Short Version

I have ten+ years of debate experience and will buy any argument, as long as it is well structured and fair. I am known to be a very progressive judge in Wisconsin, however on Nat circuit level it might be better to treat me as a Flay judge. I do love a good traditional debate, but do like progressive debate. Most importantly have fun in a round!

Long version

Event Preferences

PF: Tech>truth within reason.

speed>collapsing: Share a doc and go for everything, yes even if that means spreading. I generally HATE time suck contentions, like don't waste my time flowing something you know you are going to drop. Provide more education to the round by running quality arguments, or end your speech early.

full case>paraphrasing: In general the more you can take the good file sharing habits of LD and CX and use them, the quick and better the round will go.

LD: LARP (Policy-style arguments i.e. Plans, CPs, Disads, Topicality) > Trad/Phil (Standard LD case) > Ks/Performance > Theory > Tricks> Disclosure Theory

CX Neg: Disads>T>Specs>CP>K>Theory > Tricks> Disclosure Theory

CX Aff: traditional cases>aff Ks>Disclosure Theory

Thoughts on certain topics

Framework: Please tell me how the framework contextualizes your offense / defense in relation to the ballot and/or the round. I require framework to also contextualize how your opponents arguments are implicated by your Framework arguments.

Argument Resolution: I reward debaters who clearly articulate and provide reasons why their warrants, impacts, sources are stronger in this round – Impact calc and voters are great ways to do this. Debaters who provide well warranted arguments on the flow that are developed early and throughout the debate get both high speaks from me and my ballot.

Theory: I vote on well developed procedurals, I do not vote on blipped shells that blow up later in the debate so have voters and standards don’t just give me an interp and violation - this isn't to say don't run T in front of me but rather that you need to provide me a well developed justification for why to prefer your side. Focus on impacts through a education/fairness filter will be the easiest way to my ballot on this issue. I do hate it when teams use theory as a time suck.

K debate: I have read and actively coach a lot of critical debate but you should not however assume I know the literature base you will be pulling from, feel free to ask prior to the start of the round about my familiarity. The more specific your argument is to the round or issue at hand then the easier route you will have to my ballot. I usually am not a fan of Perm because it can make the debate muddy. I do love conditionality debate.

Tricks: If is one thing you should not run with me, it is tricks, I like a clean and fair Debate.

Disadvantages: Disads are my favorite off case argument. I evaluate Disads first on the risk of intrinsic link to the AFF before questions of uniqueness and the way this implicates the affirmative, this isn't to say questions of uniqueness don't implicate the link but questions of link comes first and then are determined to be strengthened / weakened by the uniqueness. - Work done on the impact level to have strong warrants as well as good weighing are an easy way to my ballot.

Counter Plan: My second favorite off case argument to see. Make sure they are mutually exclusive and AFF can’t perm. Also I hate Perm debate usually on CP because it is either an easy win or waste of my time. I think overall Cp play well with Disads and are a easy way for NEG to win my ballot.

Speed: I am perfectly fine with speed usually I will only yell clear once and it is because you are not speaking clearly.DO NOT SPREAD ANALYTICS WITHOUT A DOC.

Flashing: Add me to the email chain, my RFD will be better if you do.

justinflynn190@gmail.com

David Henning—LD Debate Judging Philosophy

2024 Richard Nixon Invitational Tournament Edition

School Affiliation: Director of Debate at Sheboygan South

School Email: dhenning@sasd.net

LD/PF/Policy Rounds judged this season: 19/0/0

Lifetime (LD/PF/Policy): 532/77/2102

Years Judging: 41

IMPORTANT—READ FIRST. Over the course of the last few years, I have noticed several disturbing developments in LD. Stuff I never thought I’d have to discuss. I have that at the end of this philosophy, after the always relevant quotes. Given that we're in the middle of the season, these comments should no longer be necessary. Unfortunately, they are needed as much if not more than at the beginning of the season. Please read all of my paradigm before preferencing me or debating in front of me.

