Hello, I did debate in high school all 4 years, with the first two being in policy and the final two in Public Forum. Thus, I know what is going on, but I won't have a ton of knowledge on the topic for the first couple of tournaments, so ease me in.

Speed/Signposting: I did policy for two years so I can handle some speed, but if you aren't signposting and telling me where I need to flow what you're saying, I'm not going to be able to flow it. With that, please signpost. Tell me where you are putting this argument on the flow. I can flow everything you are saying, but only if I know what you are saying, and where I'm supposed to put it.

Weighing: At the end of the round, tell me why you win. You could have the best defense in the world, but if you don't give me any offense to vote on, I'm going to have a tough time voting for you.

Truth v Tech: I am a big mix of both. If your opponent drops something and you point it out, I'm not going to vote for them in that area, however, if I am left with two impacts, whichever impact is more probable is the one I'm most likely going to vote on.

Framework: The only way I'm going to follow a framework is if you pull it through the entire round, if you don't pull the framework through, I'm going to default to a cost-benefit analysis.

Personal Preferences: One thing that I am picky about is pulling through evidence. Don't just tell me to pull through the impact or pull through the link, tell me specifically what I'm pulling through. Tell me the impact I'm pulling through, and tell me the link I'm pulling through. Just because your opponents drop your contention, doesn't mean you don't have to do any work on that anymore. You still have to tell me why you win with that point. Another controversial take that I have is that the second rebuttal needs to get back to its own case. To me, you can't not touch your own case from the 2nd Constructive to the 2nd Summary.

Evidence: Some things to me are unspoken, so you don't necessarily need a card for everything. I am all for analytical arguments, but there is a line where you need evidence for something you are saying. I will also call for evidence if it becomes an issue in the round. I will not call for it if it isn't called out by your opponents, but if there is a dispute, I view it as my place to settle the evidence debate.

At the end of the day, please be respectful to your opponents, don't make me not want to vote for you because you are being disrespectful. Good Luck!

I am a PF debater but have coached/taught LD. My suggestions:

be nice, be clear and make the judges’ lives easy.

if you get me in LD somehow god help you

(on a serious note just explain things well and everything will be okay)

Experience:

4 years of speech & debate experience at Aberdeen Central

• 2 years of inform
• 1 year of oratory
• 1 year of stuco (we don't talk about it)
• 4 years of LD

LD:

I debate traditional LD style, so I don't prefer K's or literally anything policy related. please for the love of god keep policy away. Obviously, framework is important but so are contentions. Brownie points if you can link into their framework better than they can. That being said, I don't believe you can win the round on framework alone. If you don't have any impacts from your case, there's no weight for me to give you the up.

PF:

I have minimal experience debating public forum, but I did for a short time. Just because it's not LD doesn't mean morals don't apply. I value impacts more so, but you're probably not going to do very well in my eyes if your arguments result in killing half the population or something idk.

IEs:

there's two ways to really win me over for IEs in terms of oratory and inform:

1) make me laugh. if you're funny I'll probably give you the one. It's my fatal flaw.

2) if it's a really serious topic executed well. You actually have to show me the importance though and talk with emotion.

Overall, just have fun. I'm not too much of a stickler with anything. Just don't be homophobic, racist, ableist, or anything along those lines and we won't have a problem. Preferably don't be rude unless it's justified, and even then, just a little sass is needed for your point to be made.

Debaters in both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum debate need to stay focused on their resolutions. In LD, proving a philosophy doesn't matter if debaters can't prove their resolution to be true. Whether or not a person has a value or a criterion doesn't matter, as long as that person can prove or disprove the resolution. However, looking at a resolution through the lens of a particular value can be helpful.

Remember, the words in each resolution are there for a reason. Aff/Pro debaters need to defend them. Neg/Con debaters need to prove that they aren't true. Debaters also need to make sure they speak clearly.

Speed isn't a problem as long as a person speaks loudly and clearly. If people have any doubts whether or not they can be heard and understood, then they need to slow down. As a judge, all the evidence and analysis in the world are for naught if a debater cannot be understood.

I have a policy background but have been judging PF since the move away from policy in SD.

Extend warrants, offense, framing.

I will listen to anything, Ks included.

Please time your own speeches and prep, your opponents' speeches and prep, and CF. I will do my best, but I am counting on y'all to be doing this as well.

I would prefer to the extent that is possible that cards only be called in the instance of genuine concern over unfairness/cheating. Should you need to call a card otherwise, once your opponent has prepared it for your viewing, your prep starts.

Background

I did varsity policy debate and Domestic extemp for 4 years at Watertown, SD high school. During that time I qualified for NSDA Nationals 2 times in policy debate and was a 3 time place winner at the SDHSAA state tournament. I judge fairly consistently throughout the season.

Ask questions before that round or email me at my tabroom address if there is anything you want clarified, or anything I didn’t cover that you would like to know.

Good luck!

LD Paradigm

I have started judging more LD since policy is no longer a thing in South Dakota. I don't have a super deep understanding of all the philosophy but I do generally understand most of the frameworks I've heard. For me, I prefer a good framework debate backed up with solid contention level arguments. If you can put those two things together I am usually pretty happy. I prefer debate with clash. If you plan on both agreeing to the same framework you will need some good offense on the contention level.

In the end I prefer good solid arguments that are fleshed out well. Explain to me how you've won the round, sort of write my ballot for me in a sense.

PF Paradigm

I enjoy it when there is good, legitimate clash within the round that extends past the first 4 speeches of the round. Impact things out for me. If you are going to be reading framework in the round relate your contention level arguments back to your framework. Weigh your framework against theirs and tell me why I should prefer yours.

If a card is called for, to me, this is dead time in the round. No one is doing anything. The team that needs to provide the evidence finds it swiftly, the team who called for the evidence looks at what they need to see with their prep running, and then we resume with the next thing in the round whether that be a teams prep, cross-fire, or a speech. If you are looking for evidence and your partner is prepping, your prep will be running.

In the end I prefer good solid arguments that are fleshed out well. Explain to me how you've won the round, sort of write my ballot for me in a sense.

Policy Paradigm (A thing of the past in SD)

Speed- No preference. I only evaluate what I have flowed, and if I can’t understand it chances are it’s not flowed. I don’t need a copy of the speeches, I will ask for cards at the end of the round if I need to look at something.

Tag team CX- Prompt your partner, or provide tags and dates, but don’t dominate if it’s not your CX.

Prep- I don’t take time for flashing unless it becomes excessive. I will more than likely not stop prep when you ask me to, so beware of that. If you tell me to end prep, and you are still talking and typing on your computer, prep will keep going. Prep stealing will not be tolerated.

T- Don’t run it as a time suck. I rarely will vote on potential abuse, even if clearly dropped by the aff. My view is that T is all or nothing, so if you’re going to close for it, you had better be doing 5 minutes of T in the 2NR. Aff is presumed topical until shown otherwise. That being said, if they are truly not within the resolution—I will be more likely to vote on T.

Disadvantages- If you are not reading a DA on the neg you better have something to blow them out of the water. I tend to be very easily persuaded by no link analyticals and uniqueness overwhelms the link claims made by the affirmative. I think that there needs to be a clear link between affirmative action and the scenario that the neg is proposing. You the DA as leverage against the aff’s advantages. I am a huge fan of disad solves case arguments. Politics disads typically turn into a wash for me, absent a huge mistake by the affirmative. I don’t think that the link story of Congressional members ditching their parties or the whole Congressional body switching their votes from the Uniqueness that has been read are even mildly plausible.

Kritik- I was never a big fan of them when I was debating. If you are going to run one and want me to vote on it, you must do several things. First—have an alt that is very similar to a 1AC’s plan text, something that can actually happen if I were to vote negative. Second, you have to have clear solvency for that alt. I will be weighing the K against the aff’s advantages in terms of comparative solvency.

Counterplans- I think that CP’s should challenge the aff’s advocacy or provide a better method of solving the impacts in the aff case. The counterplan must be non-topical, otherwise I will almost immediately vote aff on the perm. In the same fashion as K’s I will be weighing the CP against the aff case in terms of comparative solvency. The CP must solve the impacts of the 1AC—otherwise running the CP is pointless in my mind. CP has to have a clear Net benefit that is not “It’s better than the aff”. You need to have something bad that the aff plan would trigger, but the CP avoids, this is where your generic disads come into play.

Ask questions before that round or email me at my tabroom address if there is anything you want clarified, or anything I didn’t cover that you would like to know.

Good luck!

I prefer debate that is suitable for a courtroom. Professional, clear, and well organized. Usually frameworks are a waste of time.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

I debated in the mid 1980's, almost exclusively inside South Dakota and coached some HS debate while I was attending college in Minnesota. I continued to judge some throughout the 90's. In the mid 2010's, I re-engaged with the activity. In the 2021-22 season, I added a part-time gig, becoming the assistant coach at SF Jefferson.

Policy: I'm a 1980's policymaker, weighing advantages vs disadvantages, but I will certainly vote on stock issues in the real absence of inherency, solvency or topicality.

Debate started changing dramatically in the late 70's and I was in the first wave of spread 1.0, almost laughable when compared to today's spread on the circuit and collegiate level. I believe spread and K's pushed policy debate to an extreme that required the creation of PF. The speed of today's South Dakota PF feels a lot like 1980's policy debate, quick, but nothing close to crazy. I am making it somewhat of a personal mission to keep PF from tipping over the edge.

I outlined my thought on judging policy above.

Public Forum: I am looking for clash -- real clash and sound logical reasoning and quality extension evidence that makes your case. I am not a big paraphrase guy and feel it can be ripe for abuse. If you must, please include the paragraph before and after your cut card and a link to the argument. I consider K's and counterplans out of hand. I also place a premium on signposting (anything that can help me keep as organized a flow as possible). Teams that fail to do this leave themselves at a real competitive disadvantage. Weigh impacts and construct a narrative around why I should vote for your side of the resolution. Finally: If your team is 2nd speaker, your rebuttal absolutely has to get back to your Case and counter the attacks made against it!

I value exceptional speaking and rhetorical excellence. I love speakers that can change my perception on issues, speakers who possess a passion for the topic and the activity. If you find a way to be unique and memorable, you will have a significant competitive advantage over 90% of your competition. While speaking skills are not as important as research and argumentation in helping me decide a round, they are often the difference maker in a close round. They are also somewhat of a lost art as PF begins to look and sound more like policy -- which is a shame.

I occasionally judge LD -- it also has been impacted by the spread/K revolution. I am looking for many of the same skills I'm looking for in PF. I appreciate debaters who help me weigh the competing value/criterions and what should take precedent within a particular resolution. Connect your V/C to your contentions. Tell me why we should frame the resolution through your V/C instead of your opponents. I need help connecting philosophy to your contentions -- take the time to explain it to me in a clear and persuasive manner. Don't assume I have a working knowledge of these scholars, because I probably don't or, the few I may have heard or read about, have likely been forgotten.

On a scale of 1/10 for speed, I would consider myself about a 5 In policy debate and a 6-7 in PF/LD. On a scale of 1/10 for openness to alternative argumentation, I would be fairly low on a 1-10 scale. For policy -- quite open to topicality, less to counterplans, and a big hurdle to get my ballot if your case hinges on a series of Kritik arguments. For PF -- I consider myself a local/regional kind of guy. I am open to speed, not spread. I think disclosure theory is bogus (debate is a speech activity -- an argument hasn't been made until a speech is delivered). Don't run K's.

