesn't have a net benefit.

That being said, if your counterplan doesn't have a net benefit but you win on case, I will still vote aff

I hate going against PICs, but I do believe in some cases PICs are a good strategy. I am very willing to vote on perms/ CP theory, but you need to explain why your perm works and why the counterplan is harmful.

DAs

I love DAs!!!!!!!

Make sure your UQ is up to date. I am tech vs truth but your DA is weak if your uniqueness is from months ago.

Go for specific links but it's not the end of the world if your link is generic.

If you're running a DA you need to explain how the DA outweighs/ turns the case

Other Stuff

Idgaf about spreading-- make sure to signpost clearly tho

Idrgaf abt cross ex, but I like open cross more.

If you say something racist, sexist, homophobic, or bigoted I will glare at you OR look at you with a bewildered expression

Judging Philosophy: As a new judge, my primary focus will be on the arguments presented by the debaters. I will strive to be as objective and unbiased as possible, evaluating the round based on the strength of the arguments and the evidence provided. I will not intervene based on my personal beliefs or opinions on the topic.

Framework: I believe the debaters should provide a clear framework for the round, establishing the key terms, values, and criteria for evaluating the resolution. The framework should be well-defined and linked to the arguments presented throughout the debate.

Value Premise: Debaters should clearly articulate their value premise and explain its relevance to the resolution. The value premise should be supported by well-warranted arguments and evidence.

Contentions: I expect debaters to present clear, well-structured contentions that directly support their side of the resolution. Arguments should be backed by credible evidence and examples. I will evaluate the strength of each contention based on its logical reasoning, relevance to the framework, and the refutation provided by the opponent.

Rebuttal: Debaters should directly engage with their opponent's arguments, identifying the key points of clash and providing effective refutation. Simply repeating one's own arguments without addressing the opponent's case will be less persuasive.

Weighing Mechanism: In the later speeches, debaters should provide a clear weighing mechanism, explaining why their arguments outweigh those of their opponent under the established framework. This comparative analysis is crucial for me to determine which side has presented the strongest case.

Delivery: While I will primarily focus on the content of the arguments, clarity of delivery is important. Debaters should speak at a reasonable pace, maintain eye contact, and provide clear signposting to help me follow the flow of the debate.

In summary, I will strive to be an objective and attentive judge, evaluating the round based on the strength of the arguments presented and the debaters' ability to defend their positions under the established framework.

I am a parent judge and fairly new to judging. I am not a fan of spreading and fast speaking. If I can't understand, then it is not going on the flow. This is a verbal activity and therefore I will only flow things that are verbally communicated.

I am traditional judge, and don't have experience with progressive arguments, so I am not a fan of Kritiks, Theory Shells, or ROBs. I am looking for debaters who can presents a strong case with great logic, evidence and effective refutation of their opponent's case. In order for me to weigh your case effectively, you need to show me which framework is best and how you win under that framework. I like to have crystallization and voters in the 2AR and 2NR - this is especially important. The clearer you make to me why your argument is better and outweighs, the easier it will be for me to vote for you.

• clarity
• avoid jargon
• should not speak too quickly

Hello! I'm a veteran educator of world languages. I've taught at several schools throughout the East Coast and South at all levels (secondary and collegiate). I ask that you enunciate clearly and slow down. Please no spreading! Time yourself. Weigh your impact(s). Good luck today!

Background

Wayzata High School 2015-2019 (4 years of policy debate)

Concordia College 2019-2020 (1 year of policy debate, program now defunct)

University of Minnesota 2020-2024 (4 years of policy debate)

Varsity Policy Coach at Edina High School 2021-Present

I wasn't the most competitively successful debater, but I did nat circuit debate in high school and qualified to the NDT twice in college, so I would like to think that experience makes me at least relatively qualified to judge your round, whatever its content may be.

I use he/him/his pronouns.

Use an email chain, not SpeechDrop, for sharing evidence - my email is prostc3@gmail.com.