My experience with academic debate: I began my debate career during the Carter Administration. I was a policy debater in high school and in college during the 1980s. I was an independent (mostly high school) policy debate judge for many years. This is my fifteenth year as Sheboygan South's debate coach, and I was a college policy debate coach for four years. This is my eighth year of coaching LD debate. I've had some success both as a debater and as a coach. And I have many funny debate stories.

My Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, but please don’t insult my intelligence or agency. Don't tell me I "have to" do or vote for something. I will look for ways not to do so. Ignore my philosophy at your own peril. Ask if you are unsure. I’m coming closer to Bill Batterman’s Critique of Argument paradigm as applied to LD, since some policy debate paradigms make little sense in LD, although hypothesis testing has some appeal. I like original, unusual or counter-intuitive arguments when done well. Do not assume that anything is inherently good or bad. Far too many debaters assume that things like wasting money, destroying the Constitution or climate change are inherently bad and fail to read impacts to them. I don’t care about “wasted money” and want you to put the bodies on the flow. Hopefully all of them. Provide impacts and analysis if you’re not doing so. And be aware that I oppose "common sense," especially in a debate round.

Technology Time: For this tournament there is ?? minutes allotted to deal with technological issues that may affect the round. If you think you might have tech issues, say something so we can get it resolved. See tournament rules for more information.

Argumentation: A well-written, structured and reasoned case is essential for both debaters. That includes substructure. Be aware that evidence matters, as does evidence quality. Provide qualifications, when possible, for the sources you use and tell me why your evidence is of high quality and/or better than the evidence used by your opponent. Clash directly with the arguments your opponent makes. That means the line-by-line rather than just an argument dump or an overview. Tell me specifically why you achieve your value as defined by your value criterion (or achieve your opponent’s) and why that means you should win the round. Do impact calculus, telling me why the impacts of your case are worse than or outweigh that of your opponent. This is probably the most important thing you can do in the round. Provide a few clearly explained voting issues near the end of your last rebuttal and make a convincing call for the ballot.

Policy Debate or “National-Style” Arguments: I debated and coached both high school and college policy debate, and judged policy debate for 30 plus years. I like policy debate. I am open to pretty much anything you can throw at me. That said, I don’t think LD is a particularly good forum or format for many of the policy arguments. Kritiks, counterplans and disadvantages are necessary, but in LD they are nebulous since there isn’t an agent of change in the resolution, affirmatives usually do not offer a specific plan, and whether there is fiat in LD is another issue altogether. How can the K, CP or DA link if there isn’t a plan? Those running such arguments will want to keep that in mind and explain very clearly how their arguments are linked to the aff or the resolution. Likewise, an affirmative claiming solvency or advantages must meet that same burden. The same holds for kritiks, at least those based on policy action.

The format issue may be even more important. In policy debate, you have more speeches with which to refute and extend arguments. Ks, CPs and DAs introduced in the policy 1NC mean that both aff and neg can get to third line arguments. Fewer speeches means less developed arguments. You physically cannot get past first and sometimes second line argumentation in LD. Speeches are shorter than in policy, which means less time to develop such arguments and read cards. The end result is that debaters just read their argument, the opponent reads their first line answers, and that’s it. For complex (or really cool) arguments, this is unsatisfying and shallow. I really don’t have a solution to any of these issues, and I don’t reject policy arguments in LD, but this is something to keep in mind.

Topicality: Don’t, unless it is particularly egregious. I dislike topicality. Unless you can show me actual, in-round abuse, I’m not interested. Don’t tell me that the aff reduces education when you’re doing just that by running lousy topicality arguments.

Framework: Framework is usually so poorly argued I rarely see the point. A framework is an integral part of Lincoln-Douglas debate. By this I am referring to the value and value criterion for the round and/or the role of the ballot. You must specifically define and explain your value, hopefully something better than an ill-defined “morality.” That’s subjective and pretty much every social or cultural group has their own morality. The Nazis had their own “morality”---horrible, but defined. The word "ought" does not imply morality. Repeat, the word "ought does not imply morality. Define and explain your value criterion. Tell me how your case will best achieve your value as defined by your value criterion. You may attack the framework and case of your opponent or demonstrate how your case better achieves your opponent’s value as defined by their value criterion. Argue the superiority of your value/value criterion to that of your opponent. Be clear with your analysis. If there is a Role of the Ballot, you must explain that also. If there are policy arguments, you must say why you outweigh your opponent’s arguments.

