(a) Paradigm: (aneeladvani@gmail.com)

total points for each speaker/debater: /30

logos (strength of argument, evidence): /10

taxis (clarity, structure, rebuttals): /10

lexis (style, speaking, smoothness, interactions, emotional impact): /10

(b) Specific comments:

• I prefer clearly understandable speed of delivery; if you are spreading rapidly please send me your cases so I can follow along.
• Please speak up so I can hear you

I am in my 15th year as an educator, and my 2nd year as a speech coach and judge. I most value the quality of an argument, and assess which side presented the most convincing argument, overall. While I value a dynamic delivery, I find too much passion or animation distracting. Please, don’t shout. I have little use for theatrics masquerading as argument.

I am convinced best by a well-structured, well-researched, cited, and competently delivered speech.

I prefer a conversational rate of delivery, as I can’t note what I can’t understand.

I expect everyone to conduct themselves politely throughout the round, and that includes the avoidance of condescension in word, tone, or gesture.

I currently debate in the Open Policy Division for James Madison University (2020-present), and was a previous varsity debater at Woodgrove High School. Novice Finalist and JV Semi-Finalist for JV/Novice Nationals, 2nd round NDT Qualifier, CEDA Doubleoctafinalist and current president of JMU Debate. I am currently a coach for JMU's novice team. My specialty is in policy debate, but I also have experience judging both LD and Public Forum.

Please include me in the email chain:

dannisebrown@gmail.com

If you have any questions about anything regarding debate or JMU, please do not hesitate to contact me there! I'm happy to answer any questions or provide advice, and I could probably talk all day about the JMU debate team, especially if you're looking to do debate in college.

tech > truth

I am more likely to vote for you if you have good, warranted impact calc, analysis, and comparison. I need to know why I have to vote for you with urgency.

Here are some main pointers that would be good to follow:

1. Clarity > Speed

There is no advantage or point in spreading if I can't understand anything you're saying. I'd much rather have clear and concise diction than slurred arguments. I am fine with spreading, but only if you can be understood by others.

2. CX

Open cross-examination is fine with me--its great to help each other out. However, I won't give you good speaks if you talk over your partner or don't let them answer questions.

3. Language

No sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. comments. Your speaks will be docked if there is offensive language within (or outside of) the debate round.

4. Kritiks

I love critical arguments; but do not assume I've heard of your K before. Fleshed out, well explained Ks make for a good debate round, as it is hard for me to vote for a K if it isn't explained well enough or if you don't understand the K yourself. I can tell when you're word vomiting, so just don't do it!! I need good link explanation and impact analysis.

5. Theory/FW

Please for the love of god do not read anything along the lines of "Kritiks are exclusionary and big words bad" I will not vote on it. This is the one clear exception I have to "run what you want to". It is not a convincing argument and often ends up being discriminatory, and you do not want to be in that position in front of me.

6. Prep

Prep time should end after the document is saved, and debaters will be expected to keep their own time. Do not steal prep time, and flow when the timer has started. Emphasis on keeping your own time, it's good to know where you are in the debate and it doesn't look good if I am forced to tell you to stop your speech.

7. Speaks

Things that will boost your speaks: flowing, good organizational skills, good cx questions, good technical skills and correct usage of debate lingo. +.5 points if you make me laugh in round.

Things that will lower your speaks: offensive language, rudeness towards teammates or opponents, stealing prep, hogging open cx, not interacting with your opponent's arguments, and cheating. Sexism, racism, queerphobia, and predjudice of any kind will not be accepted in a debate I'm judging and will result in sub-twenty speaker points, or the lowest the tournament will allow me to administer.

8. Online debate

I'd prefer to have everyone's cameras on if able unless prepping, its a little awkward to listen to a speech given by a black screen.

I have some experience in the current topic, but it isn't extensive, so please keep that in mind when debating. Debate is a wonderful place to test your knowledge, challenge or be challenged, is great for education, and is a safe space, so remember to be respectful of everyone in the room.

Let's debate!

I debated Policy and LD for 6 years in middle and high school, and coached Policy for a year in college. I have a few criteria which might be considered somewhat unorthodox in this league, so read below carefully.

-Be clear rather than fast. Speeding and spreading reflects an attitude of sophistry. If your tactic is to confuse or overwhelm your opponent, you will likely confuse or overwhelm me, and that will result in a loss.