E-mail for email chains and/or questions:Travis.Dahle@k12.sd.us

tl/dr - I prefer old school argumentation but won't intervene - I'm also old and slower on flowing 5/10 - don't waste time on evidence sharing

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

I have very little national circuit experience in LD as I primarily judge public forum and policy debate (see more on that below). In LD I am more of a traditional judge as in I like a discussion of the resolution from the standpoint of a value and value-criterion and contention debate. That being said, at Dowling I voted for a Plant-ontology aff, a Counter-plan on the neg, etc. so while I prefer the classic style, I don't intervene into the round either and if you have a good RoB, then I'll listen to it and will focus the debate on that if that's what you make it.

I'm about a 5/10 on speed. I'm old now and prefer to actually hear the evidence of the debate rather than read the evidence on an e-mail chain...

Public Forum Paradigm

Public Forum should NOT be a shorter version of Policy Debate. Meaning, I don't want to see K's, DA's, Topicality, Plans and CP's in Public Forum - nor am I a big fan of speed in PF. I love policy debate, but I also love that Public Forum is not policy and it's an option for people who don't want to do policy debate. This doesn't mean that you can't go a little faster than you would for a lay judge, but don't go crazy.

****EVIDENCE SHARING****

This should absolutely NOT TAKE SO FREAKING LONG!!!!! Seriously people, you should all have your evidence ready to be shared - in fact, I would prefer that people actually share their evidence before they begin their speeches if everyone is going to spend this much time asking for evidence. PF rounds are becoming 90 minute rounds because apparently trying to find evidence and asking about evidence magically doesn't come out of any prep time or crossfire time, but magic time that doesn't exist.

IF YOU WASTE THAT MUCH TIME TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER YOUR EVIDENCE PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR I AM GOING TO START DECREASING POINTS! Have your poop in a group people - this is getting old!

Big Questions Debate - I don't judge BQ a ton, however, I'd look at my paradigm much like the PF and LD paradigms below.

tl/dr - Slow down, enunciate, use evidence and weight the debate at the end - do it all respectfully to your opponent

Extemp Paradigm

I am a mix of content and delivery when it comes to judging. When it comes to sources, don't make stuff up. With the internet available now, if I suspect you are making things up, I will probably check it when you are speaking. You don't have to make stuff up - unlike the olden days where you hoped to have a file on the Togo questions Washington put out each year - you can literally google your info and bring it up instantly.

Also - ANSWER THE QUESTION - don't waffle - pick a stance and tell me why you choose that way. Pretty simple.

Don't overly fidget or dance around - but don't be a robot either.

Have fun!!!!

Policy Paradigm

In essence, I am a tabula rosa judge, meaning that I will pretty much listen to anything and will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round. That doesn't mean I don't have things I prefer or things I think are bad arguments (which I will go over) - but for the most part, I will listen to anything in the round. However, unless you tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, I will default to a Policy Making paradigm. I have been the head coach at Washington HS since 2009.

Speed: I've gotten old here and have grown weary with blazing speed - put me down as a 5/10 on speed. I'd rather have the ability to hear the evidence instead of having to read through everything on an e-mail chain. If you go too fast I'll let you know - you won't automatically lose, you'll just annoy me a little - unless you ignore me, which if I'm on a 3-judge panel and I'm the outlier - I totally get.

Tag-Team CX - It's okay, but I'm not a huge fan of this. One thing I like about policy is that you should know what you are talking about. I don't mind the occasional help, but if you keep answering every question, it makes your partner look like a tool. And even if they are, you probably don't want to show that they are in front of judges.

Arguments I like: I have always felt that the more you know about what a judge likes and dosn't like is essential to winning debate rounds, so to make it easier on you, these are the type of arguments that I prefer to be seen run.

Case Debate - this is a lost art in the debate community. Why as a negative are you granting them their harms and their solvency? If you can have some solid arguments against their case and point out the serious flaws in them, that will help you weight your DA's, K's and CP's over them.

Economic DA's - I have an economic background and like Econ DA's as long as they are run correctly. Generic spending DA's are usually not run correctly.

There are other DA's, but those usually vary by each year, but as long as you have a solid link to the case, you should be good to go.

Arguments I'm not wild about: Again, the more you know, the better off you will be. Once you read this list does it mean to absolutely not run these arguments - no. What it means is that you better run them better than most teams who run the crappy versions of them. I'll vote for these arguments (and have lots of times) - I'm just not wild about them.

Politics DA's - I've changed a lot on these and used to hate them but realize the strategic advantage of them. That being said, not my biggest fan, but have voted for a lot of them over the years

K's Read at blazing speed - I don't mind some K's, but most of the authors that debaters cite go so beyond the realm of what is possible to discuss in a debate round that they end up bastardizing the entire theory they are supposidly trying to use. Also, if I haven't researched and read the material, how can I evaluate it if you are reading it at a blazzingly fast speed. I don't mind K's, but I'd like to understand them, so please, assume I haven't read the theory - because I probably haven't.

Performance - this is just my inexperience with performance. I've probably only judged it a couple of times, so if you do performance, I may not understand how to evaluate it and might default to the policy framework - so you need to make sure to explain to me the role of the ballot and my role in the debate. I have voted for Performance affs and discourse affs - again, more inexperience than anything makes me put this in the category of things I'm not wild about.

As always, I'm open to questions before the round if you have any other specifics. All in all, I like good debates - if you can argue well and clash with each other, I really don't care what is argued - as long as it is argued well!

I am a 13 year LD and Extemp coach and judge. A little PF when needed.

Just to get it out of the way, I will vote you down for speed. Typically, if I can't write it down, it doesn't exist in the round. Quality arguments over quantity. The one speech that I don't mind being a bit fast is the 1AR with only 4 minutes to get through is a lot. The rest shouldn't be rushed. Public Forum shouldn't be fast at all.

Extemp-- I am not overly concerned about your hand gestures or transitional movements. I do care that what you are saying is clear, clearly organized, has content- that is accurate, and has strong analysis/explanation to go with it. With being able to just Google whatever, I am going to really emphasize the analysis/explanation. Show me you are knowledgeable and have understanding.

LD-- Big on Framework debate in LD. If you aren't doing it and just focus on contention level, don't be mad that I agreed/disagreed with you based on a single, likely arbitrary point. Tie your points to framework to explain why your arguments are more consistent with the MORAL lens you have chosen for the debate.

PF-- Please don't just read and re-read cases. Work to get deeper into the arguments and give explanation for WHY a point is key.

At the end of the day, be civil, attentive, and really listen to each other. Being harsh, condescending, or dismissive is not helpful in winning rounds or being a good person. I don't mind being firm and holding your ground, just make it respectful.

Public Forum since 2014.

TLDR:

be nice, don’t drop things, and make sure you point out drops

About me:

I did four years of public forum and domestic extemp with Aberdeen Central and am now a political science major at the University of South Dakota (go yotes!). I keep pretty up to date with current events in the United States and abroad and like to think I know what is going on in the world for the most part. I am also a lover of cats, movies, and Christmas :)

Public Forum:

Drops:

I am going to be a flow over anything judge.

If you drop it and the other team points that out, then its gone and I won’t vote on it. That being said, I think it is the burden of the speaker to get back to touch everything they are going to pull through in the next speech. This means that the 2nd rebuttal speaker NEEDS to get back to their own case for me to weigh it and the summary speakers need to cover everything that their partner is going to close for or I won’t flow it. However, if your opponent doesn’t point out your drop and you repack it up then consider yourself extremely lucky. I will flow it again because drops need to be pointed out in the round for me to weigh them.

Speed:

I can handle rapid conversational just fine as long as you are speaking clearly and sign posting, sign posting, SIGN POSTING!!

Time:

I love a good, BRIEF off the clock road map. They are my favorite thing tbh.

For calling for cards I typically won’t take prep unless a team takes the card back to their area or it starts taking to long to find or read the card. Please don’t take advantage of this. I will expect the other team members not to prep during this time and will dock speaker points if you try to steal prep or if this takes too long.

Cross:

Please just be nice and respectful. I understand being fired up in the heat of the moment but there is a difference between being assertive and being disrespectful. I typically won’t vote on respect unless it is a MAJOR issue, but I will take speaker points away and give a low-point win.

LD/Policy:

I have very little experience here so if I am in the back of your round I am sorry, but I will try my best. I will be flow over anything and can handle a rapid conversational as long as there is signposting, but maybe go a little slower at first to ease me in :)

IEs:

You shouldn’t have to conform your speech style for judges, but I did do domestic extemp for four years so I have the most experience there. Admittedly, I didn’t sit through a single inform or oratory round in my four years of high school, but I do enjoy them. If you make me laugh I will give an extra speaker point :)

As an LD judge, my focus is on whether you prove the resolution true (if you're affirmative) or false (if you're negative) and whether there is value in voting for that position. The resolution doesn't outline the general subject we are debating but the actual question I will vote on at the end of the debate.

I am very pragmatic. Philosophy impacts the way I may view certain issues but to me, your position must be able to live and brief in the real world. Don't get too bogged down in debating philosophy at the expense of resolving the substantive resolutional issues.

I believe your value must be upheld by your issue contentions/supporting arguments, and not just 'tacked on' to have a value. As LD/value debaters, it is important to integrate support of a value into your case position.

To me, your criteria is part of 'your' analysis. It doesn't have to evaluate both sides but it should help me evaluate and understand your case. I'm not opposed to subsuming a criteria (or value) and using it to your advantage but it is not required. Also, criteria usually doesn't factor much in my decision.

Finally, to me, this is a communication activity so too much speed is not appreciated. While I'll do my best with speed, you jeopardize your persuasion and my ability to flow you. Signposting to help with flowing is also appreciated. My flow very much guides me when I make a decision. I try to take good notes but I don't flow sources (so don't shorthand with an author's name...use the argument label.)

I'm an assistant interp coach for the Huron Speech and Debate team. My primary area of experience is in the interps and speech after having competed for Huron in the past. I am comfortable judging any speech round, and I most closely look at the physicality of a piece (how are you using body language, facial/vocal expression, pops, etc. to promote the piece).

I have some experience with Public Forum debate and am able to judge it, but I cannot stand debaters that speak at mach speed. It is difficult for me to follow flow when information is presented so fast that the words themselves blend together. I will flow to the best of my ability during the round, but don't expect me to catch everything if you speak like a Policy debater.

Updated 1-2024

Please feel free to include me on any email chains or share evidence that you want reviewed via Eric@dakotahomestead.com

Background

I am a former policy debater who has coached and judged all forms of debate and speech since 2005. I am a volunteer assistant coach at Washington High School in Sioux Falls with my focus shifting to coaching Public Forum debate as of 2020-2021. In my day-job, I am an attorney and the president of an insurance holding company that oversees a variety of real estate focused businesses throughout South Dakota.

Public Forum

Similar to Policy and LD, I keep a rigorous flow throughout the round, including crossfire and overviews. Rate of delivery is not an issue for me as long as you are relatively clear and understandable. I evaluate Public Forum as a Tabula Rasa judge and consider the arguments focused on by each side in the Final Focus to be the main arguments to evaluate in the round. Absent framing or a weighing mechanism proposed by either side, I default to a policy making analysis from the perspective of the actor in the resolution. Tell me why you should win based on the arguments on the flow from the round and how to evaluate them. Winning on individual arguments without guidance as to why that argument matters in the context of the resolution is a common problem I see. I prefer clash between teams on key issues compared to each side repeating their own claims without addressing the other team's.

While I primarily coach Public Forum and am familiar with the evidence and arguments on the current topic, do not assume that all participants in the round are and debate accordingly. On most judge panels, you should focus on the paradigms and preferences of the other judges as I will go along for the ride rather than advancing an argument or rate of delivery that I find acceptable at the potential expense of the round. With that said, just like with Policy and LD, I believe that the round is up to the debaters, so tell me why something matters and why you win, and I will evaluate it accordingly.