Debate Theory: Theory has its place, somewhere, but it is never argued well in LD rounds. Don’t read cards from some debate coach at me. Why is that coach more qualified than you, me or someone judging in the next room? OK, why are they more qualified than me? Explain your theory positions and tell me why they matter in this round. What are the in-round impacts to your theory argument? Are there impacts on the activity itself? Does my ballot have a role in your theory argument? If you are claiming some kind of “abuse” of theory, show me the actual in-round abuse—potential abuse is not enough—and tell me why it should be voted against. I can’t remember the last time I voted on an abuse argument.

Quotes Related to my Judging Philosophy (ask if you have questions)

“It’s a basic truth of life that we tend to give more credence to the opinions of people who know what they are talking about.”---Kel McClanahan.

“Add it up, it all spells duh.”---Buffy Summers

"[He's] an orange-hued dirigible exuberantly buoyed aloft by the inexhaustible Primus stove of his own ego."---Boris Johnson, on Donald Trump

"If you immediately know the candlelight is fire, the meal has been cooked a long time ago."---Oma Desala

“The early bird may get the worm, but it’s the second mouse that gets the cheese.”---Nigel McGuiness

“Anytime you hear ‘with all due respect,’ disrespect is sure to follow.”---Montel Vontavious Porter (MVP)

“Tact is just not saying true stuff.”---Cordelia Chase

“It is easier to fool people than to convince someone they’ve been fooled.”---Mark Twain

“Yankee detective are always on the TV, ‘cause killers in America work seven days a week.”—Joe Strummer (The Clash)

“They tell lots of lies about me. They say I killed six or seven men for snoring. Well, it ain’t true. I only killed one man for snoring.”---John Wesley Hardin

"Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift."---Bob Dylan

“Facts are stupid things.”---Ronald Reagan

“Mom, I’m a vampire slayer.”—Buffy Summers

"Sometimes I think this job is too much for me."---Warren Harding, on the Presidency

“People say Bob, what do you do with the money we send you? We spend it.”--- Pastor Robert Tilton

“The most popular songs are always the worst.”---Natalie Maines

“Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp.”---Bob Dylan

"The numbers don't lie. . . I got a hundred forty-three and a thirds percents of winning."---Big Poppa Pump Scott Steiner, and reprised poorly by Maxwell Jacob Friedman

"That was the equation! Existence! Survival must cancel out programming."---Ruk, planet Exo III

"You talk about your Olympic gold medal--big whup. I was all-county in the triple jump."---AJ Styles, to Kurt Angle

"The judge's jokes are always funny."---Dan Hansen

"She's a monster of staggering charmlessness and monumental lack of humor."---Richard Burton, on Lucille Ball

“A stitch in time gets the worm.”---Buffy Summers

"You blow up one sun and everyone expects you to walk on water."---Lt. Col. Samantha Carter

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.”---Mark Twain

“The Good Earth—we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy.”—Kurt Vonnegut

"Wrong thinking is punishable; right thinking is as quickly rewarded."—The Keeper, planet Talos IV

". . . there are no truths outside the gates of Eden.”—Bob Dylan

"What is truth, if you know what I mean?”—Lionel Hutz

"When Stalin says dance, a wise man dances."—Nikita Khrushchev

"Nothing really matters much, it’s doom alone that counts."—Bob Dylan

and

“You know, it actually can happen. I mean, the chances of it happening are very rare, but it can happen actually. Which is crazy. Not that it—the chances of it are, like, you know, it's like probably “pigs could fly.” Like, I don't think pigs could fly, but actually sharks could be stuck in tornados. There could be a shar Yeah so you're listening knado."---Tara Reid

LD General Issues

This is not English class or forensics. Do not write your case as if it were an assignment that you are going to turn in to your teacher. It’s not an essay. Nor is it an oratory or persuasive speech. Do not “preview” the names of all of your contentions, and then go back and read them. Start with the first contention. Then go to the second contention (if you have one). Provide me with some substructure. I don’t want a preview like you would do in a school paper or presentation or a forensics speech. Previewing messes up my flow. And note that you must use evidence in your case.