-Be courteous. (This should go without saying.)

-You probably know more about the topic than I do. You're the teacher. Educate me.

-Avoid debate lingo. You can't use it in "real life" so using it as a crutch is not helpful to your actual communication skills (and building your communication skills is hopefully why you're here). I don't care what arguments you actually use--CPs, Kritiks, whatever, go ham--but explain it all in terms a layperson could understand.

-Reading a piece of evidence does not mean you win the point. The real work of debate is in your reasoning and analysis skills, not your ability to pull a perfectly tailored quote out of your box. Of course, perfectly tailored quotes never hurt, but you need to explain how they apply and why they matter.

-I typically give the W to the team that demonstrates a more thorough understanding of the issue. This is usually reflected in better rebuttals, but I'm not going to give a victory to a team that technically addresses every point but is scattered or contradictory in doing so.

Hello, I'm a parent judge and am excited to be judging! I don't have much experience in policy debate, which means my preferences might be slightly different than what you're used to:

• Please try to speak at a slower, more reasonable pace and speak clearly. If you are trying to overwhelm your opponent, you will most likely also overwhelm me. If I can understand you, I will be able to understand your arguments much better as well.
• Please avoid debate lingo as much as possible. Since I don't have much experience in policy debate, I will not be able to follow the lingo. If you feel the need to use it, make sure to clearly explain it in terms that I could understand.
• Be kind and professional! At the end of the day, we're all here to learn and have fun.

Good Luck!

I am the Upper School Debate Coach at Sidwell Friends School. My email is downesc@sidwell.edu — please put me on the email chain if there is one.

CX

Some stuff you probably care about:

Ks, K affs, performance, and other, non-normative ways of engaging with debate and the resolution are fun and fine in my personal view, but I've voted for framework before and I have no doubt I will again. Even if I think you're being a little bit of a cop about it. I can be convinced of a lot in the space of the round about the proper purposes and form of the activity, but I think the traditional arguments for the virtues of topical, plan-focused, switch-side debate are substantial.

Speed is ok. Clarity is essential. Paperless debate has gotten debaters into some very bad habits, among which is thinking that they can rely on judges to read speech docs to reconstruct basically unintelligible 1ACs and 1NCs. I won't be doing that. This is an oral advocacy competition. It's impossible to articulate a brightline on this but them's the breaks. So consider being conservative on this front. That goes double if the debate is online: you're just flatly not as clear as if we were sitting in a room together and I need you to slow down to compensate for that.

Some stuff I care about:

Cross ex matters. It is a speech, it's binding, we named the event after it, I pay very close attention to it and I firmly believe rounds can be won and lost in cross. It's also just the most dynamic and fun part of the round for me. I have given up on trying to fight for closed cross but just know it's very embarrassing if your 1N can't answer basic questions about the K alt or your 1A can't answer basic questions about your solvency mechanism and if that's obvious it'll be reflected in speaks.

I will vote on defense. A well-articulated, warranted, and contextualized no link argument extended into the last rebuttal can absolutely get me to give zero weight to an impact where the link story is poorly articulated and badly warranted. Relatedly, I will vote on presumption and feel strongly that the aff has the initial burden of persuasion. I realize this all makes me sound a million years old. I don't care.

I care about being told a coherent story. Contradictory off-case neg positions turn me off for that reason, even if you collapse down to some kind of plausibly non-contradictory position in the 2NR and are feeding me a "testing the aff from multiple perspectives good" line. Performative contradiction arguments or clever cross applications between flows are attractive to me for similar reasons.

Presentation matters. A good presentation in a policy round often isn't the same thing as good presentation in other forms of oral advocacy. But you fundamentally want to make me like your debate persona, and if I do I will be looking for reasons to pick you up. If you come off as cruel or a bully, I'll be looking for reasons to drop you.

PF

I think evidence violations of various kinds are, unfortunately, pervasive in PF, as a consequence of bad disclosure and evidence exchange practices combined with the use of paraphrasing. In part as a response to this concerning state of affairs, I hold students to a high standard on evidence ethics and have a comparatively low threshold for voting on this stuff or signing a ballot on an evidence violation. I will ask for evidence I think sounds fake or misrepresented. I will take an evidence ethics issue to tab on my own initiative even if not raised by your opponents.