Lincoln Douglas

Prior South Dakota State Debate Lincoln Douglas Judge Questionnaire

Name Eric Hanson

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your Lincoln-Douglas judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with Lincoln-Douglas debate: (Mark “X” on all that apply)

X A. Coach of Lincoln-Douglas Debate

B. Former Lincoln-Douglas Debate Coach

C. Former Lincoln-Douglas Competitor

X D. Former collegiate and/or high school policy debater

X E. Frequently judge Lincoln-Douglas debate

X F. Coach of Policy Debate

X G. Coach of Individual Events

H. No Lincoln-Douglas Debate Experience

2. I have judged 18 years of Lincoln-Douglas Debate

3. I have judged: (circle or highlight one)

Typically between 15 and 30rounds of L-D by the end of the season

4. Indicate your attitudes concerning the following typical L-D practices:

A. RATE OF DELIVERY (circle/highlight your answers)

No preference | Slow, conversational style | Typical conversational speed | Rapid conversational style

1. Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision? Yes No

2. Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed? Yes No

B. HOW IMPORTANT IS THE CRITERION IN MAKING YOUR DECISION? (circle/highlight one)

1. It is the primary means by which I make my decision.

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation. (unless advocated otherwise during the round)

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

4. It rarely informs my decision.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case? Yes No

C. REBUTTALS AND CRYSTALLIZATION (circle/highlight one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include: a) voting issues b) line-by-line analysis c) both (I default and usually prefer voting issues, but it is your round so you tell me what you think is important in determining a winner)

2. Voting issues should be given:

a) as the student moves down the flow b) at the end of the final speech c) either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are: a) absolutely necessary b) not necessary (strongly preferred but not required).

4. The use of jargon or technical language (“extend,” “cross-apply,” “turn,” etc) during rebuttals is:

a) acceptable b) unacceptable c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How Do You Decide The Winner Of The Round? (circle/highlight the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.

2. I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round.

3. I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round.

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

(Circle/highlight your preference)

Not necessary----------Sometimes necessary----------Always necessary

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F. Circle/highlight the option that best describes your personal note-taking during the round.

1. I do not take notes.

2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater’s case.

3. I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

Policy Debate

2017 South Dakota State Debate Policy Judge Questionnaire

Name Eric Hanson

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

Your experience with policy debate (Mark all that apply with “X”):

X A. Coach of a policy debate team

______ B. Former policy debate coach

C. Policy debater in college (Where? )

X D. Policy debater in high school

X E. Frequently judge policy debate

______ F. Occasionally judge policy debate

Which of the following best describes your approach to judging policy debate?

A. Speaking Skill D. Hypothesis Tester

B. Stock Issues E. Games Player

C. Policymaker X F. Tabula Rasa

Circle (or highlight) your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

RATE OF DELIVERY (X No Preference)

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very Rapid

QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS (X No Preference)

A few well-developed arguments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments

the better

COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive issues

most important most important

TOPICALITY – I am willing to vote on topicality:

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely vote on topicality

COUNTERPLANS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

OPTIONAL: If you feel the need to clarify (or add to) your responses to items 3-12, write those comments LEGIBLY on a separate sheet of paper.

Eric Hanson’s Additional Comments

I truly believe that each round is the debaters to do with what they want. Evan so, here are my preferences and some common criticisms I have for teams:

When running theory and Kritik’s, just prove to me you understand them and how they apply in this round. Do not just read a shell that someone else has prepared without understanding the underlying criticism that is being levied.

Please write out Counter Plan and Perm text.

I have a very expansive view on Topicality. I will listen to and vote on in round abuse, potential abuse, and competing interpretations. That does not mean that I vote on potential abuse or competing interpretations just because you say those words. You must actual prove to me that your definition is the best one for debating the resolution or that the other team’s is just so flawed and abusive that it cannot stand.

When extending warrants, it is preferable to say more than just “Extend my partners warrants.” Take the extra few seconds to actually state the warrant of the argument.

When considering impact calculus, I give weight to all three parts (timeframe, probability, and magnitude). If a team tells me to give little weight to a massive DA impact because the probability is so small, that will factor into my evaluation.

This means doing more than just saying “Impact Calc. 1. We win timeframe. 2. We are more probable. 3. We have bigger impacts.”

As a Tabula Rasa judge, I really appreciate it when the 2NR / 2AR actually explain why the win the round and in what framework / paradigm I am supposed to view the round when evaluating.

You probably do not want me to guess at how you wanted me to evaluate the round.

This means doing more than just saying “Impact Calc. 1. We win timeframe. 2. We are more probable. 3. We have bigger impacts.”

In debate, I look for critically thought out arguments that make sense resolutionally. Answer the question-provide the plan. In old school talk-I am a stock issues/communicator judge for policy debate. Much of that would pose true for Public Forum.

I do not like evidence spew for the sake of spreading opponents out of the round. I can track with moderate speed, but I want to hear some analysis of the argument and subsequent rebuttal. If I have stopped typing on the flow-or writing on my flow pad, I can't judge it. Speed does not win the day for me-signposting is appreciated.

LD-I want to see clear value/criterion debate-when rounds tend toward the policy, I tend to tune out. I was a die-hard LDer who was trained to answer the resolution, provide clear value clash, and wrestle with the pragmatic solutions...if there are any. I like to see how the students can creatively tackle the same resolution-so a less common tactic is cool with me- Again, speed is not my game-if I can't understand you-it doesn't make it one the flow and is not judged.

I love to hear the conversations that come out of really good rounds where there is a clear exchange of ideas and a definite clash-that, to me, is where the most authentic learning takes place! Talk pretty and have fun!!!!

I am a true public forum judge - I expect your case and your delivery to be clear, accessible, and layperson-friendly. I will be displeased if you speak too quickly or use too much debate jargon. Treat your opponents and their case with respect, as I don't appreciate snark or condescension. Roadmaps are "on the clock".

Answering questions or critique with as much specificity as possible - names, dates, sources, etc. - will positively affect my evaluation of your case. 

Finally, as a historian I really like to see you using specific evidence, particularly context and background information, to weave a narrative that I can walk away from the round with. I don't need a framework as much as I need you to give me a theme or big takeaway.

Speed

Rapid conversational

I prefer quality arguments over quantity of arguments. Debate is educational; if your strategy is to spread the other team in the rebuttal, that doesn't seem like you are trying to promote education. Being able to talk faster does not equate to being a better debater. That being said, I am not unreasonable; if you have to speak faster in the summaries to cover everything the other team put out, that is acceptable. If you are going to use speed as part of a strategy, I would rather you use the extra time you save to go more in-depth on fewer arguments rather than creating more, not as well-fleshed-out arguments.

Framework

If two competing frameworks offer substantially different views of the round, I will evaluate it based on whichever team persuades me to use their framing. So, yes, I will vote on a framework and mentally adopt that framing to evaluate the impacts of the round. Strategically, it would be best to tell me how you win under both frameworks if you are unsure which framework is more persuasive to me. If the framing is fairly similar, I would hope the debaters would recognize that sooner rather than later and mutually agree so there is more time to focus on the core issues of the topic.

Tips

(I don't expect you to follow this exactly. You debate how you feel best. These are just the styles I am more likely to understand, appreciate, and ultimately vote for because it is how I teach my students. You utilize this information however you like.)

I like to flow as much as I possibly can. So, if I am not writing anything down during your speeches, you are either not being clear in your argumentation or have spent too much time covering the point; it is best to move on. Because I like to keep a detailed flow, I also appreciate a debater who is well organized in their signposting. Also, I have found debaters more successful when they can cross-apply evidence or arguments from their own contentions to attack the opps case. It seems to make things more organized because less evidence is being brought in, and thus, the debate becomes more focused on the quality of the argumentation.

When I am thinking, I often make a very grumpy-looking face. Don’t think I disagree with what you are saying because of this.

In public forum, I believe that most summary speeches drop excessive amounts of arguments against their own case. If you can defend your case and respond to what the other team said in the previous speeches, you are much more likely to win. I wouldn’t mind a line-by-line of both cases in the summary speech if you can. On the same note, if the other team does drop key arguments on the case, these are easy wins in my book; please bring them up.

You should select two or three main voting issues for the final focus. The speech's last 15-20 seconds should be spent giving me impact calc and telling me what the Pro world vs. the Con world looks like. I also don't mind an overview at the top if that suits you.

Roadmaps are off the clock for me

I will if you ask me to call for evidence to be evaluated.

Please don't try and avoid giving the other team evidence by saying your partner will do it after the cross. Evidence transparency is a huge part of the debate. Try to be as upfront as possible.

I can tell the difference between someone confident and standing their ground and someone using rudeness to make it look like they know more than they do. If being rude is part of your pathos as a debater, I don't think you're doing it right.

As just a general observation, conceding a few arguments that might legitimately be untrue puts you in a better position than trying to defend every aspect and piece of evidence of your case. The amount of time and energy it takes to defend legitimately untrue arguments is not worth what you lose on other, stronger arguments. Just pick and choose wisely.aker.

LD- I have not debated it before. I do not judge it often. Most likely, I am not familiar with the topic. Good luck.

I debated 20+ years ago when Policy Debate was in it's glory and we carried totes of paper evidence vs. laptops into rounds. A Deuel High School graduate I take pride in how Debate doesn't separate small from large schools when competing. I learned volumes from the people I debated and wasn't limited by school size. I am comfortable judging all events and levels.

Prima Facie - traditional judge - Sign post and be reasonable. Speak loud and proud. Remember this is a game - play the game, but don't play dirty. Sell me on the "why" behind the "what" of any side you are taking. Each issue stands on it's own.

I am a former Democrat turned Republican by life experience - 4 kids, Catholic and married to a small business owner. Work full time and dabble with ranching/farming. Rural America has my heart. We all add value in different ways and different times in life. The lens which we see our value will shift depending on our calling and phase of life we are in.

Background

I got my bachelor's in Religion and Philosophy from Augustana University (SD) and now I’ve been teaching speech and coaching debate (mainly LD) for Brookings, SD.

Ethics

Coming from the world of philosophy and ethics, I am particularly picky when it comes to respectful debate. Please keep good ethos form the moment you enter the room to the moment you leave.

SPEECH EVENTS

When it comes to Interp. and IEs, it’s all about delivery (and content where appropriate). Make sure your voice is loud and clear, but be careful in humorous / dramatic pieces. Things like laughter, screams, cries, etc. are often done too loud for a small room. I’ll comment on everything from movement, to clarity, to character and everything in between. For pieces that you’ve composed (orig. oratory, extemp., etc.), I’m looking for cohesive structure, good intros/conclusions, and clear main points that follow the purpose of the piece.

DEBATE

Overall:

I am fine judging however fast you feel necessary; however, go faster than conversational speed at your own risk. However fast you go, your presentation should be clear, understandable, and well structured. If I can't hear or understand it, I don't factor it into the debate or my decision.I also love clear and concise voters / clinchers in your final speeches!

Under the consideration of what’s listed below, I’m willing to listen to and judge based on what you deem important so long as it’s clear, relevant, and uses sound reasoning. As far as K’s, I’m open to listening to them; however, I’ve found them relatively ineffective, especially if they are not run well (you need to make sure they still have connection to the resolution).

LD:

This is my bread and butter. With a philosophy background, I’m pretty familiar with just about any philosopher you could throw my way. Particularly with the more popular philosophers, make sure you know how the philosophy you’re using works. If you don’t, it will show.