Put the citation first, before you read your card, not after. Many judges try to get the tag and the cite. I won’t know it’s a card if you read the cite after your evidence, and then where should I put the cite? You’re already on to the next argument or card. Read the tag line, name and date, then the body of the card. Provide the complete citation in a small font size (8)—that means qualifications, source, the link if it’s an on-line source, date of evidence, date you accessed the evidence and your initials. If you fail to provide a complete cite, or even a partial one, then all I have is some writing by someone with a last name and a date. I can’t treat that as evidence if I can’t see the full cite should it be necessary for me to do so. This does not mean a list of internet links at the end of your speech. That’s useless for debate (and academic) purposes.

Provide the Correct Date. This is the date the article or book was published, not the day you accessed it online. Virtually every online article lists the date the article was first published. Use that date. If the article was updated, and you are accessing the updated article, use that date.

Do Not Use Ellipses ( . . . ). In academic writing it is acceptable to cut out chunks of text you do not want to use. That is not OK in debate. You must keep all the text of the card. If you do not, judges and debaters don’t know if you cut out something important, like “not” or “never.” That’s taking a card out of context. Shrink the text you are not reading to a small font size (8). Both Paperless Debate and the Google Debate Add-on have a shrink feature. Use it. If your opponent notices ellipses in the body of your card and points it out in the round, then it is no longer a card. If ellipses are in the original, indicate that.

Do Use Brackets [ ] sparingly. Brackets are appropriate for brief explanatory or clarifying text. A few words, maybe a sentence. Use sparingly and only when essential. If you’re adding multiple sentences to your card, you are altering the card itself, and that is inappropriate. Adding a lot of text is akin to taking a card out of context or fabricating it altogether.

Delivery Style: Speak loudly and be clear. That is the most important thing. I work hard to try to get down as much of each speech as possible on my flow. Speak toward me, not your opponent. If it is especially noisy then speak louder. Your points may suffer and I may miss arguments if I can’t hear you clearly. I don't care if you sit or stand. Don't walk around. I don’t care about eye contact or gestures or a forensics-style polished or memorized speech. That stuff is meaningless in a debate round.

Do not expect 30 speaker points. The magical speaker point pixies have been very active the last few years. I have never seen so many 30s given out by judges. No one I have seen this year has warranted a 30. I have not given a 30 in sixteen years. 29s are relatively rare, but I do give them. I gave a 29.5 and seven 29s last season. And remember (coaches and judges take note of this) that there are tenths (or halves) of a point, and I use them regularly. The strangest thing is that I have not changed the way I award speaker points. I was once one of the highest speaker point judges, and now I am one of the lowest. But don't worry, I haven't given less than a 25 in eighteen years.

Heed my “louder” and “clear” warnings. Many debaters ask me if I am OK with speed. I answer yes. I seriously doubt if you're fast enough to give me trouble. But clarity is much more important than rate. Often it goes like this: I answer yes, the debater then proceeds to speak at a much faster than normal (conversational) rate, but is unclear. I shout “clear.” No change in delivery. A little while later I again shout “clear.” No change. In my previous philosophy I said I may deduct a speaker point after repeated “clear” warnings. I will now deduct a half speaker point if I have to give a “clear” warning after three. At some point I will give up shouting “clear” and your speaker points will suffer a little more. You have been warned, because clarity is key.

Have a way for your opponent to see your case and evidence. Use NSDA File Share in the competition room. You can also put the document in the chat. Use email chains if that fails. Include the judge in the chain. Should evidence be challenged in the round, judges and competitors must have access to this.

No New Arguments in Rebuttals. New arguments in rebuttals diminish or eliminate the opportunity for your opponent to respond. I will not vote on or consider new arguments in rebuttals, whether your opponent points this out or not.

Other issues. A road map is short, just the order, like aff, then neg, or the other way. Don’t tell me every argument you plan to make, or all the things you plan to refute. And you refute or rebut opponents' arguments, not "rebuttal" them. Don’t read a bunch of definitions at me—it’s usually pointless and is difficult to get down on the flow. Use all your prep time. Even if you don’t think you need it (you do), I need it to write comments. I will be unhappy if you don’t use all your prep time. I disclose and provide comments, and I encourage you to ask questions after my decision and comments.