I try to evaluate PF according to its own standards rather than just being a transplanted policy hack (which is admittedly what I am). To my mind a good PF round should look not dissimilar from talking heads on a cable news show discussing current events. It should be intelligible and engaging to an educated and informed lay audience. And that means this is not an event that should privilege a fast, technical, evidence-driven style of debating. I'm perfectly capable of flowing and judging fast, technical rounds, but I am flatly not going to hold debaters to the same kind of standards on this stuff that I would in a policy round and will afford significantly more leeway to less technical presentations than I might in CX.

For related reasons, I have a very high threshold for voting on theory in PF. If you do not have a credible in-round abuse story or it looks like you are cynically using highly technical theory arguments to bully a less technical team I will be spending the entirety of the debate looking for any halfway justifiable excuse to drop you.

Courtesy and promptness in satisfying requests for cards are something that I will take into account in speaker points. As far as I am concerned (and per NSDA rules), your opponents are well within their rights to ask for every piece of evidence you read or paraphrase, which you must then promptly provide to them in a manner which clearly shows, through e.g. highlighting or underlining, what portions of the evidence you read or paraphrased.

Congress

If you are giving a speech that is not an authorship speech and it contains no clash, you will not get more than a 4/6 score on that speech. If you are giving a speech that is not an authorship speech and you appear to be reading the speech in its entirety, with no extemporaneous elements at all, you will not get more than a 4/6 score on that speech. If your speech is substantially repetitive of prior speeches, you will not get more than a 4/6 score on that speech.

I will generally rank a PO who effectively manages the chamber at #3. Other than the PO, I rank largely based on my scoring of speeches.

LD

I never did this event, don't coach this event, and have judged it only a handful of times. I do have a background in philosophy; it's what I got my undergraduate degree in. You'll probably find some helpful things under my CX section. I'll do my best.

Who are you?

I debated CX at Scituate High School in the conventional stock issues focused style of the Southeastern Massachusetts Debate League, then at UMASS where I turned into a K debater while learning everything I actually know about debate from Jillian Marty. Following a hiatus from debate I was an assistant coach for policy debate at James Madison High School in Virginia from 2018 to 2022. I have been the debate coach for Sidwell Friends School since fall 2022.

In terms of my non-debate life, I am among other things a Christian, a socialist, and a practicing class action plaintiff's lawyer.

I am a relatively new judge but I have regularly listened in second hand as an armchair commentator on a good amount of debate competition rounds judged by an experienced friend who's also a coach.

My background is in sociology and political theory, so I appreciate arguments that are connected into the big picture structural societal dynamics, historical context, and theoretical framework. Generally, I tend to focus most on the content and how developed and holistic the analysis is over technical matters, jargon, or rules.

Finally, this should apply for anyone who is spreading for the sake of accessibility and effective communication, but I wanted to note as someone with sensory processing differences that if you are spreading be sure to enunciate and speak clearly if you want me to evaluate what you’re saying. I’m generally fine with speed itself (I listen to podcasts on 1.75x) so long as it is not a jumbled slur of words. It also helps to slow down for key statements and break things up with changes in speed/tone. If you’re not understandable, I might interrupt by saying “clear”.

I have coached debate for close to a decade, so I judge all styles. My background is in the humanities, and I teach philosophy at the high school and collegiate level. In this paradigm, I will list my preferences in order of importance:

1. Evidence (timely and well-sourced)

2. Logical connections between evidence and arguments

3. Ability to adjust in-round to what is happening and strategically and effectively countering the opposing side

4. Solvency

I rarely award wins on topicality. I am fine with kritiks and spreading, as long as I can see what you are reading. If you don't seem to understand your own argument, you will almost always lose when I am judging you. I assess this in terms of how you explain your argument in cross-ex in your own words and in your correct pronunciation and use of jargon and philosophical terminology.

Judging Philosophy: I do not judge based on my personal position on a matter before me. I judge on whether the arguments are supported and defended between the teams or individuals.