When it comes to how I judge a round, LD is a value debate and I think this should be the main focus. Your contentions should be purely to support your framework, not the only focus of the debate (it’s not PF).

PF:

I feel evidence plays a bigger role in PF than in LD, so I’m far more interested in hearing evidence-based reasoning in round. Just like LD, outside of this, I’m willing to judge what you, your partner, and the other team focus on throughout the round, just keep it clear and structured.

If you want to do speech drop/email chain that's fine I guess. My email is katie.jacobs@k12.sd.us

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!

LD: I tend to lean more to a traditional LD judge style. The framework debate is important and I will always appreciate debaters who connect their contention level arguments back to the Value & Criterion. My background is in policy, so I will keep a flow and value that in a round. Maintaining focus on the resolution is important as well. I appreciate debaters who weigh out their arguments and give me clear reasons to vote one way or another.

In general I'm fine with speed and can follow arguments as long as clarity is maintained. That being said, my vote never just goes to who has the most arguments. In LD especially, I prefer well thought out and well weighed arguments versus a flood of arguments that may or may not hold merit.

At the core, I don't see a judge as someone who should intervene in the round. This is the debaters space to utilize their own strategies and argumentation. If you can explain an argument and give me reason to believe it matters in the round I will vote for it.

PF: Rounds most frequently come down to how well arguments are weighed out/impact calc for me. If you have framework or resolutional analysis you should be connecting your arguments back to it.

I have no problem following jargon or more advanced debate discussion, but I don't feel like Public Forum debate should devolve into a policy debate round in half the time.

Evidence is important in public forum debate and I do consider that when making decisions. If you are going to criticize your opponents evidence or call out any abuse, I want to see a reason behind it and why I should consider it in my decision making. Just saying "we post date" or "their sources are faulty" won't carry much weight unless you actually show me why it matters

In an LD round I tend to vote for the side with the most substantive arguments as opposed to the side who has pushed to most arguments through.

In terms of speed, fast conversational is fine but nothing faster.

Email: livvyjo11103@gmail.com (put me on the email chain, and feel free to message me post round)

About me: Olivia She/her (20) I am currently an individual events coach at Sioux Falls Jefferson! I attend USD online and work in marketing.

TLDR:

Debate is hard, please have fun and after the round, shake it off and never let a down bother you!!

PLAY NICE. There is nothing worse than a round where I as a judge feel flustered because of how the debaters are treating their opponents. I will comment on this, and I will give you lower speaks because of this.

I do not do time signals, do not ask. (Debate)

I prefer if you have time on your own (I tend to forget), but once my timer goes off, your time is done, please do not argue with me about how much prep you have.

During your opponent's speech, please refrain from talking, and listen to what they have to say, even if it is the last speech. They are valid and deserve to be heard as much as you do

My debate career:

I graduated from Central High school in 2022 and was a member of the debate team for all four years of high school. I did policy, pf, oratory, and info - went to nationals 3 times.

PREFERENCES:

I tend to lean more tech over truth - and I am very open to experimental debate, within reason. Just ask before the round or let me know if you wanna do something crazy. That being said, i will vote truth over tech, if there is literally no warrant or link to the debate/evidence.

QUALS AND STATE: (This is for debate only)

Lay it out for me. If I do not understand your argument I will not vote for it. Ks and Theory, are okay - just make sure they connect back. If you want to try something new, please go for it.

As always, be nice and play by the rules.

- EVIDENCE SHARING: This shouldn't take long, as we have some long days ahead - or it's the end of a super long day for all of us. It's cool if you just set up an email chain or something to make the process go faster. (but of course, add me in)

- EVIDENCE VIOLATIONS: I am ALL for the educational level of debate. If something is not true, please say something as I will not catch it like you do - because I am less experienced in the topic, and do not have the card in front of me. I will look at all cards brought to me, but I will not ask if you do not say anything.

Public Forum:

I am okay with speed, I understand the lingo. Keep things on the flow, if you drop something and do not address it, I no longer consider it an argument. I am good at following the flow. - That being said, please stay organized, it's easier for everyone to understand when you follow the order of contentions and arguments that are set up during the first few speeches.

Keep a good roadmap throughout the whole round and TELL me what I should vote for. Believe in what you are saying and why you win. Carry your arguments all the way through, if you drop something, tell me why, do not ignore it. With this - if you drop something you are not allowed to pick it back up. Consider it on the floor and I can't see it - do not bring it up in the final speech.

Please refrain from using abstract arguments such as Ks, Critiques, and CPs in South Dakota main season, UNLESS you are able to prove exactly how this relates to the resolution and your contentions. Experimental debate is only fun if it makes sense and works within the round. I debated policy for the majority of my debate career (being in the final policy round EVER in SD) so if you use them, I will know what you are talking about - your opponent may not so explain exactly what you mean. (CPs are very controversial in PF, I would strongly avoid these if you don't wanna talk about it for the duration of every speech and get debated on topicality and resolutional analysis)

LD:

I have only judged LD, last year being my introduction. With this, I am someone who, like PF will judge based on your clash. Believe in what you are debating, even if it is not your own personal belief outside of the round. If you do not care about what you are saying I will pick up on it, and stop listening.

I tend to lean towards a criterion and value debate as my main voter (any framework actually), as it’s there for a reason. You drop your criterion, you lose. You don’t uphold your value, you lose.

CIRCUIT:

Do not be abusive to your opponent. No disclosure theory if I am in the back, please. You can run theory, you just have to explain why it pertains to the text, and are able to back it up.

Speechdrop and email chains, make it quick. I am not spending 20 minutes trying to set it up when you did not come prepared. Have a print-off of your case as backup.

Ks, CPs, and DAs: Make sure you are explaining these in order of event - like if you have 2 DAs that are triggered by something, or solved by the CP, make sure they make sense to me. Explain if your opponent does not know what you're talking about, as not everyone normally debates circuits, on the traditional level these do not exist. Be courteous.

Spreading: IDC if you spread (I'm an 8/10 on speed) - slow down on tags and cards so I can follow. Please share your speech doc with me if you spread it so I can look back if I need to. I used to spread myself and know how to do it in a nice way.

SPEECHES:

If you are checking my paradigm before an IE round, I am so sorry that you think that you should be judged based on someone's preferences on content. Be confident, and I really hope that you love what you are telling me. I think IEs are unique and cannot be based on my personal preferences and biases. You will do great, I promise!! <3

DO NOT ASK ME TO READ MY PARADIGM FOR YOU.

I WILL get the ick for any arguments that are racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, discriminatory, and generally anything else you think I would get upset with. I do not tolerate hate in a progressive environment and I will not stand for any of it. Please do not say these things, I will stop listening and will contact your coach.

Prior to the strength of the arguments, I take into consideration the following:

1. Organization: This is key. In order to make an informed and complete decision, I need you to speak in such a way that I can make a decision using an organized flow. SIGNPOSTING and TAGGING are essential for this. Speed is not.

2. Professionalism/Character: Rudeness will absolutely not be tolerated. Speech and Debate should help build better humans, therefore if excessive rudeness or words/actions showing poor character happen in the round, you'll be much less likely to win that round.

Only after these are met will I move on to:

3. Strength of Argument: Every round is unique - one round might be decided on framework, one on a single contention, one on lack of argument on one side or the other, etc. Be a good speaker and get your argument across in a complete and logical way? You are likely to win the round.

History:
I have judged South Dakota debate for the past 18 years. During my High School years, I competed in Policy, Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas debate. I don't judge as frequently anymore, but do normally get a couple tournaments in each year.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

I am a traditional LD judge looking for a value debate. Tell me why your value is supreme and how you better uphold your value or achieve your opponent's value.

Contention debate is important, but you need to win/uphold your value for the contention to hold weight.

Crystalize your debate in the end and give my your voters. Tell me how to vote and why you win. If you make the decisions for me and show me why, it is less decisions I have to make on the ballot and more likely to go your way.

Public Forum Debate

For an "On Balance" topic, I'm going to weigh out the two sides. You don't have to win every point in the round, you don't even have to argue every point, you need to show why, on balance, your side wins.

Write your ballot for me, tell me why you win this and why this is most important.

Speed:
I learn the older I get and less I judge, the harder it is to keep up the flow. I'm probably a 5 on a scale of 10 for speed.

Emerson Keeley

she/they

University of South Dakota

General

Hey there! My name is Emerson Keeley but, I also go by Emma. I graduated from Aberdeen Central in 2021. I only did debate for 1 year so I don't know much so please correct me if I do anything wrong. I am open to learning from my mistakes. I did show choir throughout high school, so I am WAY out of my zone. I currently attend USD, studying Psychology with a minor in Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies.

DO NOT say anything out of pocket, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, xenophobic, or anything of the sort. I grew up in South Dakota, it is not fun what some people have to go through, and if you are like that to your opponent or partner, you will be downvoted instantly. I will absolutely not tolerate it!

Go YOTES!

Public Forum

I am most confident in this type of debate. I know most terms but bare with me. I am still fairly new. I know how to keep a decent flow. I am open to learning! I am slowly getting more confident in PuFo.

I will not disclose rounds. If you ask me to disclose, that's .5 of your speaker points.

Make the debate traditional

IE's

I LOVE HUMOR!!! IT IS MY KILLER!!

LD

I am least confident in this type of debate, therefore, I am open to learning!! I will try my best!!

Information

emerson.keeley2003@gmail

Feel free to email me if there is anything you'd like to discuss regarding your round! I would be more than happy to give my input! Just make sure to put what round it and what the topic was since I have the memory of a goldfish :)

hello!

aadil ali’s mom ????

i have judged PF on an off. i would consider myself a “flow-lay”. i keep a decent flow and can keep up with some debate terms, but i will require proper convincing to vote for you. don’t speak too fast.

I was a public forum debater and an extemporaneous speaker in high school. I also competed in extemporaneous speech, persuasive speech, and parliamentary debate at the college level. I have a degree in business economics with a focus in math, so I have a solid understanding of basic macro economic principles.

Public Forum: I need warrants. I need to know why your claim is true. Logic plays the most important role in all debates, the team that explains logically why their arguments and narrative are better will get my ballot.

LD: I am less experienced with Lincoln-Douglas debate. Make sure to tie arguments back to the value, and much like my public forum paradigm, the individual that explains why their arguments and narrative are better will win my ballot.

Extemp: This is the event I have the most experience with. First and foremost answer the question correctly, in other words don’t interpret the question in a different way than it is proposed. I look at extemp through a realistic lens (is the argument realistic in the real world given the nature of politics, economics, etc.) however don’t shy away from having more nuanced answers, nuance is a key to success in limited prep events. Arguments need to have sound logic. Always ask for time signals, if I miss a time signal (happens to the best of us sometimes), I will be lenient when it comes to time management, and even going over time. In any other scenario, if a competitor goes over the grace period, I’m not forgiving.

Oratory and Informative: I vote on the composition and the presentation of the speech. Composition: Is the speech organized, nuanced, and purposeful. Presentation: Is the blocking purposeful, is the presentation fluid and not choppy.

Debate Ethics: I strive to be the best judge I can possibly be because I understand how hard everyone works to become successful at this activity, and that’s what you all deserve. Always be respectful to your opponent, your partner, and your judges. Any belittling of any persons in a round is a problem, and when that happens, it plays a large role in my decision making as a judge.

LD-

I have coached Public Forum and LD for the past 11 years. I am a "traditional" judge that makes my decision off of the value and criterion. For the value you need to show me why it matters. Simply stating "I value morality" and that is all- is not enough. You need to show how your criterion upholds/weighs that value.