About me: I Judge LD a few times a month for Marquette University High School. I’m currently an Economics major with a Mathematics minor at UW-Milwaukee. I’m extremely passionate about debate and I’m excited to get to judge this season!

Experience: I’ve done two years of Congressional Debate, two years of Extemporaneous Speaking (USX, sort of similar to LD in terms of prep and topic), and one year of Great Speeches (which is basically just those rhetorical analysis essays you have to write in AP English Lang except it’s a 10-minute speech). I’ll be able to follow if you talk quickly, but you should probably slow down for your main arguments or at least signpost them in some way so I don’t miss them. I may be experienced in speech, but I will judge primarily on content over performance. My speech and debate categories are a lot more focused on data, practicality, and structure, but I’ll do my best to keep up with the more philosophical nature of LD debates!

Round Evaluation:

If there is no agreed upon framework, I will consider which framework is better in my final decision, as is standard. While I do consider the ideological and philosophical attacks on and justifications for frameworks, if one side does not provide a real-world impact based on their framework that shows why it is an important angle of consideration, I will consider it to be inferior.

While stating a value and value criterion can be helpful, I won’t knock you for not having one (though if you do have the former, you should also have the latter). But if you don’t have one and your opponent does, and you don’t agree on a framework, it would be in your best interest to use their value and value criterion as a means to justify the superiority of your framework.

I’m not a huge fan of counterplans to or kritiks of the resolution. They aren't always a bad move, but they tend to drag the debate into the weeds pretty quickly, so I would only do it if you have an exceedingly strong case for your kritik or counterplan.

Primary Considerations: In judging LD, I compare the strength of each case as they stand at the end of the debate, a statement so obvious it wouldn’t even be worth writing down were it not for the fact that debaters keep ignoring one key aspect of this measure. I find that often debaters will focus too much on attacking the opposing case instead of building their own. You may crush your opponent’s tower into dust, but a pile of dust is taller than no tower at all.

This part isn’t super important, but I thought I’d mention it. I think humor is one of the most underrated elements in debate. A joke or two, when appropriate, can elevate your performance, boost your confidence, and establish a rapport. I wouldn’t suggest spending you limited prep time coming up with a joke (I mean, I did that all the time in Extemp, but I had a whole 30 minutes and some bizarre priorities). However, if you add one to your pre-written material or happen to come up with one on the spot, it certainly wouldn’t hurt. Debate is supposed to be fun, so have fun with it!

I was a public forum debater for three years at George S. Parker High School. I have been judging for five years!

I operate under the standard offense/defense model of judging. I strongly desire ink on the flow, and tons of clash within link chains.

Read at a speed that leaves your diction in tact, and do not spread. If you speak above 200 words per minute, just know that I will ignore you.

Show grace, patience, and charity to your opponents. Intentionally uncompetitive engagement with your opponent will tank your speaks.

I like the existence of framework, but I especially like framework that is meaningfully discussed and implemented.

Less is more. Less total arguments, more quality ones. Anything above three contentions is absurd, but one or two is ideal.

Flow judge, but uncarded analysis is totally acceptable and often preferred to mangling evidence for the sake of narrative.

Crossfire should be questions and answers, back and forth. Questions end with a question mark, and are not accusations.

The summary should contain all offense and defense that you intend to weigh in final focus.

Collapse off losing arguments, and tell me as clearly as you are able what specific kinds of weighing you are winning.

In final focus, specifically present the voters of the round. Yes, that does mean you should tell me which ones you are winning.

I prefer that both teams set up an email chain for evidence exchanges, and disclose their cases. (This is NOT required)

*christianjamesauthor02@gmail.com*

My email address is debatejudge21@gmail.com
I am new to judging, so I don’t have deep experience on the complexities of debate theory anddelivery.

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Don't talk too fast, it is hard to follow sometimes and words aren't super clear.

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? No, I will try to follow along as best I can

I would like to hear a fair debate where both sides respect each other. I will be fair in my judging and don't come in with pre-conceived ideas. I truly make the decision on who has done the best job presenting their side.