Background: I am experienced Circuit and Classic judge having judged local, regional, and national tournaments for the past twenty years. Recently judged all preliminary 2023 NCFL Grand National Policy Rounds and the Octo, Quarters, and Semi-Final Rounds. I was the 2022 NCFL Grand Nationals Parliamentarian for Student Congress (Semi-Finals) in Washington, DC; 2022 NSDA Parliamentarian for Student Congress; 2022 NSDA National Tournament Supplemental Congress Parliamentarian (Finals); 2022 WACFL Student Congress Metrofinals; 2021 NSDA Policy Finals; 2021 Parliamentarian for Student Congress; 2020, 2019 NSDA Policy Finals (including qualifying rounds); 2018 NSDA Policy Rounds; 2017 National Qualifiers for NSDA Speech; 2016 NSDA Nationals for Congress (Parliamentarian); 2016 NCFL Grand Nationals (Policy Debate); 2016 Congress WACFL Metrofinals (Parliamentarian); 2015 NSDA CX Policy Semi-Finals; the 2015 NCFL CX Quarterfinals; 2014 NCFL LD Finals.

For Policy and Public Forum: I judge as a policy maker and not truly on a line by line (but will evaluate all arguments in the context of a policy making decision). Better debaters analyze the opponents' case/points and prove why their opponents' case is either without foundation or weak and the policy position should not be adopted.

Able to judge Circuit style policy arguments. However, to prevail with Circuit style arguments, the debaters must still ensure they meet their prima facie obligations. See Unusual Points No. 1 below as an example.

Speed is an issue if the speaker is unintelligible and the speaker points will reflect that problem. What I don't understand, I can't flow, and if it is not on my flow, I cannot evaluate. Clarity is the name of the game. Teams should properly provide clear "taglines" for their arguments in order for me to follow (I will not accept flash drives or links to arguments).

For LD: I judge on the basis of cogent and clear arguments without reaching the value and value criterion debate. The better debaters, however, will incorporate the philosophical rationale in their arguments. Unless both cases are weighted equally in terms of argumentation, do I then go to the value criterion debate. The better debater demonstrates that his value is met using his/her value criterion. If the debater does not have a value criterion, I will weigh that debater's value against his/her opponent's value criterion.

For Congress Debate: (1) As a Parliamentarian, I rank and judge the PO based on his/her effective control of the Chamber, fairness to the Representatives or Senators on recency, and understanding and implementing the Tournament Rules and Roberts Rules of Order when necessary. (2) As a Judge, I rank and judge a speaker on clarity of his/her argument for or against a Bill or Resolution along with appropriate evidence following Tournament evidentiary rules; the better speaker is one who does not read a speech and who rebuts another Representative's or Senator's points. I do not appreciate form (sounding good) over substance. I give less points and ranking for consistent "rehash" throughout the Session. The effective Congressor is one who blends persuasive speaking with substance and debates the other speakers.

For Speech: Speech is not "acting", it is interpretation of an event, a person's situation, or a story-line that is impactful. The use of one's voice, body, and facial expression all play into the scoring of an individual's performance. I am not a fan of "popping" to delineate characters, but do not take any points off for using that method.

Each event has particular rules that must be followed. For example, in prose and poetry, the individual uses a binder and must appear to be reading it to the audience. In duo, the partners must not look at each other nor touch. In dramatic interp, if you have multiple characters, your characters must be distinct by voice characterization or body language.

Now with Extemporaneous Speaking, I look to the speaker's ability to explain and answer a domestic or international question with poise and understanding of the topic question. I am not a true fan of the "Unified Analysis" ("UA") approach, but it is the standard in HS Speech. I coach a hybrid UA approach that stresses persuasive argumentation and analysis. I do not appreciate the "extemp walk", which is very stilted and not natural.

Impromptu Speaking, the ability to tell a story with an impactful meaning is what I look for between the competitors. Using the UA approach is fine, but any way of telling an impactful story or narrative will do.

Unusual points.

1. Burden of proof for all forms of debate. Because the AFF has the burden of proof of presenting a prima facie case, so too the NEG has the burden of proof when presenting its case. For example, if the NEG argues a Kritik without providing an alternative, it has failed, in the classic sense, to meet its burden of proof and I have the ability as a judge to mark down the argument as carrying little weight. A NEG Kritik without an alternative is nothing more than a non-unique disadvantage. To that end, the same goes with the AFF in terms of its failure to provide a Plan Text and Inherency if it is running an AFF K.

2. Kritik for all forms of debate. A Kritik as an AFF case in Policy can be run. However, be warned that as a classic judge, you must present the Kritik as an AFF by presenting a prima facie case and solvency through a detailed Plan. Failure to do that most likely will result, as in any case not meeting the burden of proof, a loss. The team must provide a Plan or Solution that solves the underlying Kritik whether it be Capitalism, Racism, Sexism, or any other "ism".