Contentions- need to be won as well. Dropping an entire contention and hoping I forget about it is not a good strat. I like to hear contention level debate as well, but I default to framework debate more often.

Voting Issues- I need these. Make it easy for me to vote for you. Give places to vote and provide the reasoning why. As a judge I should not have to do any type of mental lifting to get myself where you want me to be.

I do not listen to K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's. Keep policy in policy. I want to hear a debate about what is "right". For Ks and performance cases- I have very limited exposure to them so I have no idea how to weigh them or how they work in a round. If you run that type of argument you will probably lose that argument on the flow because I do not have enough experience or knowledge of how they work in a debate round.

Flow- I like to think I keep an ok flow. I don't get authors- but I get signposts and warrants.

Speed- I can handle a quick pace. I do not like spreading- especially when you struggle with it. If you are clear and sign post as you go so I know exactly where you are on the flow. I can keep up. When it comes to value debate and criterion- slow down. Kant and Locke are not meant to be speed read. This may be the first time I am hearing this argument.

Flashing- Make it quick.

Oral Comments- I have been verbally attacked by assistant coaches in the room who did not agree with my decision. This has really turned me off from giving oral comments. However, I will address the debaters and only the debaters in the round. will describe how I interpreted the round and what it would have taken to win my ballot. I am not there to re-debate the round with you but I want to offer clarity to what i heard and what I felt was made important in the round.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum for the past 11 years and believe anyone should be able to listen to the round and decide the winner.

I try to keep a solid flow, but I will not get warrant, authors, dates, if you go a lot of points. I want you to boil the debate down to 2-3 major voting issues that are supported in the round with evidence. Closing speeches need to be weighed and if you run framework, you better be utilizing it throughout the debate and not just in the final focus to why you win the round.

I will not listen to speed, (faster than you describing a great weekend debate round to your coach) k's, counter plans, or disadvantages. If you want to run those- policy is available.

I did Public Forum debate at Harrisburg High School and I participated in all 4 years of high school. I didn't really participate in any other event, so if I'm judging you in speech or a different debate event I won't be as great a judge. I have limited experience with LD and Extemp, but not much else. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round. In short, speak clearly, be nice, and follow the rules.

--PF--

Speaking:Being concise and well-spoken is important, but being respectful is equally important. I won't hesitate to drop speaker points if you are blatantly condescending or use insulting language.

Flowing: I flow pretty well and will vote off the flow most of the time. Other factors like speaking matter somewhat but the flow and pulling your arguments through are super important to me. Often times when cards are brought up in quick succession I don't write the card's names down as I am more focused on flowing the content of the card, so telling me what the card says in later speeches is key to keeping it on my flow. Cards are important, but big ideas and refuting the actual arguments your opponents make matters to me.

Evidence: I expect both teams to come to the round prepared with all possible evidence. If you use a card in the case please have the uncut article available, preferably with the used section highlighted. If you cannot produce the evidence promptly (within a minute or two) I will assume you don't have the evidence and evaluate the round as such. I will adhere to the rules, meaning if you do your own math, misconstrue an author's intention, or do anything else in violation of evidence rules I will not weigh the evidence in my decision.

Prep time: When you call for cards, I will start YOUR prep once you have received the article/card you requested. I will end prep time when you return it. I will start prep before you are given the requested card if you are prepping while you wait.

Framework: If a framework is given I will vote on it as long as it's not refuted effectively enough and is carried through. If you drop your framework in the summary and then bring it up in FF I won't be voting on it. If you can't adhere to their framework then give me another weighing mechanism or another framework. If a framework is abusive, tell me it's abusive and why. Don't get too deep into the framework debate.

Summaries: I prefer line-by-line when it comes to summaries as it's easier to follow in the flow, but using voters or another mechanism won't kill you by any means. Whatever you do, always signpost as much as you can, and don't go too fast. If an argument is important in the round, be sure to talk about it in summary, because if it's dropped in summary I won't be voting on it.

Final Focuses: Don't lie about what people said in the second FF to try to win the round.

--LD--

I have judged two rounds of LD debate in my life, one novice and one varsity. Do with that information as you will.

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Running of K's- A recommend that you read what I said about it in the policy level and know that this can be a bigger problem because of a lack of time in presenting and defending the K.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win. Weigh the round. When citing evidence, make sure that you are not relying on paraphrasing.

World School: Coaching it for the second year. Do not try to define people out of the round. Focus on the stated judging requirements of style (delivery) and content (logical reasoning and appropriate backing). The logical reasoning presented is not the same as strategy. The logical reasoning is content.

*** I may be wearing headphones or earplugs. I promise I am listening to you. Sometimes, I need to block out environmental sounds so I can focus on your words and arguments. If you speak normally, I will have no problem hearing you.

Big Questions - Hi there, I've been coaching and judging BQ for three years and I keep a decent flow. Definitions are SO important. In Big Question, the topic is very vague and broad; you need to clearly define your terms and the context in which you build your arguments. If you debate against your opponent's definition, give me a good reason to believe your definition instead. If the definitions are similar enough or don't impact the round, you do not have to debate them, focus on wherever the important clash is. For voting, I first look to framing (observations, definitions), then evaluate contention level based on framing. I look for logical consistency. I like examples. I like to know the credentials for your sources. I can handle a bit of speed, but I'd rather you stay conversational for a BQ debate - this isn't policy or circuit; you shouldn't be speed-reading evidence at me.

LD - The first thing I look at is value/criterion/framework. Framework is how you craft your moral world; your job is to establish your moral world and convince me we must affirm/negate on the basis of your world's moral system. The winning framework is how I judge the round. Example: If the winning framework tells me that absolute freedom is to be valued over human life, then an argument that Neg contributes to a high death toll holds little weight, because human life is not what we're trying to achieve. SO DON'T DROP THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE; pull it through, and explain to me how the contention level matches with and upholds your framework.

PF - I vote for the team that can best uphold their case through analysis and evidence. If you don't tell me WHY something matters, I don't care - give me impacts! Example: I don't care about terrorism unless you tell me why I should care about terrorism, otherwise you're just throwing out a buzz-word. If you provide framework, the arguments for your case AND arguments against your opponent's case should work in the world of your framework - don't contradict yourself.

——> Experience <——

He/Him

I debated LD for three years and was top 20 at nats my senior year, as well as state runner-up. I've worked debate camps 2020-2023, and am Sioux Falls Washington’s assistant LD coach!

My paradigm is long but just know that I am genuinely here to make the round and debate as welcome and accessible for you as possible. ask me before the round about anything I might have left out from this. I tried to include as much info as possible.

If there's an email chain my email is Smarkley020904@gmail.com

^ I will not evaluate anything not highlighted in your case unless your opponent brings it up to say you're misconstruing evidence.

——> Tl;dr <——

Flow judge. Good for the K but explain it well. Huge on framework. Extend more than author name

——> LD <——

tech > "truth". Don't drown your opponent in blippy responses or run an argument that is exclusionary.

I like a clear thesis with a strong narrative you pull through for me. Tell me a story of why I should vote for you and make your advocacy cohesive. This is always much more compelling than throwing the entire kitchen sink at your opponent.

I keep a rigorous flow, but understand that speaking skills are still an important persuasive element to highlight key points to me. If you start emphasizing something in rebuttal as very important I'll normally circle or star it, so it's in your best interest to have inflection. Also, what the heck is up with y'all extending a key drop in rebuttal but then never leveraging it? I've heard so many rebuttals start with something like pointing out that their observation went dropped, but then that's the last time I ever hear about it.

My eyes are normally glued to my flow during the round, so don't be offended if I don't look at you while speaking. In fact, If I look at you that's probably a bad sign because it means I don't feel like I have anything to flow. If you see me nodding along to something you say that means I thought of an argument and then you went on to say what I was thinking. If you do that then congrats, I think you're smart.

Yes, "solvency isn't a burden in LD" is an unwarranted claim, and the idea that no moral theory requires you to at least somewhat decrease the issue seems silly to me. The only thing that determines for me whether solvency matters is going to be the framing. I've seen too many rounds where someone runs util but then tries to get out of showing how they actually solve for their impacts. If your framework/criterion has anything to do with "reducing X", "minimizing Y", or "maximizing Z" then congrats you conceded to having the burden of solvency. NOTE: this does not mean "100% solvency", but rather I need you to show a mitigation of the harms if you're running a consequentialist framework.

On that note, if you like leveraging framework, then I'm your guy. If you like running deliberately vague/borderline abusive frameworks, then I am NOT your guy! Please don’t try and hide the ball about how things should be evaluated. It confuses your opponent and it confuses me. You can run in-depth philosophy without being asinine about it. Want to spend 3+ minutes alone on framework in the constructive? Let's do it! But it better have strategic value! I'll listen to whatever you want to throw at me (so long as it doesn't create a hostile environment), just explain it clearly. On this note, I am of the opinion that Y'ALL ARE TOO SCARED TO RUN FUN FRAMEWORKS!! I am getting seriously tired of evaluating justice frameworks 24/7. If you ever want to run something but feel as if judges will reject it, use me as your guinea pig!

You don’t need to win your framework to win the round, you just need to win one of the frameworks and tell me why you win under it. My first step towards evaluating the round is deciding what framework to use. The more messy the round gets the more likely I will be forced to intervene and the more likely you will be upset with my decision. That being said, if you drop framework you're basically dead in the water for me. I find myself most convinced to buy someone's framework when they warrant it well and when attacking their opponent they do more than just read generics, but discuss specifically why the flaws in their opponent's framework expose the strength of their own.

Warrants matter more than cards. Markley '23 does not matter if it's not warranted (that being said though, you should run Markley '23 :)), and an analytic with warrants will easily refute any unwarranted card for me. If you cite a stat and when asked for an explanation, you just say "IDK that's what the study says" that's probably bad. If you're citing something you should know the reasoning behind it. Also: weigh, Weigh, WEIGH!!!

I will not immediately reject Kritiks and CPs. I used to be adamantly against them but have changed my mind in the past year. The burden of the negative is to disprove the affirmative. If they can show that there is a separate moral obligation to pursue some other, mutually exclusive action, or that the fundamental logic/reasoning of the aff is flawed then that is a reason to negate. Therefore, I don't think either are abusive in an LD setting and if anything it's probably bad for fairness on certain topics if the neg just isn't allowed to provide some sort of alt to the aff. That being said, I'm not biased in favor of them or prejudiced against trad. Some of my favorite rounds I've ever watched have been super traditional, but it is in your best interest to level arguments against Kritiks and CPs more than "this shouldn't be in LD" without warrants.

That being said, if you're going to run a K INCLUDE ALL PARTS OF THE K!! The most ineffective K's I see in trad circuit are the ones that try to disguise it by making it wear a trench coat and sunglasses. Run a K, be clear that it's a K, and do a quick Google search for a video explaining how a K functions (The NSDA also has a free course on Kritiks that shouldn't take you too long)

I dislike hyper-specific advocacies in LD. I don't think solely focusing on one country is doing enough for me to affirm "as a general principle" without some really good explanation. If you're running a hyper-specific framework that is super interesting, then that's a different story! but don't focus on one case study.

If you're going to engage in topicality debates about what "a right" means or "democracy" go for it but please be clear about it. I think oftentimes these are important and strategic debates that need to be had, but are just done very poorly.

WHEN EXTENDING AND CROSS-APPLYING YOU NEED TO SAY MORE THAN JUST "Extend Horowitz '21". I don't flow authors. Explain to me what Horowitz is saying and WHY it adequately refutes their point.