Three Most Important Takeaways

1. I would be proud if people described me as a “clash judge” – while I won’t pretend that I’m free of biases, I will try to hold your arguments to an equal standard regardless of what side of the imaginary “policy”/”critical” line they fall on. I’m firmly tech over truth, so please don’t change your pre-round or in-round strategy just because you think I’ll like it more; any preference listed here can easily be overcome by good debating. “Don't overadapt, do what you do best, make complete, smart arguments, and we'll be fine.” – Rose Larson

2. Please be clear – I’m serious. I won’t flow off the doc, so I need to be able to hear every word you say (including on the text of cards) and you need to have some differentiation when you’re switching between cards, arguments and flows. I find it extremely dissuasive when people think that the person who is supposed to be evaluating their speech doesn’t need to be able to understand all of it. Despite this, please don’t get psyched out if I call clear – it doesn’t mean you’re going to lose, it just means you need to speak more clearly.

3. Please try to be kind to each other – while I won’t enforce any strict standards of decorum, debate is just so much more enjoyable as an activity when people treat each other with respect. To that end, if your strategy is based around trying to intimidate, demean, or bully your opponents or anyone else in the room, please strike me.

K Affs/Framework

My voting record is pretty even in these debates, so just explain your arguments and we’ll be good.

On K Affs proper, I tend to be skeptical of affs that, for lack of a better term, “don’t do anything” – having a clearly explained method (examples appreciated) that solves a clearly identified impact will help you a lot. If you can't do that, then I tend to find presumption quite persuasive.

On T-USFG/Framework, I tend to prefer aff strategies based around a counter-interpretation (definitions appreciated) instead of ones based solely around impact turns – explain why their model of debate is bad, not why debate in general is bad.

Is fairness an impact? It can be, but you actually need to explain why it is – just saying that it’s an “intrinsic good” isn’t going to cut it.

I tend to be most persuaded by clash impacts on T/Framework, but feel free to go for topic education, portable skills, deliberation, agonism, or whatever other impacts you want.

Both sides need to explain what debates will look like under their model.

I’m definitely a good judge for “soft” T args, like T-Tactics, if the aff actually violates your interpretation.

I can be persuaded that there’s “no perms in a method debate”, but it needs to be actually warranted.

Ks

I don’t have any issues with the K – it’s where a majority of my current research is done, but I won’t fill in gaps for you.

Explanation of your theory and contextualization of links is paramount – explain why something the aff actually did is bad.

Framework is really important on both sides, and I need judge instruction on what winning your interp actually means in the context of the debate. I won’t decide on an arbitrary middle ground between interpretations unless the two interps aren’t mutually exclusive (i.e. if the aff says “we get to weigh the aff” and the neg says “we get reps links”).

K tricks (fiat illusory, floating piks, serial policy failure, etc.) need to be more than five words in the block for me to vote for them.

Honestly not a fan of reading a K with a link of omission and calling it a procedural, but if that’s your thing go for it.

Policy Affs

I appreciate specific solvency advocates and well-explained internal link stories.

You need to at least reference the impacts you want to be evaluated when extending your advantages.

Impacts that aren't "extinction" are relevant.

Case debate that’s more than impact defense is great and people should do it more – most advantages suck, so make smart analytic arguments and your speaks will thank you.

I like impact turn debates but if you’re reading something that’s patently ridiculous (i.e. warming good) it will definitely require more technical debating to win my ballot.

CPs

Not too much to say here – I like advantage counterplans, topic counterplans, case-specific counterplans, agent counterplans – do whatever you want.

I’m capable of evaluating technical process counterplan debates but I don’t have too much experience with them – if you want to go for tricky competition args or funky perms I’m going to need a little more explanation.

DAs

Read whatever you want – I’ll evaluate a topic disad the same as a rider disad.

A good DA + Case 2NR will make me smile.

I’m not a member of the cult of turns case – those arguments can be important, but debating on the substance of a disad tends to matter more in my decision.

I’m fine with politics disads, but telling a story tends to be more important with these disads than others.

Topicality vs. Policy

I don’t have a disdain for these debates like a lot of people seem to, so feel free to go for T if I'm in the back - just make sure to weigh your standards.

No strong preference for what impact you go for – this is my way of saying I haven’t drunk the “limits over everything” Kool-Aid.

Theory

I’ll vote on any theory argument, even if I personally think it's dumb – if you win the flow on new affs bad or no neg fiat, then you’ll get my ballot.