Although not favored by some, a Kritik can be argued in LD as a "classic" counterargument to realism or rationalism. To get around the prohibition, a creative student will argue that if the Affirmative fails to address the underlying "ism", the Affirmative Case in support of the Resolution cannot be accomplished because there will be more harm than good.

3. Cross-Ex for all forms of debate. Cross-examination information will be used in the decision making process. As in real life, cross and direct examination are oftentimes the key to resolving issues and the answers can and will be held for and against a team. In "Open CX", if one debater is answering all the questions, the one who should be answering will have a lower speaker point.

4. Topicality for Policy. If the Case and Plan directly link to the Resolution and appropriate definitions are provided to clearly establish that link, topicality is generally not a voter. However, this does not mean that I will not entertain all T arguments. As previously stated, the NEG has the burden of proof of demonstrating a violation.

5. Counterplans. If the Negative runs a counterplan, it must not be topical (i.e., using a federal government agency). Otherwise the Negative concedes that the Resolution should be upheld. In order to win a counterplan you must show that it is better than the Affirmative Plan and that it is net-beneficial to do only the counterplan as compared to the Affirmative Plan.

6. Document Share. I do not partake in document sharing. This is a communications event, not reading event, which requires the debaters to inform the judge of their arguments. However, when required, I do ask for evidence that has been challenged as incorrect or improperly cited for the position it advanced.

Qualifications.

1. Assistant Coach for Dominion HS, Sterling VA, for all Debate and Speech Events since its opening in 2003. Total time as a judge commenced in 2002.

2. Former HS policy debater at the Championship Level (dating myself) and Forensics (Dramatic Interp and Declamation).

3. Former HS Model United Nations Third Place North American Invitational Model United Nations winner (representing Belarus).

4. Former Judicial Clerk to the Honorable Roger J. Miner, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, former Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, former USAF JAG Civilian Attorney, and former Assistant General Counsel for a Global IT Company. Current Legal Counsel to R&D IT Engineering Firm specializing in AI, AIOPS, ML, Cybersecurity, and Secured Cloud Operations.

I did 4 years of policy in high school and one year in college. I also did Congress, HI, Duo, Oral Interp of Lit, and both Domestic and Foreign Extemp in high school. I have coached speech, policy, and LD for 3 years in Virginia.

In debate, I enjoy a fast clip, but cannot keep up with a super-fast round the way I once could. Think a 7 on a 1-10 scale. I love a good T debate. I will listen to kritiks, but prefer to keep things on a policy level.

I am new to Policy Debate, but I've judged at a WACFL before and I use a specific criteria when deciding the winning factor between teams:

- Which team had the biggest impact

- The understanding that a team had on their own argument, which could be demonstrated during their cross-ex period

I am also a huge believe in politeness and etiquette when it comes to debate and would love to learn more as I judge.

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

I like arguments to be clear and structured, thanks

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

Email me at: davidjia39@gmail.com

I competed in policy debate in high school and for a short time in college. I am an experienced coach in policy, LD, and congressional debate. I have also coached PF and speech in the past. This year is my 12th year of coaching and my 5th year as a head coach. I have been judging off and on since I graduated from high school many, many moons ago and consistently for the past 10 years.

Because I am a former policy debater and current coach, I am able to follow spreading, however, if I cannot understand you because you are not enunciating I will simply stop flowing. Please adjust your speaking accordingly. Having said that, if you are an LD, PF, or congressional debater, I expect that you will adhere to the norms of your debate event and refrain from any egregious spreading.

I keep a complete flow of the round, but also expect you to make connections between arguments for me, not expect me to search for clash after the round is over.

While delivery and speaking skills are important, the round will come down to your argumentation skills. I appreciate off time road maps that give me a chance to organize my flow before a speech. I also prefer debates with sign posting as it makes it easier to find arguments on the flow as a speech progresses.

I am tabula rasa judge, so I am judging the round based only on what is argued in the round. I expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on using impact calc, weighing, and direct clash. I will vote on counter-plans, disadvantages, and kritiks as well as a good theory argument, but you have to make a solid case for why I should vote for you over the other team.

Most importantly, I have high expectations for debaters’ in-round conduct. This is a competitive event, but I expect everyone in the room to treat all others with the utmost respect and comport themselves with decorum at all times.