Please line-by-line and signpost.

——> General Information <——

I'm incredibly passionate about making Debate inclusive and accessible. Be respectful to your opponent and don't use marginalized communities as props to get a W. There's a big difference between actually advocating for groups and just flippantly talking about the issues they face to get a point on the flow. Also be cognizant of the types of arguments you decide to run, and if you might end up alienating members of the community. Was not fun seeing friends get uncomfortable during the open borders topic.

I'm pretty tolerant of arguments brought up in round but don't bring anything homophobic, racist, xenophobic, etc. into the round. Please also provide a content warning before you read case if you are touching on sensitive subjects, and accommodate as necessary.

Verbally insulting your opponent will definitely tank speaks and is grounds for an auto-loss. Be good people.

~Insert generic statement about how while all judges have their biases, I try my best to limit it when making decisions.~

——> Evidence <——

Please be transparent with evidence. It's genuinely a pet peeve of mine if authors are cited out of context or are misrepresented. If I found out you're misrepresenting a card then it's getting thrown off of my flow, I won't consider it in the round, and your speaks are going to be at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Too many successful debaters can attribute their success to their ability to conceal evidence violations, which is bad for this activity. That being said I won't call for a card unless explicitly told to. If you want me to read one of your opponent's cards, tell me to call it and explain why I should.

My standard on paraphrasing is basically reasonability. My ideal world is that every paraphrased source has the piece of direct text copy and pasted underneath it so I can see directly what you're pulling from.

I will start to run prep for calling a card once you can actually see the card, your opponent taking time to pull it up will not affect you.

Please don't tell me to extend a specific author. Tell me the argument/subpoint you want extended. If I write down your author it's so I can look it up later and steal it for the team I coach (Go Warriors).

——> Speed <——

I can handle speed but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm a fan of it. you won't get voted down for going fast but just know I prefer that you make 1-2 strong and well-explained refutations to one contention rather than blitzing out seven arguments with no warrant behind them. That being said if I can't hear it, I can't flow it and any extensions will not matter to me.

I competed for 4 years in speech and debate in Nebraska (I participated in Policy and PF primarily, with some Extemp). I am now the head debate coach at Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD. I was primarily a K debater and have experience with performance affs, however, I adapted to traditional debate circuits in SD, so if you have a K you have been waiting to pull out, now is your time. Using K's as timesucks, however, is a huge pet peeve of mine. If you are running a K, I assume you care about the issue at hand and not just trying to be performative.

-I'm more than willing to listen to any argument you are willing to make, as long as it's done fairly. I love to see creativity in argument and believe that such types of thinking are fundamental to society, so if you want to run something a bit out there, I will hear you out. However, if it's clear that you are primarily using these types of arguments to confuse your opponent, I will automatically drop speaker points.

-I am okay with speed as long as you enunciate! I cannot stress this enough.

-I will be paying attention to what is said, but if there's something you think was said that is important to winning the round, I would mention it in a subsequent speech.

-If your opponents don't attack a point of yours, make sure you extend that in either summary or final focus (if not both) if you want me to consider it. In LD, it has to make it into your rebuttals.

- Weigh!!! As a former debater, I know how hard this can be to do well. Always remember that what makes sense to you and what you see as obvious may not be how others (including your judge) see things! Use your rebuttals and especially your final focus to really paint me a clear picture of why you won the round. I love voters. I'm typically a big picture thinker, so meta level questions and framing args are critical to instructing my ballot.

-Be polite to each other and have fun! Also, I have found I am very expressive in round, so if something does not make sense or I am confused, you will be able to tell. This usually means I need you to really sell me on the link story.

-IF YOU ARE GOING TO CALL FOR CARDS, KEEP SPEECHES GOING UNLESS YOU ARE USING PREP TIME. There is no reason we should be stopping rounds after just 1 constructive speech to wait for 5 cards. If you are waiting on evidence sharing, your partner can still read case while you wait. I don't mind short stops to glance at a card, however, I will dock speaks if I have to wait too long because you abuse time. Too many people are doing this, essentially creating a second untimed prep time for their team.

If you all have any specific questions this didn't cover or want any other additional information about my judging I encourage you to ask me before the round! :)

Email: mercado.angelicaarely@gmail.com

As a speech coach, I appreciate poise and precision in your speaking styles. I am not an experienced LD judge, so refrain from any jargon or technical language. Please do not speak too rapidly. I appreciate a typical conversational speed. I am looking for clash and will base my final decision on who gets me to understand their argument and supports said argument the best.

Off the clock roadmaps are ok, as they help to provide a sense of the direction of the argument and what the contentions are going to be. Have some passion in your speeches and in the debate, as it shows your connection and understanding of the topic; but don’t go overboard with it.
I do not mind if you time yourself, as long as it’s allowed by the tournaments. During CX, please be respectful and allow opponents to ask questions and answer questions. Summaries can help bring a case together and provide the opportunity to highlight important points.

Background:

I did public forum debate for a little over 4 years. Along with the debate, I also did pretty much every IE event. After high school, I dipped my toe into college forensics (Go Jacks!), but ultimately I could not force myself to write another oratory type speech.

LD:

PF:

here are a few things I look for in a round:

- good flows, and good arguments

- being polite (ie, letting your opponent ask question/ asking for a follow up instead of just speaking because)

- being cautious of your own time

- strong links/ cards

I judge based off flow. If you speak too fast (I can follow decently fast, but not ungodly) or do not have evidence where I think appropriate, it will not be on my flow. I love to see strong connections between evidence and cards, but also you need to be able to argue your own points further. Finally, just be nice. I probably won't say anything but I will make a really mean face if you talk over your opponent or keep interrupting them.

Good Luck to everyone! If you have any questions, please email me at kasandra.pappas@jacks.sdstate.edu

I competed in debate/IEs throughout high school and college. I'm typically a flow judge so tell me what to write down and what to flow through. Additionally, I am a big proponent of being nice in rounds. A good debate win happens from a clean round where everyone was respectful. Clash is appreciated but with respect.

Background

I started speech and debate in the 7^th grade and continued it through high school and still compete at the collegiate level. I am going into my 9^th year of speech and debate experience and have done just about every event possible.

LD:

I competed in LD for two years (7^th and 8^th grade) as well as have worked with previous Groton high school students on LD.

In round I will be looking for strong morals/values and criterions with evidence to back them up. I also do pay attention to defense of moral and criterion and expect for them to be upheld throughout the round without letting them fall but also do not make stupid arguments just because.

PF:

I competed in PF for three years (9^th-11^th grade) before my partner graduated and I was unable to find another.

I will be looking for strong and concrete arguments that are kept consistent throughout the round without any fluff arguments being made. Keep track of time other than prep but ensure that you are not abusing your time, or I will cut you off once time has elapsed.

Both Debates:

I judge off of flow, I myself can talk at a very rapid pace and can understand information at a rapid pace, but do not abuse that. These are not policy rounds and the goal isn’t to get the most information out rather the best information. I also look for clean rounds, do not be rude to opponents especially do not talk over one another and be polite and conscientious of time during cross-ex.

IE’s:

I have done basically every single IE that is offered at the high school and the collegiate level with the exception of storytelling, I will be looking for not only your intro supporting your literature but also good preparation and interpretation of the literature.

I have done extemp for over 8 years now and will know if the question is not answered, I do not promote pretty talking rather looking for a strong analysis and argument, with varied sources used.

Info and oratory will be content, and delivery based, looking for good flow not only in the spoken words but also the speaking pace and how the information is used.

If there are any questions, feel free to reach out to me at samantha.pappas@jacks.sdstate.edu

Policy

I still believe debate is a communication event. I do not like rounds consisting of throwing as much as humanly possible at the proverbial wall and hoping that something will stick. Debaters should focus on well-reasoned arguments that actually apply to the case being debated. If I can't understand what is being debated because of speed or because it isn't clearly explained, I will not consider it in my decision. I do not prefer kritiks or other random theory arguments. I will vote as a stock issues or policy maker judge.

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I like to hear a value and contentions that apply to the value and the resolution. Communication is important to me. Debaters should weigh arguments and tell me why they should win the round.

Public Forum

Debaters should communicate and run arguments that clash with those of the other team. I flow arguments and do consider drops, but debaters need to point out which issues are most important. The final focus for each team should be where the debaters frame the round and tell me why I should vote for them. I expect debaters to be polite.

I have been coaching/judging policy debate on and off since I graduated high school in 2009. I was most active in my coaching career from the years of 2010-2016.

I am back now as the assistant debate coach at Harrisburg High School where I primarily deal with LD.

I feel like my primary goal in adjudicating debates is to have to do the least amount of work possible, I.E. I am very lazy. If I have to do the work for you, its probably going to be a decision you don't like.

In terms of an actual "paradigm" or framework for how I evaluate debates, I don't really have one. I'm generally cool with whatever you all want the round to be. However, there are a few things about me to note that might be helpful to you:

-In my older age I've become way more hard of hearing then I thought I would. So please speak up. If you don't, I probably wont have flowed everything you've said

-Speed is cool with me but realistically on scale of 1-10 (10 being the fastest round ever) I'm probably a 6.5-7

-I don't flow author names and dates. So if you're referencing /cross applying evidence cite specific analysis.

-The arguments I feel most comfortable evaluating are procedural args (vagueness, workability, etc) and any of the stock issues. I used to think I was some huge K hack back in the day but I'm not. I just don't really understand the nuances of the argument. However, that's not to say that I am not down for some well done and insightful K debates but keep in mind I'm definitely not as well versed in the lit as you think I might be and your debating should reflect that. Additionally, a super compelling role of the ballot argument is a must. I also really enjoy good disad and CP debates.

-Disads need to have a clear story to them and have a clear impact. It needs to something quantifiable or articulated well enough to be weighed against the affirmative.

-I really really do not like topicality debates. In all the debates on T I've judged none of them have been super compelling nor warranted my time evaluating. Reasonability is the way to go on this flow for me.

-End of the round impact calculus is really important to me. Please do this.

-Theory debates are pretty hit or miss for me. I need to have some sort offense or reason as to what your reading warrants my consideration. arguments like reject the argument not the team I'm pretty sympathetic towards.

-You should write your ballot for me in the rebuttals.

-Do not post round me. I have no problem answering any questions or clarifying anything in my decision but the second you are combative I will walk out of the room.

-Ultimately, debate is a game and you should have fun and learn from it. Don't do anything in the round takes away from either of those things.

Feel free to ask me anything else before the round starts!

LD Supplement:

This is the event that I primarily judge on my local South Dakota circuit. LD debate here is very traditional.

Most of the information I have posted above is probably going to be useful to you in terms of framing my LD ballot. I have no predisposition to how an LD round should go so do whatever, just keep in mind I probably don't understand most of the traditional nuances of the event.

To me, I feel that the criterion should be the framework in which you attain some idea of your value and the way in which I evaluate and weigh you arguments in relation to the other debater.

If I am not told at the end of the round how to frame or evaluate the debate I will default to evaluating the impacts presented in the round and which ones outweigh.

I am absolutely not the judge for Tricks. If this is your strategy going into the round and you do not intend on changing it you will probably lose the round.

PF Supplement:

I competed in public forum my senior year where I primarily debated at my local South Dakota circuit. My first three years I was a policy debater.

Most of what I mentioned in the policy debate section should be helpful to you in this event as well.

I love a good framework debate. Just make sure you utilize that as a way to make me evaluate your args vs your opponent's. Reference it through out the round. Too many times I see teams read framework and then never utilize it ever again

When using evidence, make sure it is clearly cited and read, not paraphrased. Additionally, when opponents ask for evidence you should have it ready to give to them. There is nothing that upsets me more than waiting an excessive amount of time for evidence to be handed over. If I feel like it is getting excessive I will warn you once, after that I will start taking prep/speech time.