P.F.

The biggest thing is to debate P.F., don't treat it like policy. Please be clear about when you are switching contentions and be sure to weigh your impacts clearly, don't assume that us judges are making the same connections that you are. If you run a one contention case, please have strong links. Please spell out your impacts, Imperialism isn't an impact, you need to tell me why imperalism is bad. As a judge I won't let my background influince my decision, but that does meen you need to tell me exactly what your impacts meens in terms of qountifiable impacts, number of deaths, cost of monye, increce in crime, global destabilisation, that kind of thing.

Congress:

I've been judging Congress for 6 years now, and of course, all the basic things are important: good projection, good variation in vocal tone and volume for emphasis, and most importantly, a cohesive, original argument. In addition, please be respectful of your competitors; assertive speech styles are fine, but avoid ad hominem attacks. Similarly, when asking questions, don't interrupt the answerer when they haven't even finished a sentence yet; again, find the line between assertive and just plain rude. Make sure your introduction doesn't have a jarring shift in tone when compared to the rest of your speech. Lots of people enjoy funny intros, but they don't really work if you give a speech about war crimes, for example. Crystalizing is good, but if you have an entire speech that's just crystalizing, you end up with something that is more like 6 30-second long speeches instead of a single 3-minute speech, so don't go overboard with it. Make sure if you use the same arguments as a previous speaker, you do something new with it, or go in greater depth in a specific aspect of the argument. Otherwise, all you're doing is telling the judges that you thought the previous speaker did a really good job.

A smaller thing, but it still bugs me when it happens, please don't use debate lingo in congress when it doesn't make grammatical sense without a debate background, for example "sqo solves" is not something that makes sense unless you do debate and this isn't the place for that.

Email: Oscarh.rich@gmail.com

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

I'm a former policy debater and judged it throughout college and after. I'm happily returning to judging after an absence. LD was new for me in 2022. Please include me in your email chain: truckstopnun@gmail.com

IN GENERAL:

I aim to adjudicate based on what you present to me (i.e., tabula rasa), but I'm not partial to kritik about debate itself; that seems like changing the rules of the game mid-play to me. Counterplans are fine, but so are generic DAs; just give me vigorous clash with whatever you have. I love to hear analysis and rationale.

As far as jargon goes, I prefer you to approach it like you would citations for publication: i.e., give me the full title/headline/name upon first mention, then abbreviate/slang it for the rest of the time. For instance: "Capitalism Kritik" becomes "Cap-K", but "IDF" could be either "Israel Defense Forces," "Insurance Development Forum," "International Diabetes Foundation," "International Dairy Foundation," "Immune Deficiency Foundation," and so on—hence why I'd like the terms before abbreviation. I've been around a long time and have a head full of these things, so please help a girl out.

I flow every speech thoroughly—including CX—so I appreciate organization and roadmapping a lot, even if it's as brief as, "I'm starting with DAs, then I'm going case." Likewise, signposting is helpful for my flow.

I'm fine with spreading, as long as you are able to enunciate well; speed comes with preparedness. If you become nigh intelligible, I'll probably wave my hand in a "slow down" motion or call out "Clear" if you're particularly mush-mouthed. Incorrect pronunciation without qualifying reason [I'm not referring to dialect or folks with a primary language other than English, but more the "nuclear vs nuculer" variety] is a pet peeve, but not basis for judgment; it just makes me think you haven't spent enough time with your cards. Please: learn how to pronounce the names of the people and places in your cards! Personal names can be hard and cause you to stumble in your speech (and in turn lose your place), while country names you should be familiar with already (for the most part).

I want you to use your rebuttals to sum up why I should vote for you, to give me your analysis of the entire round and why your side has clearly proven superior in this argument. I don't want to be pummeled with, "This is a voter! And this is a voter! You must vote XYZ! And you must vote XYZ!" over and over, ad nauseum. That does nothing to convince me. I'll decide what is a voter; you just give me explanation of why that particular point is so important to the debate and your interpretation is the correct one.

