cadecottrell@gmail.com

Updated February 2024

Yes I know my philosophy is unbearably long. I keep adding things without removing others, the same reason I was always top heavy when I debated. But I tried to keep it organized so hopefully you can find what you need, ask me questions if not.

For the few college tournaments I judge, understand that my philosophy is geared towards being of use to high school students since that is the vast, vast majority of my judging/coaching. Just use that as a filter when reading.

Seriously, I don't care what you read as long as you do it well. I really don't care if you argue that all K debaters should be banned from debate or argue that anyone who has ever read a plan is innately racist and should be kicked out of the community. If you win it, I'm happy to vote for it.

***Two Minutes Before A Debate Version***

I debated in high school for a school you've never heard of called Lone Peak, and in college for UNLV. I coached Green Valley High School, various Las Vegas schools, as well as helping out as a hired gun at various institutions. I have debated at the NDT, was nationally competitive in high school, and coached a fair share of teams to the TOC if those things matter for your pref sheet (they shouldn't). I genuinely don't have a big bias for either side of the ideological spectrum. I seem to judge a fairly even mix of K vs K, Clash of Civs, and policy debates. I can keep up with any speed as long as its clear, I will inform you if you are not, although don't tread that line because I may miss arguments before I speak up. If you remain unclear I just won't flow it.

Sometimes I look or act cranky. I love debate and I love judging, so don't take it too seriously.

My biases/presumptions (but can of course be persuaded otherwise):

- Tech over Truth, but Logic over Cards

- Quality and Quantity are both useful.

- Condo is generally good

- Generic responses to the K are worse than generic K's

- Politics and States are generally theoretically legitimate (and strategic)

- Smart, logical counterplans don't necessarily need solvency advocates, especially not in the 1NC

- #Team1%Risk

- 2NC's don't read new off case positions often enough

- I believe in aff flexibility (read: more inclusive interpretations of what's topical) more than almost anyone I know. That is demonstrated in almost every aff I've read or coached.

- I'll vote for "rocks are people" if you win it (warrant still needed). Terrible arguments are easily torn apart, but that's the other team's duty, not mine.

***

A Few Notes You Should Know:

Speaker Points: Firstly, I compare my speaker points to the mean after almost every tournament, so I try to stay in line with the community norm. I have had a dilemma with speaker points, and have recently changed my view. I think most judges view speaker points as a combination of style and substance, with one being more valuable than the other depending on the judge. I have found this frustrating as both a debater and coach trying to figure what caused a judge to give out the speaks they did. So I've decided to give out speaker points based solely on style rather than substance. I feel whichever team wins the substance of the debate will get my ballot so you are already rewarded, so I am going to give out speaker points based on the Ethos, Pathos, and Logos of a debater. Logos implies you are still extending good, smart arguments, but it just means that I won't tank speaks based off of technical drops (like floating pics, or a perm, etc) as some judges do, and I won't reward a team's speaker points for going for those arguments if I feel they are worse "speakers", the ballot is reward enough. Functionally all it means is that I probably give more low-point wins than some judges (about one a tournament), but at least you know why when looking at cume sheets after tournaments.

Debate is a rhetorical activity. This means if you want me to flow an argument, it must be intelligible, and warranted. I will not vote on an argument I do not have on my flow in a previous speech. I am a decent flow so don't be too scared but it means that if you are planning on going for your floating pic, a specific standard/trick on theory, a permutation that wasn't answered right in the block, etc. then you should make sure I have that argument written down and that you have explained it previously with sufficient nuance. I might feel bad that I didn't realize you were making a floating pic in the block, but only briefly, and you'll feel worse because ultimately it is my responsibility to judge based off of what is on my flow, so make those things clear. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

(*Update: This is no longer true in online debate tournaments, I look through docs because of potential clairty/tech issues*: I don't look at speech docs during debates except in rare instances. I read much less evidence after debates than most judges, often none at all. If you want me to read evidence, please say so, but also please tell me what I'm looking for. I prefer not to read evidence, so when I do after a round it means one of three things: 1. The debate is exceedingly close and has one or two issues upon which I am trying to determine the truth (rare). 2. You asked me to read the evidence because "its on fire" (somewhat common and potentially a fire hazard). 3. The debate was bad enough that I am trying to figure out what just happened.)

Prep time: I generally let teams handle their own prep, I do prefer if you don't stop prep until the email is sent. Doing so will make me much happier. If you are very blatantly stealing prep, I might call you out on it, or it might affect speaker points a little.