Utilize the summary for impact calculus and the final focus for reasons as to why you win the round.

Hello debaters,

I approach debate with a focus on substance and argumentation, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and effective case development. Here are key aspects of my judging philosophy:

1. Flow-Centric Evaluation:

   • I prioritize the flow as the primary tool for decision-making.
   • Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
   • I appreciate organization and signposting to enhance the flow.

2. Impacts Matter:

   • I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
   • Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.

3. Technical Proficiency:

   • I value technical proficiency in debate. Solid understanding of debate theory and effective cross-examination will be rewarded.
   • However, I do not automatically vote on theory. Make sure to connect theoretical arguments to tangible impacts on the round.

4. Clarity and Signposting:

   • Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
   • Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.

5. Adaptability:

   • I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategy based on the flow of the round.
   • Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to adjust to your opponent's arguments will be recognized.

6. Framework and Weighing:

   • Framework is essential for framing the round, but it should be applied in a way that enhances substantive clash.
   • Effective weighing of impacts is crucial. Explain why your impacts are more significant in the context of the round.

7. Disinclination towards Theory Arguments:

   • I am not a fan of theory arguments. While I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash, relying heavily on theory arguments may not be as persuasive to me.

8. Respect and Sportsmanship:

   • Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
   • I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your speaker points.

9. Evidence Quality:

   • Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
   • Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide, and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.

This is my 3rd year as a Coach for Debate and I competed in high school for 3 years in Public Forum Debate. I am familiar with LD but have never competed in LD. I work as an AP History teacher, understanding the context behind the topic is paramount.

I flow all rounds and look for carefully constructed arguments that have a logical explanation that is clear and concise with impact. "Connect the Dots" for me to prove your logic and understanding.

Knowledge of the topic is essential to the debate; debaters must show they understand the topic and all the points they make themselves. Debaters need to be able to address all attacks on their case and provide logical defenses while also being able to address all arguments made by an opponent.

Speed- Speak at a rate that is easy to understand.

No flexible prep time- use the designated time allotted.

State impacts clearly, when making claims of fact support with evidence, avoid Fiat cases- looking for clash.

LD DEBATE:I will decide who wins the value/criterion debate, and then assess the resolution/contentions through that lens.

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE:

If you're going to have a framework: (1) it must be fair; (2) it should advance your case/contentions; and (3) it should be brought up in every speech.

If one or both teams provide a framework that meets my above three requirements, I will decide which one is better and use it to frame the resolution/contention debate.

Number of responses don't impress me as much as thequalityof your responses. A team can give 15 responses, but if one good response wipes out the logical basis of those responses, I will give more weight to the one response.

I prefer a very organized final focus that summarizes the clash in the debate and firmly resolves why your responses were stronger. I do not enjoy just a summary of the debate and what each team said. Tell me why you were better. In essence: your speech should be what I write on the ballot. "Write the ballot for me."

I debated Lincoln Douglas for all four years of high school. One of the biggest things a debater should do in order to win is adapt to judge preferences... Here are mine,

1) I’m a big framework guy, does that mean if all you win is framework will you win the round? Absolutely not. If you don’t have a framework at the end of the round though it’s going to be difficult to win my vote. I’m a big fan of framework because it makes every contention level argument easier to weigh. FW turns are one of my favorite arguments and if done right will do a lot towards gaining my ballot

2) On the contention level I need sign posting and you need to directly address sub points not just contention headings.... Also, like framework I love a good turn on the contention level and I also love direct clash of arguments from both cases. My biggest advice is to be articulate and concise on the contention level.

3) I’m a fan of faster paced debates. Does this mean spread your opponent out of the water..... nope. I can handle most speeds but don’t get out of hand, slow down on tags, explanations, and transitions.

4) If you’re debating in South Dakota with me in the back of the room... Avoid policy arguments plz :)

5) Finally, I need to see respectfulness during the debate. Yes you can still be savage in cross-x but that doesn’t mean be rude.... There’s a difference. If you ever call your opponent dumb or stupid you will lose the round.

6) Finally, if you ever see me make facial expressions during a round don’t get nervous. After debating for so many years you learn it’s hard to control them sometimes. Odds are you’re doing just fine :)

Hopefully this helps y’all out

I did public forum debate for three years and extemp for four years. I'm more well versed in foreign policy topics than domestic ones, but I do know what's going on. I’m a cyber leadership and intelligence major and plan to work for the government/military.

LD: Stay on topic. I don't typically judge LD, but I know how to follow a round. I prefer truth over weird technical arguments. Do with that what you will I guess.

PF: Weighing is everything. I don't care if you have evidence that simply negates theirs or has bigger numbers, tell me how and why your evidence and your numbers matter more than theirs.

Both: Honestly, whoever I think debated better, however slight, will win the round. This goes for both, but especially in PF, but please don't stand up and use all this jargon wrong or in a way that doesn't really serve any purpose. I like actual clash as opposed to someone saying "cross-apply my 2nd contention" and then moving on or whatever. You're basically just saying, "my evidence and argument is better because it just is." That's not debate, that's lazy.

Email if you need to reach me: jacob.rook@trojans.dsu.edu

Hi guys! My name is Zoe and I’m a former debater whose done her fair share of events. During high school, I competed in oratory and informative for my IE’s as well as public forum for 3 years and Lincoln Douglas my senior year, and I competed at the 2021 Nationals in Student Congress.

Debate in General: This can be a stressful activity and things can get heated in rounds, but I am not ok with disrespectfulness, rudeness, or other uncalled-for behaviors. In a debate round, I ask that you signpost well to keep the flow clean and allow me to catch everything you are saying and want me to know. If I can’t flow it, I can’t vote for it. I will time prep and speeches, but you are free to do so as well on your own and I encourage it as well so there is no need to ask if I am ok with it. :)

Pufo: This is an event to be understood by a person who has absolutely no clue what you are talking about and should be treated as such. I will listen to whatever you are telling me, but if I can’t understand it without prior knowledge it won’t hold any weight if you can’t make it make sense. If you run framework please, please, please debate it. It shouldn’t be something that just sits at the top of your case and doesn’t do anything else, if that’s the case I won’t vote for it. Again keep the flow as clean as possible, sign post, sign post, sign post. If you tell me where in the flow you are I can meet you there and listen to what you are saying better, it works out better for all of us in the end. And in your final focus I want to hear voters. Tell me why you win, and why your opponent doesn’t. My decision at the end of the round should only be challenging because both teams used voters and made it hard to choose the winner.

LD: I don’t/won’t normally vote for a winner because of value criterion debate over contention level and vice versa. I will listen to anything and everything openly but make it make sense. You’re value should make sense in the context of your case and your criterion should uphold it and your contentions should fit within it that framework you have laid out for me. If you run something wild and out there in your contention level please link it back to your framework so everyone knows what is going on, but to also make sure your case as a whole makes sense, if your contention doesn’t uphold your framework that won’t work very well for you in the end. Again please signpost for everything. Use voters at the end so I can see what you want me to weigh at the end of the round and why you think you should win, but keep it simple, 3 or 4 max will do the trick if you have too many it just becomes a list and I don’t have a concise grouping to make my choice.

Speech: In a speech round I’m looking for you to be passionate about you’re topic and really show me that you love it and care about what you’re telling me, make me believe it. I also ask that you pay attention to your peers and what they have to say. You can learn some amazing things from the others in the room. But also they have put in just as much time and hard work as you have and deserve the opportunity to be heard.

My paradigm for LD is pretty straight forward. I am a traditional judge, I do not care for: Spreading, Kritiks, Plans, or Counterplans in Lincoln Douglas debate. I think that if you want to run those types of things do Policy/CX. I will heavily weigh whomever convinces me that their value and value criterion is the most important, but what really matters is the clash. Do you answer your opponents arguments with substantive points? Are your arguments valid and have magnitude? Do you deliver your arguments clearly and in an organized manner? These are what will decide a round for me.

Mostly tabula rasa paradigm, however, I am more likely to vote for individuals who use reliable evidence that is properly cited, speak calmly and clearly, are courteous to their opponents, and use effective roadmaps and signposts.

PF Clash and complete citations on the initial read. If you don't present , I will not weigh in the round.

All voting issues, drops and evidence challenges need to be called by competitors. I will not insert myself unless egregious violations occur. I will also occasionally vote for the most passionate debater, the debater who shows the greatest desire to win. CX wins debates.

LD Clash and application. I rarely vote on criteria, but often on HV.

CX is the highlight of the debate, own it.

My 1st year judging any type of Debate was 1962 so it is rare when I am not the "old guy" on the panel. When I first started judging, there was only one type of Debate, Policy. I have always tried to stay current with the various "new types of Debate" and regularly follow the various discussions published by NSDA and the various HANDBOOK PUBLISHING COMPANIES and I consider myself to have a good knowledge of the possible approaches that I may encounter in my assigned rounds.

Ann Tornberg has been a Debate coach for 35 years. She has coached Policy, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum in addition to coaching Speech and Oral Interp.

"I want to be persuaded in LD. I want to be able to evaluate the evidence based on a strong, reasonably paced delivery. Do not speed read in LD if you want high speaker points. As you summarize make sure that you are referring to evidence that has been read in the round. I do my best to take a careful flow. Give direction to your argument and always signpost. Let me know where I should put your argument on my flow. Finally, give me your estimate of the primary VOTERS in the round, but don't be surprised if I find other issues that are just as important to my decision." Ann Tornberg

I am a public forum judge...not policy. Organization and presentation are the keys to a winning round. Fast speaking will get you nowhere; and may cost you a round if the round is close.

Fancy jargon will not gain you any points, nor will nasty crossfires. I appreciate common sense, professionalism, and good grammar!

Just debate the resolution; be organized; have a good time; good luck.

LD--I value organization, common sense, and good speaking skills. Please don't try to baffle me with lots of jargon. Super-fast speaking may cost you the round. You will be judged on your case, attitude, and clarity of thought. Please don't spend the entire round debating value/criterion/framework or philosophy; your contentions count too!

Background:

Extemp Speaker (among other IE dabbling) and Policy Debater in high school, long enough ago to not really matter as an influence on my judging (especially considering the absence of policy debate in South Dakota, where I almost exclusively judge). Have judged all styles of debate (Policy, L/D, Public Forum) pretty consistently since 2004. I judge less frequently in recent years, but still enough tournaments/rounds to be versant in the topics and up-to-date on most argumentation trends. Tend to judge more in the later portion of the year.

Overall:

Debate and Individual Events are all about communication, so if you aren't speaking to your panel with the intent of communicating an idea/narrative to us (i.e., if you're speaking too quickly to reasonably follow you or if you're trying primarily to convince us you're charming or if your delivery is so laden with jargoned signposting that I need a decoder ring), you aren't achieving the prime purpose of the activity.

Each person in the room deserves respect that goes beyond perfunctory "Judges ready? Oppenent ready? Partner ready?" forumlas. Work to convey that respect by paying attention to the other speakers in the round, using cross examination for questions rather than soliloquoys on your own stances, and interacting with your judges like we're people rather than combination timers/transcription machines with facial expressions.

L/D:

I prefer debates that provide value clash over ones that dwell more in the contention debate and what feels like impact calculus. That said, if the debaters choose to move toward a more pragmatic measurement of the round, I can be comfortable weighing things from a more utilitarian perspective.