This is my fourth time judging policy debate. My background is in Law, so I am used to the format of policy debate. In this paradigm, I will list my preferences in order of importance.

1. Evidence (Which team has clearly done more research, which one has good data, which one has concrete background information, and overall reliability of sources).
2. Logical connections between evidence and arguments.
3. Ability to refute arguments made by the opposition using evidence.
4. Solvency.
5. Correct Procedure (Although this is very minor).

Most of my wins are based on which team has a better foundation and whichever team integrates their evidence to support their argument better, especially during cross-examinations. I value overall clarity in one's arguments, as well as good sportsmanship between teams (not cutting off people, and being respectful at all times).

- Mira Kim

Affiliation: Jackson-Reed High School (DC- 2015-2020), Alice Deal Middle School (2012-Present)

Other Coaching positions: T.A. Edison High School (VA -1993-1997), W.T. Woodson High School (VA--1997-2000).

Former College NDT debater: Around the time that your parents were coming into existence.

Email: tim.stroud@k12.dc.gov. Please use the File Share function on NSDA Campus if it is available over an e-mail exchange.

Coach of 30+ years at the high school and middle school level. Coached debaters throughout the years who have excelled at the TOC, nationals, invitationals and a variety of other forums. I am a tabula rasa judge up until the point that the advocacy becomes unrealistic. Quite honestly, when I have to do more work than the debaters in the round, I am far less inclined to vote in a debater/team's favor. Simply put, the better debater is one who presents, defends, and ends their advocacy with a clear logical/analytical position based upon solid research and an understanding of the proposed resolution.

Avoid at all costs: Flex prep, tricks, non-topical positions, wasted time in rounds doing doc exchanges, long roadmaps, time suck arguments, cond args in LD /Policy. if the intent isn't to debate it throughout the round, then don't put it out on the flow. Generic shells with absolutely no links to the resolution--Baudrillard, etc. IF YOUR advocacy is to be disrespectful of the educational value of the activity in word or deed please change your tactics. I prefer to vote for the realistic rather than the absurdist post-modern ramblings of a 'philosopher' that no one other than obscure academics that the rambler works with understand. Simple rule: If you can't explain the depth of a philosophy in two coherent sentences then save it for when you debate in college.

Framework/Standards Debate--Set a standard for the round that makes sense in terms of the activity. If you are debating policy, a plan that is far more than a throw-away reiteration of the resolution. Instead, show all of those attending the round that you've thought and delved deep enough into the resolution to propose a viable change to the staus quo.

In LD/PF let's hear about the resolution. Tangential theory arguments that lack a clear link or purpose will not only cause a raised eyebrow, but it will require far more work on your part to win my ballot. suspect. I vote on whether to affirm or negate the resolution...not a critique on the consequential outcome of forced policy parameters. See comment regarding preposterous philosophy ramblings above.

Case Structure: Contentions should be carefully crafted, contain claims, warrants, and impacts and link back to the framework offered at the top of the round in order to provide a well-researched/reasoned case position. A case position that is founded upon theory arguments that is without research or evidence to support the basic claims are assertions and will be treated as such. If they are run and the opponent fails to point out the fallacies of such arguments, they are passing up an opportunity for an easy ballot. Same goes for warrantless case/plan spikes that are advocated for in the constructive and then neglected/punted for the remainder of the round which serve merely as a strategic time suck for the opponent. I am not a judge that will pretty much ever vote for tricks, time suck arguments, or spreading intended to overwhelm the opponent. If you are offering 6 off case arguments in LD then I am probably listening to poorly constructed, warrentless claims that don't have a chance of overcoming affirmative presumption. Yup, I've actually voted on presumption arguments offered by the aff in the last year.

Neg: if the only thing run is a structural security K or overly general CP shells then be prepared to prove and defend specific links to the resolution. Aff debaters who can chip away at uniqueness, internal links, impacts, or alternatives are greatly rewarded.

Speed--I can flow it if you can get it out...however, if it is unintelligible or full of debate jargon that doesn't either further the argument or advance your position then I will be far less compelled to write it down, understand it, or vote for it at the end of the round. Simple lines of analytics are not arguments...they should be explained.

Flowing--I do

Time--Feel free to time yourselves, but excessive road maps, getting set up, outside of CX card checks, and things that should have been accomplished in CX or during prep time are a waste of time. Unless there are a slew of arguments that need to be reorganized for some reason at the top of the speech, simply sign-post as you speak.