***

Neg: I am very much in favor of depth over breadth. Generally that doesn't affect how I feel about large 1NC's but it means I find myself thinking "I wish they had consolidated more in the block" quite often, and almost never the opposite. If you don't consolidate much, you might be upset with the leeway I give to 1AR/2AR explanations. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate. Pick your best arguments and go to battle.

DA's: I love in-depth disad debates. Teams that beat up on other teams with large topic disads usually have one of two things: A. A large number of pre-written blocks B. A better understanding of the topic than their opponents. If you have both, or the latter, I'll quite enjoy the debate. If you only have the former, then you can still get the ballot but not as much respect (or speaker points). Small disads very specific to the aff are awesome. Small disads that are small in order to be unpredictable are not. I am of the "1% risk" discipline assuming that means the disad is closely debated. I am not of that discipline if your disad is just silly and you are trying to win it is 1% true, know the difference.

CP's: I have a soft spot for tricky counterplans. That doesn't mean I think process/cheating counterplans are legitimate, that just means I'll leave my bias at the door more than most judges if you get into a theory debate. That said, theory is won or lost through explanation, not through having the largest blocks. Generally I think counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive, that doesn't mean you can't win of yours isn't, it just means if it is then you probably have some theoretical high ground. I also think if you have a specific solvency advocate for the counterplan (meaning a piece of evidence that advocates doing the counterplan, not just evidence that says the counterplan "is a thing" [I'm looking at you, Consult CP people]) you should utilize that both as a solvency argument and as a theoretical justification for the counterplan. I am neutral on the judge kick question. If you want me to judge kick, say so in the 2NR/2NC, and if you don't then say so in the 1AR/2AR, that's an argument to be had. However, if no one makes an argument either way, my default is if the 2NR is DA, CP, Case, then I think there is an implicit assumption in that strategy that the squo is an option. If the 2NR is only CP & DA, I think the implicit assumption is aff vs. CP. Advantage counterplans are vastly underutilized. Logical counterplans probably don't need solvency advocates.

T: I think the way reasonability is construed is sad and a disservice to the argument. I perceive competing interpretations as a question of whose interpretation sets the best standard for all future debate, and reasonability as a question of whether the aff harmed the negative's fairness/education in this specific round. Under that interpretation (Caveat: This assumes you are explaining reasonability in that fashion, usually people do not). I tend to lean towards reasonability since I think T should be a check against aff's that try to skirt around the topic, rather than as a catch-all. T is to help guarantee the neg has predictable ground. I've voted neg a few times when the aff has won their interp is technically accurate but the neg has won their interp is better for fairness/limits/ground, but that's mostly because I think that technical accuracy/framer's intent is an internal link, rather than an impact. Do the additional work.

Theory: This is a discussion of what debate should look like, which is one of the most simple questions to ask ourselves, yet people get very mixed up and confused on theory since we are trained to be robots. I LOVE theory debates where the debaters understand debate well enough to just make arguments and use clash, and HATE debates where the debaters read blocks as fast as possible and assume people can flow that in any meaningful fashion (very few can, I certainly can't. Remember, I don't have the speech doc open). I generally lean negative on theory questions like condo (to a certain extent) and CP theory args, but I think cp's should be textually, and more importantly, functionally competitive, see above.

Framework/T against Non-Traditional Aff's: I have read and gone for both the Procedural Fairness/T version of this argument and the State Action Good/Framework version of this argument many times. I am more than willing to vote for either, and I also am fine with teams that read both and then choose one for the 2NR. However, I personally am of the belief that fairness is not an impact in and of itself but is an internal link to other impacts. If you go for Fairness as your sole impact you may win, but adequate aff answers to it will be more persuasive in front of me. Fairness as the only impact assumes an individual debate is ultimately meaningless, which while winnable, is the equivalent of having a 2NR against a policy aff that is solely case defense, and again I'm by default #1%RiskClub. "Deliberation/dialogue/nuanced discussion/role switching is key to ____________" sorts of arguments are usually better in front of me. As far as defending US action, go for it. My personal belief is that the US government is redeemable and reformable but I am also more than open to voting on the idea that it is not, and these arguments are usually going straight into the teeth of the aff's offense so use with caution. TVA's are almost essential for a successful 2NR unless the aff is clearly anti-topical and you go for a nuanced switch side argument. TVA's are also most persuasive when explained as a plan text and what a 1AC looks like, not just a nebulous few word explanation like "government reform" or "A.I. to solve patriarchy". I like the idea of an interp with multiple net benefits and often prefer a 1NC split onto 3-4 sheets in order to separate specific T/FW arguments. If you do this, each should have a clear link (which is your interp), an internal link and impact. Lastly, I think neg teams often let affs get away with pre-requisite arguments way too much, usually affs can't coherently explain why reading their philosophy at the top of the 1AC and then ending with a plan of action doesn't fulfill the mandates of their pre-requisite.