I’ll default to reject the arg not the team on non-condo counterplan theory args unless I’m given a warrant as to why I should reject the team.

Conditionality: I’ll vote on it, but I don’t really have a strong preference on whether it’s good or bad in a vacuum – debate it out!

My feelings on judge kick are complicated. I will come back to this section when my thoughts are more fully developed, but if you're curious or think it will matter feel free to ask me before the round.

I think disclosure is an objective good, so feel free to read disclosure theory, but you still need to win the arg.

In theory debates I tend to find myself focusing a lot on the interpretations that both teams forward, so make sure to make those clear if theory is an argument you want to go for.

Ethics Stuff

If clipping occurs, I will stop the debate and give the offending team an L and the offending debater a 25. I don’t follow along on the doc, so if you want to make a clipping accusation you need a recording. If the tournament rules don't specify what is considered clipping, I will default to assuming it is when a debater skips 5 or more continuous highlighted words in a piece of evidence without verbally marking/cutting the card at the word they stopped reading the card at.

For all other evidence ethics issues, unless it’s something that is specified in the tournament rules, I will default to letting the debate play out and won’t stop the round.

I feel uncomfortable administering justice with my ballot for offenses that occurred outside of the round. However, I do care about the emotional and physical well-being of students, so if you have me in the back of a round that you would really prefer not to occur due to the out-of-round actions of an opposing debater, please talk to me before the round and we can talk to tab.

Like many judges, if something occurs that is actively harmful to students in-round (i.e. use of slurs, blatant disregard of pronouns, etc.) I will stop the round and give L 25s to the offending debater/team. If something occurs in-round that you feel should be an independent voting issue but isn't normally considered egregiously offensive, I encourage you to debate it out, but please make sure to isolate 1. What exactly the other team did, 2. Why what they did was bad, 3. Why me punishing them with the ballot is good, and 4. Why me tanking their speaks is not enough.

Miscellaneous Notes

I will probably take a while to decide if the debate was close at all. I have ADHD and my thoughts often bounce around in my head like a pinball machine, so as a result I like to type out my RFD before I give it. Even if the round wasn't very close, I will still almost always take a couple of minutes to type out my decision. This is probably better for you in the long run, as if I have to give my RFD off the top of my head I often sound pretty incoherent.

Giving a rebuttal completely off the flow is awesome and will result in higher speaker points than if you didn’t.

I like jokes and appreciate bold strategic decisions.

“Have fun, try to learn something.” – Fred Sternhagen

LD:I like the traditional way of LD debate. Meaning, keep to your values and how your criterion and evidence uphold these values. I think argumentation is key, but making sure that your argumentation is not only evidence because if your value is not being held up within this argument, the line of argument will also be lost for me. The way you speak is essential for my judging criteria, keep a good moderate speed with your speech and make sure you are CLEAR. Do not spread! I feel that the round gets lost and the value of the content gets diminished when spreading is used during a round. Although I am good with speed, the way you speak will be weighed in my decision. Finally, respect is key. I like assertiveness, but if you are rude and degrading in any of your speeches you can expect me not to vote in your favor. Have fun and good luck!

Speech: Clarity is key! I want to see all the characters that you have created and trying to perform so please make the distinction between characters. I also love to feel the emotions you are performing so get into your characters.

Hello and welcome to NSDA Middle School Nationals! I am so excited to be your judge for today and I can't wait to see some good rounds.

TL; DR

I am very happy to be here, able to provide feedback for you and help you grow as debaters. I am familiar with the topic and LD in general and expect to see clean, card-based (whether philosophical or data/analysis/hypothetical) debate with good clash down the flow, some voting issues, and arguments for why your world is better. Other than that, I am happy to time for you or let you time yourself and I will flow along your round and follow you on any arguments you make so long as you explain why it matters.

Experience:

I am a rising senior at Los Alamos High School. I have done four years of Lincoln Douglas debate including one year in middle school, so I understand the nerves, but I also understand how the love for LD starts here. I will do my best to give you good feedback because of that. I have experience as a judge in springboard tournaments and flow every round in order to keep a fair judgement of the round.