Also, not every single piece of evidence you have—addressed by the other side or not—is a voter. Please don't use them as blunt instruments to hammer at me. Evidence backs up your argument; if the argument isn't sound to begin with, that evidence is just going to dangle in space—not carry the entire round (in most cases). I don't want to you to waste your precious rebuttal time repeating the empty phrase, "This card is a voter! This card is a voter, too!" Sure, tell me they've dropped arguments or have acccepted your framework, or even that your card is more recent or from a more reputable source. But if the other side has dismantled your entire case, why should I care if they didn't touch that extra card sitting under your supposed impacts? That will not win the round. Rationale as to why that one dropped card is a linchpin for the entire argument might.

I don't tolerate rudeness, and I'm also an ally—keep derogatory thoughts to yourself. This is an exciting, educational activity that is meant to help everyone become more confident public speakers, dogged researchers, constructive verbal combatants, and robust thinkers. If you demean, mock, get snippy, or cop an attitude with your opponent, I will dock speaker points and may weigh against you, depending upon severity of offense.

FEEDBACK: I don't give much verbal feedback aside from disclosing whom I find for if the tournament requires it; I'm too busy weighing my flow and typing up the ballot. I may not have all the reasons for decision sorted into complete, deliverable rationale yet. It's not meant to be a slight or intimidating—I just have a lot to convey and not much time to do it. I will give brief insight into why I voted the way I did when judging online, but it won't be extensive for the prior reasons. I believe it's my duty to provide you with a thorough, written record of the round, which will be more reliable for future reference than recollecting a quick discussion.

POLICY SPECIFIC: During CX, you should be able to answer questions directed to you; an interjection by your partner is fine, but they are not the one under CX so I expect you to pick up the burden. Negs, If you want to run more than one T argument, fine—but make sure you're actually following through and *debating* them, not using them as verbal caltrops tossed in front of the Aff and abandoned like chaff. Don't waste our time, please.

LD Debate Judge Paradigm

Introduction

Hello, I work for Marquette High School judging and did Mock Trial in High school for two years with Saint Thomas More High School. I’m Still very new to the Lincoln Douglas Debate, but I appreciate feedback and cooperation. I planned to Judge for the entire season and be the judge people would want. A little more about me is that I am from Quebec, Canada, and moved here in 2019. I know three languages (English is my third Language) and love the expression of culture and identity. I will know most of the base depth of terms and their context in most topics.

Speaking

While you’re speaking, I very rarely will stop you, but one thing is that I will not prevent the debate understand a point you make. It is your responsibility to speak clearly and effectively with your time. Remember that half the battle is your side, and the other half refutes the claims of the other. The quality of your information is just as important as the quantity of your information. Remember that time is never on your side, and you must use your prep and speaking time as much as possible. I love it when people use body language and look at me when you're talking. This shows that you know your topic and don’t rely on notes for the debate.

Evaluating the Round

1. How do you evaluate the framework in the round?

Most important in all debates is how you structure. There are many ways to structure it, but ensuring it sounds effective and has a flow supporting your argument can strongly persuade me to vote for you. I want to see more than one field of this effect. Most topics affect economic and social injustice, morality issues, etc. The broader the scope, the more you have shown that you know more angles of the topic. But it might be as strong as a Broader scope if you have a small scope and hit all the angles effectively.

2. Do you expect to see a value and a value criterion?

It depends on how you structure the debate. Suppose you go in-depth on a specific topic. If you're going with a broad scope (i.e., Topics that focus on three issues: economic, political, and environmental), I might not suspect you need one, but how do these all connect to understand more of your argument?

3. What are your thoughts on reading plan texts, counter plans, or critics in LD?

I think you should be creative in how you can do things. Counter plans and plan texts are acceptable, the same things as critics. If you back it up and make it work, I am okay with it.

4. What is most important to you when you decide who wins?

I will rank the following in importance: evidence and contention, Topic broadening and relevancy, Value and Value criterion, and Body language and effectiveness.

Other Notes

In a few sentences, describe the debate you want to hear or any other things debaters/coaches should know about your judging style.

After every round, I will comment on how you did and make suggestions on the round. Please don't get offended by it and consider it a learning moment because, in the end, this is about having fun.