K's: These are the best and worst debates. The bad ones tend to be insufferable and the good ones tend to be some of the most engaging and thought provoking. Sadly, most debaters convince themselves they fall into the latter when they are the former so please take a good, long look in the mirror before deciding which you fall under. I have a broad knowledge of K authors, but not an in depth one on many, so if you want to go for the K you better be doing that work for me, I won't vote for anything that I don't totally understand BEFORE reading evidence, because I think that is a key threshold any negative should meet (see above), so a complex critical argument can be to your advantage or disadvantage depending on how well you explain it. I also think the framing args for the K need to be impacted and utilized, that in my opinion is the easiest way to get my ballot (unless you turn case or win a floating pic). In other words, if you can run the K well, do it, if not, don't (at least not in the 2NR).

Edit: I think it usually helps to know what the judge knows about your critique, so this list below may help be a guide:

I feel very comfortable with, know the literature, and can give good feedback on: Nietzsche, Wilderson, Moten (& Harney), Security, Neoliberalism, Historical Materialism, Colonialism (both Decoloniality and Postcolonialism), Fem IR, Deleuze and Guattari (at least relative to most).

I have both debated and read these arguments, but still have gaps in my knowledge and may not know all the jargon: Hillman, Schmitt, Edelman, Zizek cap args, Agamben, Warren, Ableism, Kristeva, Heidegger, Orientalism, Virillio, Lacan, Anthro, Ligotti, Bataille, settler colonialism metaphysics arguments.

ELI5: Baudrillard, postmodern feminism arguments, Killjoy, Bifo, Zizek psychoanalysis, Object Oriented Ontology, Spanos, Buddhism, Taoism, your specific strain of "cybernetics", probably anything that isn't on these lists but ask first.

***

Aff:

Bad aff teams wait til the 2AR to decide what their best arguments are against a position. Good aff teams have the round vision to make strategic choices in the 1AR and exploit them in the 2AR. Great aff teams have the vision to create a comprehensive strategy going into the 2AC. That doesn't mean don't give yourself lots of options, it just means you should know what arguments are ideally in the 2AR beforehand and you should adapt your 2AC based off of the 1NC as a whole. Analytical arguments in a 2AC are vastly underused.

Non-Traditional Affirmatives: I'm fine with these. They don't excite me any more or less than a topical aff. I think the key to these aff's is always framing. Both because negatives often go for framework but also because it is often your best tool against their counter-advocacy/K. I often am more persuaded by Framework/T when the aff is antitopical, rather than in the direction of the resolution, but I've voted to the contrary of that frequently enough. This won't affect the decision but I'll enjoy the aff more if it is very specific (read: relevant/jermaine/essential) to the topic, or very personal to yourself, it annoys me when people read non-traditional aff's just to be shady. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

Answering K's: It is exceedingly rare that the neg can't win a link to their K. That doesn't mean you shouldn't question the link by any means, permutations are good ways to limit the strength of neg offense, but it means that impact turning the K/alternative is very often a better strategy than going for a link turn and permutation for 5 minutes in the 2AR. I think this is a large reason why aff's increasingly have moved further right or further left, because being stuck in the middle is often a recipe for disaster. That said, being able to have a specific link turn or impact turn to the K that is also a net benefit to the permutation while fending against the most offensive portions of negative link arguments are some of the best 2AR's.

Last Notes:

I prefer quality over quantity of arguments. If you only need a minute in the 2NR/2AR then just use a minute, cover up any outs, and finish. I believe in the mercy rule in that sense. I will vote against teams that clip and give the culprit 0 speaker points, however I believe in the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", so be certain before levying accusations and make sure to have a recording. (Explicitly tell me that you want to issue a clipping challenge, I've had debaters email me and I don't see it, or wait until after the debate. Don't do that.)

I'll give you +.1 speaker points if you can tell me what phrase appears the most in my philosophy. Because it shows you care, you want to adapt to your judge, and maybe because I'm a tad narcissistic.

Things I like:
- A+ Quality Evidence (If you have such a card, and you explain why its better than the 3+ cards the other team read, I accept that more willingly than other judges)

- Brave (strategic) 1AR/2AR decisions

- Politics disads that turn each advantage

- If you are behind, I'd much rather you cheat/lie/steal (maybe not steal, and cheat within reason) than give up. If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'.