Within my four years, I have accumulated over 1400 NSDA points, earned three medals in LD at State in New Mexico, have qualified three-times to NSDA Nationals , and made it to octofinals in NSDA Nats 2022. Aside from that, I have experience in both traditional and progressive circuit debate.

This year, I competed this very topic "Resolved: In a democracy, a people ought to have the right to secede from their government" at the high school nationals, so I am familiar with flowing the arguments you may make and appreciate your efforts on this difficult topic. I can't wait to see what you do with it!

Judging LD:

Framework:

LD is inherently a value and criterion based debate, so I expect to see framework as part of the debate here today. If you have virtually the same framework as your opponent, I don't expect a lengthy debate on that framework, but still acknowledge it and tie your arguments back to how you achieve it. If frameworks differ, I obviously expect more debate on it and why your framework is more valid for evaluating this round.

I will accept burdens of proof/observations so long as they are FAIR and NON-ABUSIVE. So just make sure your opponent is feasibly able to accomplish your burden.

Cross-X:

I don't factor Cross-X into my decision much, but Cross-X is a great time to show me that you are knowledgeable and engaged. Ask clarifying questions of things like taglines for contentions if need-be, but I also expect questioning of the arguments being made.

Arguments:

As long as you explain your arguments and extend their impacts, I will follow you down any arguments you make. Just make it clear!

Philosophy -- I am familiar with the basic philosophy common in LD and can understand philosophical arguments. However, you have to have an understanding for why that philosophy is important and worth weighing in the round. Saying "Because it's Locke" isn't enough of a reason to believe what you are saying.

Data/Statistics -- Similarly, I expect extension of why the data accomplishes your point and why it should be weighed. If we are discussing impacts, I do appreciate real-world application and real-world examples of that impact in the form of data you present.

Progressive vs Traditional -- I am more experienced in traditional debate as opposed to progressive. As a result, I can judge some progressive terms, such as Ks, but will not weigh more heavily progressive arguments such as theory shells. I am experienced with speed and can keep up with fast talking, but do not spread.

Have a great round!! :)

Please do not speak quickly. You will be judged on your delivery as well as your arguments. Explain your arguments thoroughly and simply.

Hi, I'm Allyson Spurlock (people also call me Bunny)

She/Her

allysonspurlock22@gmail.com

I did policy debate for 4 years at CK McClatchy High School in Sacramento, CA where I qualified to the TOC three times and was a Quarterfinalist. I currently coach LD for Harker.

I will diligently flow the debate, read the relevant evidence flagged by the final rebuttals, and assign relative weight to arguments (which originate completely/clearly from the constructives) in accordance with depth of explanation, explicit response to refutations, and instruction in how I should evaluate them.

I have few non-obvious preferences or opinions (obviously, be a respectful and kind person, read qualified/well-cut + highlighted evidence, make smart strategic choices, etc).

I have thought a lot about both critical and policy arguments and honestly do not think you should pref me a certain way because of the kinds of arguments you make (HOW you make them is pretty much all I care about). Judge instruction is paramount; tell me how to read evidence, frame warrants, compare impacts, etc.

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, but your speeches need to do the work of extending/applying specific warrants. Condo is probably good, but many CPs I think can be won are theoretically illegitimate/easily go away with smart perms. Debating the risks of internal links of Advs and DAs is much more useful than reading generic impact defense.

Framework debates:

Different approaches (on both sides) are all fine, as long as you answer the important questions. Does debate change our subjectivity? What is the role of negation and rejoinder? What does the ballot do? Fairness can be an impact but the 2NR still needs to do good impact calculus/comparison.

Policy Aff v K:

FW debates are often frustratingly unresolved; the final rebuttal should synthesize arguments and explain their implications. Because of this, it is often a cleaner ballot for the 2NR to have a unique link that turns the case and beats the aff without winning framework. 2ACs should spend more time on the alt; most are bad and it is very important to decisively win that the Neg cannot access your offense.

Misc:

+0.2 speaker points if you don't ask for a marked doc after the speech

I am a parent of a debater. I tend to judge policy in our local leagues. I will evaluate the arguments presented in the round by making every attempt to be unbiased and neutral. However, I would like to see debaters who are good advocates for their chosen position by using strong persuasion, speaking that is easily understood, and sound, logical arguments.