RFD: If the tournament allows it I will provide my decision at the end of the debate. It is based upon the debater that provided--throughout the round--a logically sound set of arguments that are presented in a cogent manner. I have little tolerance for high school students who continue their advocacy during the RFD. If you would like to engage in a dialogue about the round during breaks in the tournament feel free to approach me in the hallway or cafeteria.

Speaking: This is a communication activity that carries with it standards for decorum. If you are appearing before a judge for the first time, I coach my debaters to always put their best foot forward. That goes towards always defaulting toward the norm that the judge expects you to stand for CX, address your advocacy toward the judge, and show a level of courteousness that one might encounter in any professional work environment. Speaker points reflect all of these elements.

2024 Paradigm

Experience: I debated and coached policy ranging from the middle school to collegiate levels from approximately 2003 to 2017. I've judged on and off since then. I also have some experience judging PF, Congress, LD, and some Speech events. I served as the Tidewater Debate League President from 2014-2015 and created the Virginia Debate and Speech Judging Facebook group. I have been out of the scene for a few years now at this point. Schools I was directly affiliated with/debated for/coached: Kemps Landing Middle School, Princess Anne High School, Harrisonburg High School, James Madison University.

Preferences: I probably can't flow or comprehend varsity policy collegiate-level spreading as well as I used to, but hope to re-build this tolerance. The same probably goes for technical terminology, especially if it's newer (within the past 5 years).

Note-Taking: Due to my training, my default setting is "flow everything." I could be convinced otherwise.

Argument/Style: Like note-taking, I have preconceived notions of what's important; however, I am amenable to being told what should be important.

Conduct: As I refamiliarize myself with the scene, I will be open and observant to how customs and practices have evolved in my absence.

TL;DR I have experience judging/competing/coaching and am open to many different arguments and styles; however, I've been out of the scene for a few years.

For Public Forum Debaters: Please give me impacts to weigh, even if only in your Final Focuses. I find myself having to make value judgments about how things should weigh against each other after most pofo rounds and you don't want me having to do that.

Email is mgveland@gmail.com

I competed on the national policy debate circuit for four years at Thomas Jefferson HSST ('19). Now, I coach middle school public forum debate and middle school parliamentary debate. I love debate: it's the single most impactful activity I've done, and I will give you my 100% as a judge.

WACFL Metrofinals 2024

Here's some feedback I find myself regularly giving debaters at WACFL.

1. Engage with your opponents' arguments directly. A good way to do this is: "They say XYZ. But, actually,
2. Respond to all of your opponent's arguments, especially in the constructive speeches. If the 1NC has a Politics DA and a Wages DA, the 2AC should refute both the the Politics DA and the Wages DA. If you "drop an argument" (don't respond to an opponent's argument), the round becomes much more difficult for you to win.
3. Compare your evidence to your opponents'. If you have evidence saying one thing and your opponent has evidence saying the opposite, tell me why I should believe yours. Here are some ways to compare evidence: recency, author qualifications, rigor of research, relevance of research.
4. Do impact calculus. You probably won't win every impact. If you win one impact and your opponents win another, explain why your impact is more important. Let's say that the NEG wins that their Politics DA will lead to war, and the AFF wins that the 1AC plan will stave off an economic recession. Which of those impacts is more important? Here are some ways to compare impacts: magnitude, timeframe, probability
5. Give off time roadmaps. Your roadmap should be a list of the high-level arguments you will be addressing, in the order you are addressing them. A sample 2AC roadmap might be: "Contention 1, Contention 2, Wages DA, Politics DA." These make it substantially easier to follow along with your speech.
6. Flow the debate. Every round is unique, and the speech docs you use in another round may not be applicable to this one. Flowing (ideally on paper) is essential.
7. CP's should have a net benefit. If you are running/refuting a CP, check this out: https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/counterplans.html
8. If you are running/refuting a DA, check this out: https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/disadvantages.html

Top Level

Please do not read cards that are powertagged, lack warrants, or are underhighlighted to the point where you are not reading the warrants. If you see your opponents doing this, call it out during your speeches: I'm 100% willing to throw out "evidence" that doesn't say what the tagline claims it does.

Relatedly, smart analytics are fantastic and will easily overcome a barrage of subpar cards.

Spreading is fine, but slow down on tags and speak clearly. I'll say "clear" once if I can't understand you. After that, if I look lost, it's because I am. Please slow down.