- Neg blocks that only take 1-2 flows and just decimate teams.

- Controlling the "spin" of arguments (I'll give a lot of leeway)

- Red Bull/Monster/M&M's (Bringing me any of these will make me happy, me being happy generally correlates to higher speaker points)

Things I don't like:
- Not knowing how to send speech docs in a timely manner!

- Debaters that act like they are of superior intelligence compared to their partner/opponents

- Reading arguments with little value other than trying to blindside teams (timecube, most word pics, etc.) Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

- Being unclear

- Horses (Stop acting like they're so goddamn majestic, they're disgusting)

- Toasted Coconut

Hi, I'm Phillip. I’d like to be on the email chain. phlublub@gmail.com

Background
He/Him/His
I competed 4 years at A-Tech in Las Vegas

Speech (Also applies to all debate)

For exempt:
+ Its usually best to follow the usual format. Intro, body paragraphs, conclusion.
+ I expect at least one piece of evidence for each point, and it should be cited with an author, date, and source.
+ Make sure to clearly define each point, letting me know when you are transitioning ideas.

Please do your best to speak loudly, steadily, and fluently. I am sympathetic to fluency breaks caused by stress or general nervousness, so if you need a second to collect your thoughts I will understand. Besides that, I value organization and conciseness--I wanna feel like you've put thought into what you're saying, why you're saying it, and even how you say it.

Public Forum Paradigm

+ Unless I indicate otherwise, assume I'm always ready.

+ Truth > Tech. I weigh on a framework of benefits and harms

+ Clearly warrant, cite, and explain evidence--no shallow appeals to common sense please

+ SIGNPOST. If you could signpost where you are in your rebuttal (E.g., "Starting with my case", "Moving onto my opponent's case", etc.), that would be great

+ Please don't unnecessarily interrupt during cross-ex. I want to see even engagement across the board, but don't give shallow or overly long answers

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

+ Unless I indicate otherwise, assume I'm always ready.

+ I competed in LD for 3/4 years, and this is the event I have the most love for. I performed well in my traditional circuit, and that's the form of debate I'm most comfortable with, and I feel my ballots in traditional rounds are best

+ My paradigm for PF carries over to LD, ESPECIALLY truth > tech. Instead of benefits and harms, however, I expect you to take a step back and focus on the moral admissibility (or the lack thereof, if you're on neg) of the resolution under your framework. Unless if the affirmative puts forward a plantext I'm less inclined to go for policy or post-fiat negs

+ Value/Value criterion debate all the way. Standards are fine as long as the presumptive value is morality. If you and your opponent have similar criterions, you should just cut to the chase and explain why your case works better under that framework

+ I already said my PF paradigm carries over, but please, I BEG you: clearly cite, warrant, and explain evidence in your speeches, and do not rely on appeals to common sense in your arguments.

Congress Paradigm

+ Unless I indicate otherwise, assume I'm always ready.

+ Roleplaying GOOD. Refer to your opponents as Representatives/Senators. I'm not one of those judges, however, who ranks competitors if they "act like legislators" by helping set the docket or resolve procedural conflicts. Just don't speak out of order and don't attempt to step over the PO or Parli. Do not handcuff yourself to anything in the debate room, especially as a form of protest.

+ RHETORIC. I enjoy unique rhetoric and purposeful speaking, so please go beyond the forensic grain when delivering your speeches. If you REALLY want to rock my ballot, a strong hook or extended metaphor in your speech and altogether sturdy rhetoric will expedite your path to a higher rank. Hearing debate jargon in this event (e.g., "contention", "block", etc.) tends to break away from what seems best for congress, so best rely on standard words and phrases.

+ STRUCTURE. If you warrant your claims and support them with reliable evidence, and on top of that impact your arguments to a broader context, and do all of this without filler or awkward digressions that interrupt the focus of your speech, I will rank you. Plus I want to hear your speech provide at least two distinct contentions (I said no debate jargon but whatever im the judge) so that your arguments don't blend into one-another

+ CLASH ON REBUTTAL SPEECHES. After the second or third cycle of speeches I expect that you spend your time speaking off the cuff and refuting/crystalizing the speakers before you. If you're called up late to deliver a speech and decide to NOT adapt to the situation and instead read off a constructive speech, you will fall in ranks. Even if you're not the best extemporaneous speaker, it still shows that you're engaged with the debate and want to make an impression