When using prep time, be respectful of the tournament schedule. Both sides have an established amount of prep time. If their becomes excessive evidence swaps or discussions outside of the CX period then it will affect the team’s speaker points. In policy debate I will allow open cross-x, but please do not allow one member of the team to monopolize the questioning period. I would expect the debaters that are typically, in the order of the round, expected to ask and answers questions be the primary point person in the CX. If a teammate wishes to help they may so long as it doesn’t become a distraction. In PF, during cross-fire I expect courtesy and respect during this questioning period. In LD, please use all of your prep and cross-x time to establish the foundation based upon a sound strategy for your arguments. Extensive or trentative/constantly shifting roadmapping at the start of a speech can result in a reduction of speaker points. Please, tell me where you are going to go on the flow then signpost along the way.

call me “chat” + 0.5 speaks

im going to keep things simple; run wtvr you want idrc js as long as you understand it and make it understandable AND as long as you explain it to where not only i understand it, but so does your opponent. i will NOT vote on sexism, racism, ableism, ect. NO SPREADING

i love framework debates ngl - meaning that usually if there isn’t SOME sort of fwrk debate i get a little sad. if there isn’t a fwrk response on the opposing side, notice that, take it into account and WEIGH your arguments AND their arguments (easy w)

i LOVE self ownership.

I DO NOT LIKE EXTINCTION AND NUCLEAR/NUKE WAR ARGUMENTS. this being said, i would hope that novices from past tournaments have figured out other arguments that are FAR more interesting.

i agree w sam and jimmy regarding tricks - js extend it fully

i understand that since you guys are first-years you will try to spread, but if you’re not being CLEAR then neither of us (me and your opponent) will understand and will get frustrated. THIS BEING SAID AND EXPLAINED PRIOR TO ROUND; i don’t understand spreading, i can’t fully grasp the arguments and it makes me upset. i do have attention and focusing problems so please don’t spread.

if you include "999" in your debate round (that's LOGICAL and MAKES SENSE), then you get +1 speaks.

i may have gone to a decent amount of tournaments in the past year and a half, but that doesn’t mean that i know what you’re talking abt. i go into these debate like i don’t have a brain lol — ALSO some cases like carceral geo or some argument that NEEDS to be fully researched before debating makes me confused. if you don’t have a good explanation, how can i understand? much less judge?

btw i went 2-4 at a local big questions tournament and got 27.1 speaks, so you can say im pretty intelligible at debate

if you have any questions you can ask me in person!

if you're stalking my history in judging there is one round with a bunch of random letters and words - don't worry abt it

St. Andrew's 25' - tatumla@gosaints.org, add me on an email chain

Basics

• Tech < Truth
• Fine w/ speed (Not spreading)
• Done LD for 4 years

Flow: I flow, but if you said it and I heard it, I won't vote against you because I forgot to write it down or something.

Speed: I am fine with speed. That being said, I hate spreading, so don't do it. It's not understandable to me, and I will take off speaker points.

Courtesy: If you ask a question, let your opponent answer. I also expect those answering questions not to waste time and answer with that in mind. Additionally, I expect you to treat your opponents with respect. Calling them "liars" or implying or saying they are a worse debater than you is not a way to get on my good side.

Weighing: I appreciate the active weighing of impacts in rounds; however, I do not immediately jump to a nuclear war or extinction impact without CLEAR LINKS that the resolution will make that happen. And if you need a long link chain, the argument gets pretty unbelievable in my book. Also, when rebutting, make sure to explain why your evidence works. I can't remember every piece of evidence by the citation alone.

Ex: don't say, "My (Wan 23) card proves my opponent wrong."

say, "my (Wan 23) card that says....proves my opponent wrong because...."

Tech/Truth: I'm a truth>tech judge, but tech can fly as long as it makes sense.

Lincoln-Douglas: I expect some framework debate, and I do not think LD is a one-person policy round. There needs to be active engagement with the opposing side. I am not a huge fan of K’s, but plans/counterplans are fine. I can entertain some theory debate, but if you spend the whole round on that and not debating the topic at hand, you've lost me.

Hi everyone, I'm a high school student who's competed in nine different events and qualified for nationals in LD, Congress, and Extemp, so I like to think I have some experience across the board.