I have little experience with the topic – if an acronym or complex policy change is going to be a big focus of the debate, please explain it early on in the round.

Run what you’re best at and prioritize technical execution: do line-by-line, number your arguments, and give organized speeches. No matter the type of argument, good debate is good debate.

Arguments can have zero risk.

Strategic Affs/Negative Strategy

The most strategic affirmatives are both sufficient and necessary to solve the impacts of the 1AC. Most 1ACs are not both sufficient and necessary, and negative teams should use that to their advantage.

If the 1AC can’t solve its own impacts, then is voting AFF really try-or-die?

If the 1AC isn’t the only way to solve its impacts, then can an advantage counterplan solve instead?

Case debate is underrated: I'm happy to give a 1AC that's predicated on suspect internal link chains zero risk if you make (and win) that argument.

K Affs vs. Framework

Negative teams are best positioned going for limits/fairness. Why does the affirmative’s model of debate wreck limits/fairness, and why is that bad? TVAs and switch-side are useful arguments for subsuming affirmative offense.

Affirmative teams are best positioned going for a counter-interpretation. Why is the affirmative’s model of debate better than the negative’s? Counter-define words in the resolution to explain why your counter-interpretation is predictable, maintains limits, and includes a role for the negative to subsume negative offense.

Ks

I prefer Ks with specific links to the 1AC and clear explanations of the alt. If you are reading a K about how the world is structured, a brief overview in the block would be great. The rest of the debating should be done on the line-by-line.

DAs

Specific links are best. Try to supplement the impact debate with turns case arguments, whether carded or analytical.

CPs

I prefer CPs that are functionally and textually competitive, but I know that sometimes Process CPs are the only option. Be ready for a theory debate.

Misc.

Please time your own speeches.

Prep time ends once the email has been sent.

I competed in policy debate all four years of high school in the 1990s and went to NSDA (then known as NFL) nationals twice. My coach was very traditional -- we did all our own research and did not attend debate camp. I am currently a practicing appellate attorney and the parent of a first-year middle-school policy debater. Having judged multiple local and online policy tournaments this academic year (2023-24), I am fairly familiar with this year's resolution and the most common plans and arguments out there. Keep in mind that it has been nearly 30 years since I debated, so while I am very comfortable with stock issues and off-case disadvantages, I am not up to date on modern debate theory and jargon. I am familiar with kritiks and counterplans, but they were uncommon when I was debating and have evolved a lot in the last 30 years, so please don't assume I know what you're talking about. I am receptive to theory arguments and non-traditional approaches if you explain them well, but if you don't understand what you're reading, I probably won't either. Spreading is OK as long as you're clear, but please slow down on tags. I appreciate having an electronic copy of your case, but I will not be reading anything independently unless you direct me to a particular card. If I can't understand your oral presentation of the evidence, I will not be flowing or considering it. Points made in CX will need to be raised in the constructive and/or rebuttal speeches to make it onto my flow. I am very persuaded by good line-by-line, analytics, and logic, as well as big-picture coherence in the arguments.

I have been judging debate for over a year now. In high school, I participated in the speech team. Although, I wasn't a debater as a high schooler, I have a background in policy and research/presenting research. I believe in coming into tournaments with a objective perspective. I mostly have experience with public forum/policy debate/ Lincoln Douglas Debate/ and the various categories of speech (mainly Dramatic Interpretation). Please keep your delivery at a pace that can be understood. I'm fine with off-time roadmaps for categories that use roadmaps. I also don't mind giving time signals :) In general, I'm relatively flexible and just believe in judging rounds fairly and according to the NSDA rulebook. But please keep in mind, like you, I also have much to learn.

I have mostly judged in Northern Virginia and Chicago!

I will prioritize clarity. Please signpost and slow down in your speeches.

Things I’ll be looking for in the round:

1. Collapse and Weight!
   
   

1. Not all of your arguments should be extended to the final speeches, choose the best argument to go for. Tell me why your argument comparatively is better than your opponents and why your impact matters more. I will prioritize the teams who weigh.
   
   

2. Warrant: evidence reasoning.
   
   

1. Evidence of so and so saying your argument is true is not warranting, please explain it through why it is true with analytics.
   
   

3. Have fun
   
   

1. Debate is a game, enjoy each round and play your strategies to win!