+ INTERNALIZE YOUR IMPACTS. I listen to impacts above all else, and to that end I expect your arguments will always point directly to a basis in reality. If you can make the room understand what it's like to be part of the population this legislation impacts most, you're not just giving a good argument, you're giving a great speech

+ For the Presiding Officer (PO): I will always rank the PO unless if they do something contemptible that specifically urges that I do otherwise (e.g., flagrantly violating procedural rules, favoring some competitors over others, unwarranted or nasty remarks towards others, etc.). Besides that, if you go fast, make little to no mistakes, and treat your fellow competitors equally and impartially, I will guaranteed rank you in the top 3

General things for y'all

+ For prefs: The more trad you are, the higher you should pref me

+ I prefer the competitors keep track of time, but I will keep time if that is either teams preference

+ Regardless of events, I will feel more compelled to vote for you if you demonstrate effective extemporaneous speaking in your speeches. Just have fun!

+ It should go without saying that being rude is different than being competitive or being strong, and fun. we aren't here to hurt each other and create hostility, but instead to progress all our education and have fun.

+ I'm still learning how to be a judge, and competing is far different from judging, so please go easy on me and lets all get better together!

+ Ask questions before the round if there's something you want me to answer that I didn't cover here.

+ Tournaments can be rough, and sometimes its hard to get lunch, so I understand if you want to have a snack in the round. With that being said, don't have any snacks that are loud, like opening chip bags, granola bars, or a full course meal, which I've seen happen as a competitor.

tldr: dont be mean and im a trad judge.

Do a speech drop, I beg of you.

However, if you have no idea what speech drop is, I still want to be on the email chain.
johnsb43@unlv.nevada.edu

I do debate, I do speech, I do it all. Don't lie please, I'll know.

My quals:

Six and a half years of competitive debate experience lol, 3x Nat Qualifier, 2x NIETOC Qualifier, and currently doing LD collegiate debate at UNLV.

I've competed at both the local and nat circuit so I'm familiar with a wide variety of debates.

Basic stuff,

1. If you're hateful or discriminatory in any way, I'm not scared to report it.

2. Keep the round fair and safe, if I notice anything out of the ordinary it won't look good on you.

3. I understand phones are a part of our livelihoods but only use them for time, nothing else. I will also be keeping time but I won't call you out if you go over, you should know and my speaker points will reflect that if you continuously go over.

Now specific thingies:

First, I'm okay with and can follow spreading as long as I'm in a speech WORD doc. I'm not going to try to flow your speeches if I have no feasible way to read your cards.

Second, I don't typically vote on theory but especially not disclosure theory. While your case should be on your Wiki, an entire debate that's not even about the topic at hand is not going to be beneficial for any party.

Congress-

Talk frequently, ask good questions, be courteous, and let me know that you're there. If I don't remember your name by the end of the round, you will not be anywhere near the top 9. Clash is a big thing and if you're able to use it effectively and appropriately, it will be huge bonus points for you. Decorum is a vital part of this event so please maintain it.

Policy-

like disads and I LOVE counterplans. If you present me a really good counterplan, I'm more inclined to vote for you. That being said if you're the aff you have the burden of truth, please prove to me why your plan is the only solution. I'm fine with T but theory and K's are not my favorite. At the end of the day though, weigh your impacts please. I'm a big fan of impact calc and I am often swayed to the competitors with the better weight. Cross gets heated in policy and I don't flow it but don't start yelling and insulting your competitor. I'm also fine with speed but a tip for novices, if you don't actually know how to spread, don't risk it. Give me a voter, by the end of the round if I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, I won't be voting for you.

Public Forum-

Please make sure you impact weigh, I need to know your weighing mechanism by the end of the round. I know when args and cards have been dropped. Explain to me what the round comes down to, the summary and final focus are the most important speeches and it's where my vote usually lies. I go by what my flow says and I will vote for the more compelling arguments if both sides flow well. I like line-by-line since it's more organized and makes everyone's lives easier. Signpost please, makes everyone's lives easier. Cross is for clarification, use it to forward your case more effectively. I don't love speed in public forum but I can follow it. Ultimately, I leave the round very much in the competitors' hands, have fun, and convince me to give you my ballot.