LD, Worlds, PF:

What I value most in all debate events is respect for your competitors. This means being polite and respectful both in questioning and reference to your opponents during any other speeches. I also dont want to see emphasis on definition debates, the spirit of debate is to clash on the topic and the ideas associated with it, not the dictionary.

Hi! Im Brie! Warning: I cobbled together a repaired paradigm as the last time I had edited it was TWO YEARS AGO! Apologies. Have been judging a lot of competitions mostly at our school so I didn't worry as much about paradigm. If stuff sounds dumb or out-of-date thats cause it... is. Some are updated, ex. my preference for K's

1 - K's

2 - Theory, Tricks, Phil v Util Topicality

3 - phil v phil

4 - Larp

5 - nothing, will decently evaluate most things

I have been doing debate for 6 years, consistently LD with a little bit of Policy and PF experience, but like mostly LD stuff.

In terms of general debate etiquette, please send cases to both ME and your OPPONENT before the first speech. Preferably before round start, but before speech will not annoy me either.

And I swear to gosh if u read an argument that is blatantly homophobic or transphobic I will probably still evaluate it if goes COMPLETELY dropped but ANY semblance of a mini-kritik or response and that argument is gone.

Extinction first is annoying, lightly extended security K's will flow easy

Be respectful of pronouns, please :) Mine for rounds are she/her! :D

in terms of valued extensions, make them clear for me to flow them, and if you flow a good chunk of the tagline and a part of the card it will flow the whole contention, extending every card and tag is unnecessary.

Email: bt43083@wdmcs.org

Here are some deeper paradigm bits

Theory:

Love a good theory debate. If you get a good competing interps battle I will be a happy judge. But if you read really abusive or a bajillion shells it wont be as fun. Friv theory is fine, just don't read 10 shells in the 1A or 10 shells in the 1N- flowing that kind of debate is very very unfortunate. Extensions of these- please go down the list, interp, violation, standards, voters. Dont just read the interp and hope its extended. Give me WHY this makes your opponent drop.

Tricks:

tricks r fine, will evaluate if you do a good job at them! but explain them good thanks

Phil:

Phil is ok as long as you do it well, i dont have much preference for specifics but i used to use Kant a lot

K:

i love K's im a K debater and i will vote on good K's very easily. ks on top

Topicality:

Just do it good. getting a little more lazy on these points, but really topicality is just not the most interesting thing, if you use it correctly I will vote. There.

Substance Deont:

For example just using Kant and winning on case. Happens during rounds with 2 similar phil frameworks. I love evaluating these debates but will disregard substance when any K, Topicality, Theory, Phil fwk clash or tricks come up, and are extended to the end of the round.

Larpolicy:

I dislike Larp, probably because I'm a Valley Varsity, but Larp is not my jam. If both debaters are using Larp or policy cases I will have a basically break debate, where I just flow and evaluate normally, but when its a phil case user with theory vs a larp case user, it gets messy quick. Don't try and say "debate is consequentialist has to defend an effect on squo" without reading a must defend advocacy Theory shell. cause that will not flow. cause its just not strong argument.

Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn

[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp

Email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Tricks: 1*

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 6

LARP: Strike

To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 6 if you like Ks and strike me if you LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).

Util is bad enough to be beaten by sneezing on it

Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).

Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:

1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.

2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.

3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.

4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.

"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.

Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.

Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I of course won't on face not vote on them, but please reconsider reading them.

Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.

5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.

Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.

6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).

7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.

Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.

8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.

9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.

10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.

11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)

12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.

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

For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)

*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.

**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.

In the realm of speech and debate, the paradigm for a judge in LD (Lincoln-Douglas) debate serves as the cornerstone for fair and insightful adjudication. A judge's paradigm outlines their philosophical stance, preferences, and expectations when evaluating rounds. For LD debate, judges often prioritize clarity, logical argumentation, and adherence to ethical principles. They seek debaters who can construct compelling cases, engage in rigorous analysis, and effectively clash with their opponent's arguments. Additionally, judges may value creativity in argumentation and the ability to adapt strategies to different resolutions. A judge's paradigm not only guides their decision-making process but also shapes the overall experience of the debate round, fostering an environment where debaters can showcase their skills and ideas with integrity and rigor.