The debaters I find most convincing are those who craft a really great 'closing argument.' Don't think of "voters" as throw-away bullet points that you want the judge to write on their flow and copy verbatim in their Reason For Decision; use that phase of the round to boil down the most important considerations into a summation that compels us to see the round your way.

Public Forum:

I appreciate teams who can keep the "big picture" of the resolution itself at the heart of the debate. Getting too hung up in the "we-win-this-point-they-lose-that-point" recitation makes the clash the main show instead of making the affirmation or negation of the resolution the main show.

Exceptional debate comes from teams that can build and apply their argument from one phase of the round to the next. I stay the most engaged with the details of the round when debaters develop, rather than repeat or re-assert, their arguments.

I am the head speech and debate coach for Tea Area. I’ve competed at both the high school and collegiate level and have coached since 2019.

Clear, organized communication impresses me over jargon. Talk at a speed that you feel comfortable, but do not sacrifice comprehensibility. If I cannot understand your speech, I cannot vote on your points. I value professionalism throughout the entire round—in crossfire especially. I flow arguments and do factor dropped arguments into my decision; however, debaters should clearly weigh their arguments, showing what is the most important, and tell me why they win the round.

My background is largely in policy debate; however, I have been judging Public Form and LD since 2001.

My preferences:

1) I do not need a roadmap. If you have one, I prefer it to be on the clock.

2) I prefer moderate to slow speed; if the whole round is fast, I will gladly keep up, but I prefer the competitive edge to come from stronger arguments and not from a faster speaking style.

3) Tell me why arguments matter. I would like all rebuttal speeches to include weighing. If you tell me how to evaluate the round, but the other team doesn't, I will default to your framework. If there are competing arguments, whoever can best explain and carry through an explanation of why their argument is better will likely win that argument.

4) I prefer realistic impacts to outlandish, daisy-chained larger impacts.

My background is largely in policy debate; however, I have been judging Public Form and LD since 2001.

My preferences:

1) I do not need a roadmap. If you have one, I prefer it to be on the clock.

2) I prefer moderate to slow speed; if the whole round is fast, I will gladly keep up, but I prefer the competitive edge to come from stronger arguments and not from a faster speaking style.

3) Tell me why arguments matter. I would like all rebuttal speeches to include weighing. If you tell me how to evaluate the round, but the other team doesn't, I will default to your framework. If there is competing arguments, whoever can best explain and carry through an explanation of why their argument is better will likely win that argument.

4) I prefer realistic impacts to outlandish, daisy-chained larger impacts.

5) In LD, I want a strong focus on value and criteria as well as a slower to moderate speed.

LD Traditional/Classical - I prefer a good strong metaphorical argument over slews of evidence. Anybody can google. A winning LD Debater, can convince me of their point of view through logic but not through brute force of evidence read at break-neck pace. Use Examples. Use philosophy. Use something your grandfather used to say. Evidence is always good, but parallel examples often assist to illicit the "feel" of a point. Furthermore, I'm from a traditional camp. I expect to see a value, clearly stated on which your position readily adheres and criteria (criterion if singular) that clearly explains how your value is achieved in context of the resolution. Lastly, it is much easier for me to determine the significance of a point if it is labeled in some way or another. Call it a contention, call it an argument, call it a point (1,2,3), whatever you want, but make sure I know to start a new line on the flow and that you're changing gears in some way.

It's also probably worth mentioning that most Theory Shells and K arguments carry less weight with me than an argument that clearly and strictly relates directly to the resolution. I'll consider them, but to me it feels like the debater is arguing against the NSDA's resolution selection process and not their competitor.

Most importantly, regarding that person you're debating, they are your opponent, not your enemy. There is big a difference. If you're not using debate as an opportunity to meet new people, grow current relationships, and make lifelong friends, you're missing one of the most valuable deliverables of the activity.

I realize that as a judge, I'm a bit of an outlier here, but one of the coolest things I heard in a speech was "Christopher (the other speaker), you're a dear friend and I respect your perspective, but you're clearly missing the point of this argument" The whole concept of debate is predicated on differing viewpoints and respecting those viewpoints. This exchange was informal, which I'm fine with, and respectful while remaining necessarily contrarian.

For Extemp, I enjoy seeing parallelism in your points. If your first area of analysis is Nickel, and your second point is Dime, your third point had better be "Quarter". Unless of course you're trying to make a point with it being "Albuquerque" or "Snorkel", as in the first two are necessarily incompatible with the third. Your breakdown of a question needs to be thorough, complete and parallel. I also enjoy a good, metaphorical AGD. Don't just find another way to answer the question, give me something relatable to get me thinking in your direction. If the answer to a question is up and down, maybe a yo-yo. If the answer is "unstable", maybe a house of sand or standing up in a canoe. Have some fun with it!

I participated in Public Forum debate from 2014-2018.

• Flow: I try to maintain a solid flow and jot down points, subpoints, impacts (numbers/why the point matters). I am listening for solid arguments with evidence, links, and warrants. Avoid speed reading.

• Framework: If presented and uncontested, I will use it to weigh the round.

• Rebuttal: Provide a line by line response. You can group points/subpoints if responding the same to both arguments.

• Summary: Address both sides of the flow, whether line by line or focusing on voting issues. Be organized and clear in your debating.

• Final Focus: Condense the debate into 2-3 major voting issues backed by evidence. Respond directly to opponents' arguments. I expect to hear lots of weighing in this speech.

• Weighing: Compare the Pro/con world and explain why you win. Make sure to weigh in Summary and Final Focus, I also like to hear weighing in rebuttal if you have time.

General - I will vote on whichever arguments I buy more. ALWAYS explain the why behind your arguments. I love hearing the phrase "here's why this matters" after you make a claim or present an argument. If I don't buy your evidence, I will call for it. I keep a pretty decent flow so don't be scared to refer to the flow and the points made/dropped. Make sure to tell me where you're at on the flow as well. In every final speech of every style of debate, please give me clear voters. A final general piece of info, please do not be super rude in your rounds. There is a CLEAR line between confidence and just being mean. If you're being mean, I'll find a way to vote you down. I'm all for a little salt every now and then, but make sure it is justified.

Speed - You can go as fast as you want as long as you can articulate well. I was a policy debater for three years so I can handle speed. I won't flow what you're saying if I don't understand you. Additionally, do not go fast just to go fast. Make sure what you're saying actually applies to the debate at hand. Don't read me a disad that has absolutely no link as a timesuck.

Theories/Ks - If you want to read these, go for it. I'm all for hearing it IF it actually applies to the round AND the topic. I will not vote for something that has nothing to do with the topic. I will vote for the other team if you read a K that has absolutely NO link. Debate is supposed to be educational. Therefore, I expect to be educated on the topic. When it comes to specific theories, make sure you explain what they are and WHY you're running them. Your voters better be excellent if you want me to vote on it. I have voted on theory before because of really good voters.

LD - I weigh framework over contention level in the debate. Please for the love of all things do not run a random framework just to run a random framework. It needs to make at least 75% sense in the context of both the topic and the debate. That means you should probably be explaining a clear link to me. Please do not turn LD into a policy or pufo round. They are separate debate categories for a reason.

TOPIC SPECIFIC - If you're going to trash the United States military, please be aware that I am marrying a man in the military and I find it extremely offensive when competitors say ALL US soldiers are bad. For example - please don't tell me that ALL US military soldiers are complicit in human trafficking. Additionally, if you are going to discuss the Israel/Gaza war, please be considerate that all people have different views and that's OKAY!!! Debate is an educational space and I expect everyone in the round to be RESPECTFUL. If I am being screamed at or I feel uncomfortable because you say something offensive on either side of the debate, I will vote you down. Not appropriate for a high school activity.

I have two rules for when I judge:

1) If you are going to use analytics, either use evidence to back it up, or make it seem like you know what you're talking about. Don't just use analytics to attack your opponent's case.

2) Don't piss me off. If you do, I will not be inclined to favor you in the round.

Now that those are out of way, here's the rest.

Introduction

I did debate for four years: one in policy as a freshman, and the next three in Public Forum. After that, I've been judging from 2017 onward, taking a break in 2020. I'm primarily a public forum judge, but I have judged LD and policy in the past. If you have me as an LD judge, know that I won't follow anything special that you may try to run, such as a role of the ballot argument. Keep it to Value/Criterion, and the round will be a lot better as a whole.

Definitions/Framework

For definitions, only define stuff that you think is necessary. This doesn't mean define the word "harm" in an "on balance" resolution, but if there's a word that you think a lay judge might not understand, such as "urbanization," that might be one to define. On framework, keep it short and simple. Framework should be something by which I judge the round, not one of the voters. Don't spend so much time on it that you have to cut the rest of your case short. 10-20 seconds max.

Speakers

Case - use as much of your time as possible without going over. Make sure that you have enough time to get through all of your points and recount your main points. Also, if you have a one point case with multiple subpoints, just why? At that point, just have the point as framework and the subpoints as the main points.

Rebuttal - first, don't use a prewritten rebuttal speech. That just tells me that you're unprepared for other people's arguments and that you're not confident in your own attacks. Second, make sure you actually attack your opponent's arguments. If you just attack the general (insert opponent's side here) case, and you don't link your attacks to anything, that's not going to help you. Make sure you are linking your attacks to something your opponent said, otherwise it's going on the flow, but it'll have very little weight.

Crossfire - don't speak over your opponent, refer to Rule #2. Rounds usually aren't won here, and they're more for you than me, so just don't be a dick and you'll be fine.

Summary - start to condense the round here. This doesn't mean continue attacking your opponent's case if you couldn't get to it in Rebuttal, this means get your arguments together and start explaining to me why you think you've won the round. If that means just restating your point titles, go for it, but explain in your own words why you think you've won these arguments. Don't just repeat verbatim what's on the cards. I've heard that, but why does that matter in the grand scheme of the round? Tell me that, and I'll listen.

Final Focus - give me why you won the round. I don't want to hear a continuation of the round. I want to hear 2-3 convincing arguments as to why you have the arguments necessary for me to vote you up. If you don't tell me what is most important, and the other team does, I will be more inclined to vote for them because they told me why they won.

Speed

Given that I'm still relatively young, I can pick up most things, but when you start reading at Policy speeds in a Public Forum round, that's when I put my pen down/stop typing and just stare at you. If I don't flow something, that usually means you stumbled over it or sped through it, which means I don't judge it at the end of the round. If you want to speed through the card, that's fine, but if you speed right through the tag, I won't be using it in my decision, which will inevitably hurt you in the long run.

Other

Reactions - try to keep a poker face when in rounds. This is especially visible in online rounds where I can just look slightly to the side of my screen and see you making a face at whatever your opponent just said.

Timer - when the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence, and that's where my attention span ends. I will leave my timer going off until you stop speaking, however long that takes. Hopefully, it shouldn't take too long. If the timer goes off after a question has been fully asked in Crossfire, you are allowed to give a short answer to the question, but don't go off on a long winded tangent on whatever you're talking about. If you're in the middle of a question, Crossfire is unfortunately over.

Be Professional - while I have given some debaters lower speaker points due to breaking Rule #2 as seen above, I have yet to decide a round based on that alone. If that does occur, I still find an objective reason in the round to explain why they lost, not just that they pissed me off. So while it hasn't happened yet, don't let your emotions make you the first round that it happens.

Prep/Called Cards - if you call for a card during crossfire, I will not start prep time so long as no prep work is being done on either side while the card/article is being looked at.

Questions

If you have any questions on decisions, any comments that I made, feel free to contact me at wilsonbc@midco.net. Try to let me know what round I had you in and what the topic was, as I have a reputation for not having the best memory.