LD-

I hate flex prep. Don’t do it in front of me please. Prep is not another cross x lol. While I’m not necessarily against traditional debate, I have a strong preference towards prog. Now on prog debate,I don't like tricks, anything that will make a round abusive is automatically a no from me. On the aff side, I need your link chains to function. Your advantages need to be cohesive enough that I can follow your line of reasoning and it doesn't seem like a stretch. You must also stick to your stock issues for the flow to favor you, your plan needs to solve for all of them and if it doesn't, you don't have a likely chance of winning. On the neg, I love turns, CPs and DAs are cool and if compelling, they're good offs for the neg. While I don’t think I’m a T hack, I have definitely been known to vote on T but if you go for it, you have to go all the way. Like I said previously I don't typically vote on theory unless it's a MAJOR rule violation so do with that what you will, and I don’t like K’s (this includes aff K’s), I would recommend avoiding Theory and K’s with me as your judge. Overall though, if you're able to prove that the aff doesn't solve for the stock issues, the round will likely flow in your favor.


SPEAKER POINTS (this is where cross is important ;)):

24- You violated one of my basic rules!!! (Going over time won't get you a 24 but using your phone illegally will D;)

25- You still violated one of my basic rules but it wasn't too bad

26- Your speeches were really over or under time and you weren't a strong debater in the round; attitude may also be a factor in a 26

27- Your speeches were poorly structured, your arguments weren't the most understandable, and your speaking style could be improved

28- You were a great debater and you showed strength in all areas but there's room for improvement

29- You were close to a perfect performance but you had a couple of errors that dropped you down

30- Perfect.

Alright y'all, that's really all that I have, remember that most importantly debate is supposed to be fun, so let's have a good round!

I'm not impressed by sophistry.

Table of Contents

General Info

LD Paradigm

PF Paradigm

World Schools Paradigm

General Dislikes/Notes

Theory Issues

General Info

Started Judging: 2008

Started Coaching: 2010

Events Coached: LD, PF, Policy, Extemp, World Schools

Delivery: I don't want emails, flash drives, or printed copies. This is a speaking event and I plan to judge your argument based on your delivery of your case and rebuttals. I can handle fast talking, but no longer try to keep up with spreading. There is no educational merit, and many downsides, to encouraging students to speak at vastly accelerated paces.

Cross (excluding World Schools): I expect debaters to be polite during cross, but do not consider interruptions to be impolite. I understand cross time is limited and if you have the information you want and wish to move on to another question I understand.

RFD - If the tournament allows it, I will be happy to give my decision and discuss as long as competitors want/tournament time allows. If the tournament doesn't allow it, I will not disclose. If you try to get me to disclose at a tournament that doesn't allow disclosure I will take points away from you.

Lincoln-Douglas

Overview: LD is a moral debate that is meant to look at the underlying value of an issue. I favor a broad based approach that looks at the totality of the resolution vs. cases that over-focus on single examples or instances.

Values: I expect both debaters to have a value/standard/etc that clarifies the moral principle they are pushing for. Broadly speaking, I recognize values as automatic principles that don't need additional defense. If you tell me the most important moral issue is ensuring liberty/equality/artistic expression/self-actualization, I'll accept it as good. Having a sentence or two to explain the value/why you think it is important can be very helpful, but I don't need a long defense of the concept.

It is very hard, though not impossible, to disprove a value during a debate. Generally I expect to see the debate be about whether each side actually accomplishes the value they have outlined, not whether the value is morally good (the latter question becomes very hard for any person to judge without bringing their personal feelings into the debate).

Burden: Each side in LD has an equal burden. There is no Aff presumption that they get to set the terms, nor is there any Aff burden that they have to prove more than the Neg.

Flow: While I expect debaters to argue on the flow structure, I'm more looking to the upholding of the central principle (value) then whether debaters covered every contention.

Plans: I don't want to hear a plan and they usually don't make sense within the context of LD. That said, there are two very different types of plans that come up.

Broad explanations: Presume the motion: 'The US should end fossil fuel subsidies.' If the plan was that that US would end all payments to fossil fuel companies over the next five years, that would be fine. That's a common sense interpretation of what the motion is asking. I consider that more of an observation on the burdens of the resolution.

Narrow Plans: Taking the above motion, if the plan was 'the US will end payments to coal companies', to me that would be a bad plan. The Aff in this instance is trying to unfairly narrow the debate. The resolution's burden was end fossil fuel subsidies, not to end one type of fossil fuel subsidies. In such an example if the Neg said the Aff hadn't upheld the resolution, I'd almost certainly agree.

Both sides in a debate have an obligation to argue the entirety of the motion. Single, narrow examples on either side that don't relate to a broader principle are not enough to prove your side correct or the opponent's side incorrect.

Public Forum

PF is meant to be delivered to a general audience, not to people experienced with debate. Thus I will judge it as who did better communicating to a general audience. Please keep debate jargon to a minimum.

Final Focus is meant to narrow down the debate and explain the most important issues. It should be between 1 and 3 points. A final focus should not try to explain every single contention.

World Schools

Scoring - My ultimate decision will be holistic - I evaluate the round based on which team won the overall debate. This is not a debate where 'what is true at the end of the round' wins the debate, the entire debate is evaluated.

Unless I hear differently at judge instructions my scoring standard is -

68 - 70: A fine speech. This was either a performance that was neither particularly good nor bad, or had some really good moments mixed with some really bad moments.

64 - 67: A speech below standard. This range doesn't say that a speaker gave a bad speech, just that the speech was either underwhelming or had some problems.

71 - 75: A great speech. The speaker hit good points, spoke well, used their time well, etc.

Above a 75 is reserved for truly amazing speeches. On a level of "I ran out of the room to tell other people how amazing it was".

Below 64 is reserved for a speech with serious mistakes. The most likely is a speech that is off topic/framework and thus suffers on the content and strategy score.

What I'm looking for in each area:

Content - Logic, analysis, explanation, and evidence. Good content should be backed up by logic and explanation, but also thoroughly explained for how it helps your side. Just stating an opinion, even of an expert, on an issue isn't enough; it needs to be explained and tied to the overall argument.

Style - This is scored just like an oratory. I look for things like eye contact, understandable speed, clarity, emphasis through tone/volume changes or pauses to call emphasis to key points, and emotion and interest. Humor and/or emotional intensity may gain points if appropriate for the motion.

Strategy - Was the speech well put together? Was time well spent on the key issue, or where minor portions of the debate given too much attention? Did the speaker belabor arguments he/she had already won?

POIs - I expect a speaker to take around two POIs during his/her speech. These should be spread throughout the speech. If the first two are taken, and all others ignored, I will not count that as taking a good number of POIs.

Taking excessive POIs will hurt the strategy score. The only exception to this is if the speaker is winning (improving their side) when taking POIs - in that case continuing to take POIs is acceptable.

If a team is not trying to ask their opponent POIs, or asking very infrequently, then obviously the requirement to take two disappears.

POIs should be no longer than 15 seconds. That is the absolute max amount of time I think you have a right to take from an opponent. The speaker has the right to cut the POI off at any point and answer/continue.

Barraging - I think it is reasonable to stand 12 to 15 times during an opponent's speech (this is for the entire opposing team). Even going up to 20 could be acceptable. More than that though and you are taking away from the opponent's right to give a speech. For online WSD this should be cut in half.

I will take away/reward up to 2 points per speaker based on quality of POIs. A bad POI is one that the opponent is able to use to strengthen their own case or just a waste of time. A good POI strengthens the case of the deliverer or points to a weakness in the opponent's argument.

Framework/Terms of Debate - The prop has the right to set the framework for the debate. I define framework as an explanation of what the motion means, what, if any, specific burdens exist, what, if any, things are trying to be achieved, and what, if any, mechanism is being used (if any of those are not being done, because they don't need to be, you don't need to tell me, I'll understand). This framework must be fair and reasonable.

Fair - Does it give both teams an equal chance to win. If you try to define the debate in a way that substantially benefits your team I will consider that a bad framework for strategy scores.

Reasonable - Was this framework something that a person would consider the motion to mean upon hearing it? This framework should be based more on a common understanding of the words, not strict dictionary definitions.

Example - If the motion was 'THBT the death penalty is a just punishment for heinous crimes' and the prop tried to argue that they only had to show a single example, that would be a bad framework. It's not fair to the opposition and no person who was asked that motion would think they were being asked about a single hypothetical instance. If the proposition defined it as 'only in cases of premeditated murder' or 'for war crimes or crimes against humanity', either of those would most likely be fair.

Challenging Framework - If you believe the framework is unfair/abusive/unreasonable, you may challenge it. If you want to make a slight adjustment/clarification/addition you may also do that, but here I am focusing on a challenge to the entire framework proposed.

Alternative - You should offer an alternative framework. This must conform to the above standards of fair and reasonable.

First Thing - The challenge to the framework should be the first thing in the speech. If the prop disagrees with the opposition framework, it should be the first thing in their speech (and so on until there is an agreement on framework or we're out of debate).

I don't like framework debate. If the proposition framework is fair and reasonable and the opposition challenges it, the opposition will probably lose. Likewise if the proposition proposes an unfair framework, they will likely lose.

Other Issues:

When a speaker finishes, the next speaker should promptly proceed to wherever speeches are being given. There is no prep time. You may organize your materials, but you should not be having a conversation with your teammates. Once you get to the speaking position please confirm that I am ready for you to begin.

General Dislikes (All Debates)

If a team falsifies their evidence I will always vote them down. I do not care about the level of impact it had on the debate or whether the mistake was done via maliciousness or negligence. I see falsification as any of the following:

-Creating a piece of evidence

-Changing the wording of the evidence to alter meaning

-Cutting the evidence in a way to leave out arguments that might hurt your case.

I will also punish misinterpretations of the evidence, though the degree of penalty is determined by the level of misinterpretation. I see this as situations where the speaker makes substantial errors about the quality of the source, who paraphrases the evidence in a manner that is not accurate, or misunderstands the point the author was making.

Things I commonly see that I dislike

"My opponent did not attack X contention, therefore they must agree." This isn't true. If an opponent hasn't gotten to an argument in the time allowed for them to make their initial arguments, they can not offer any new evidence, but that doesn't mean they agree. The fact that they have their own case means they have principles that disagree with you and they can always argue why their side is more important. Also, many times people will claim their opponent hasn't attacked a certain contention when I have on my flow that they have.

"If I can prove just a 1% chance of this impact, I should win this debate." This is a profoundly silly line of argument.

"My evidence says I'm right" "Well, my evidence says I'm right", "What my opponent is forgetting is that my evidence says I'm right". I commonly see debates that just become a circle of the debaters going back to the evidence they read that backed their side and inherently presuming their evidence is superior to their opponents. During evidence clashes someone has to explain why their evidence is superior: more topical, better source, more logical, etc.

If you have an important piece of evidence, please explain the validity of the source if the name doesn't explain it (major news organizations, magazines, politicians, college institutions, could have an explanation, but don't need one per se). If I just hear 'According to Williams in 2017', I have no idea who Williams is. I'll evaluate whatever you say as if you'd delivered it without a source if you don't explain why the source matters.

"My evidence is more recent so you must prefer it." In certain cases recency is important, but it has to be explained why.

Theory

Theory issues are a check for fairness. Ideally, theory should never come up in a "good" debate, but they do need to exist.

I define theory as arguments that in some way deal with your opponent(s) having violated the structure of what a "good" debate should be. Examples: they are off topic, their delivery is inappropriate, they aren't providing their evidence, etc. Issues that don't have anything to do with the core resolution/motion, but based off how they are dealing with it.

To me, if you run theory you are basically accusing your opponents of cheating/being abusive. This is the most important issue in debate, but one that should only be run if you believe it to be true. If you run a theory argument that is itself abusive (ex: topicality against an obvious topical argument), I will hold it against you.

Background
Ex-speech and debate person who did exclusively speech, but I've watched and judged so many debate rounds I know what's going on (generally) in every debate format.

Preferences
Spread or don't, I can keep up

Stand or sit, I don't mind either

Bonus points to the team with the most puns in round

Clash going line-by-line please

Aff seated on the left side (audience pov) (or on your right as a debater)

Neg seated on the right side (audience pov) (or on your left as a debater)

Evidence

I very strongly prefer cards > paraphrasing, but it isn't a hard rule. I will punish you for misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable.

Know where your evidence is. If you can't find it, it's getting kicked. Do not cut cards in round.

~~Decorum~~

Being funny or witty is fine as long as it isn't mean. I am not afraid to tank your speaks if you are rude.

Prep

keep track of it i won't

Misc

sIgNpOsT!!!!!!!!

don't delink your own case to escape turns just frontline them

You can enter the room and flip before I get the there.

If you want to take off your jacket/change your shoes/wear pajamas, go ahead!

If you're trying to get perfect speaks, strike me. A lot of my speaks end up in the 27.5-29 range.

Email: ungfc@nv.ccsd.net

I value quality, well-applied, well-reasoned arguments over bucketloads of evidence. Evidence without application will not be afforded great weight. Poorly reasoned and supported arguments that are ignored by the other side because they are inferior and not worth the time or effort will not win the round simply because they are “dropped,” so don’t waste time telling me to flow dropped arguments to your side on that basis alone. Tell me why they matter, too. Roadmaps are awesome, especially when there is lots of ground to cover - and you don’t always have to start at the top. Hit the big issues first - I’ll be looking at your ability to identify those issues and give them their due weight and consideration in speaker ranks and round outcome. Spread if you must, but if I can’t understand what you’re saying, it’s not going in my flow. Similarly, spreading a ton of evidence with no application or analysis is worthless. Do not take creative license with cutting/interpreting/applying your evidence - if something sounds too perfect it probably is and I will be asking to see the original source material.