About Me: I am a Sophomore in South Carolina. I compete in Extemp, LD, Congress, and WSD. I went to nationals last summer and broke to top 40 in the tournament.

LD preferences:

Speed: I will be flowing on computer so I am able to keep up with fast speaking and even spreading. However, there are 2 exceptions, if your are speaking so fast and so hard to understand, I will eventually stop flowing if I can't understand. Secondly, I will entertain spreading theory if your opponent brings it up.

Fluency: Being a good speaker isn't everything but it is important. I will raise the points of the round if both you and your opponent are quality speakers. Obviously, it is okay to stumble so long as I can follow our train of thought.

Case itself: I am pretty progressive in debate so I would be happy to hear a well crafted K, Theory, CP, Plan, or resolution argument. In addition, I will always be receptive of a traditional case. In a trad case, I am looking for a great value clash. In a debate with a dull value clash or the same value, value criterions are extremely important. Content overall must be well argued and creatively crafted to win a debate.

CONGRESS preferences:

I prefer quality and content over speech flair however it is important. NO REHASH, good crystallization means high ranks

About Me:

I am a sophomore in high school. I have competed in Congress, Public Forum, and LD.

Speed: I am experienced with fast speakers and can flow spreading but don't recommend it. It doesn't help anyone if we can't understand what you are saying. If it is to the point where I can't understand your arguments, I will stop flowing and drop those points. If you are good at spreading, please don't lose articulation and clarity.You are trying to persuade me, not your opponent. Don't speak at me, speak to me.

Structure: Be structured and provide a clear roadmap before each speech. Excluding constructives. Don't jump from one point to another without being structured because it becomes confusing and out of order.

Cross: I will flow cross and it may be used as a tie breaker as needed. Ask short questions to avoid wasting time. Don't ask 30 second questions. I understand that sometimes the cross may get chaotic and aggressive with the questions and answers which is ok as long as everyone remains kind and respectful of each other.

Evidence: Please don't bring up new arguments/evidence in your second affirmative or second negative rebuttals. Please have your evidence ready to be seen in case of evidence challenge.

Value: I prefer for you to have a structured framework and contentions to support your value premise and criterion. Be sure to be tying your arguments back to your values. I am looking for big value clashes. The decision for the round will mainly be deciding on how you weigh on values and explain how you win on the value debates.

Overall, debate is a fun experience so I hope you guys enjoy your debates and have fun! I will be trying to give you the most helpful feedback I can in the comments so you can grow and reach your full potential!

Email: cobychis3@gmail.com

About me:

• Junior in High School

• Events I've competed in: LD, House, Extemp Debate, WSD, Mock Trial, Prose, Poetry, and HI during a weird phase

• NSDA Nationals x2

• Mock Trial Nationals x1

• 3rd year in speech and debate

• debate nerd

• best friends with the famous madigan lawlor

General Stuff:

1. Tech/truth:I won't argue for you, I will only evaluate the round on the arguments presented.

2. Evidence & Argumentation: I prefer GOOD arguments. Don't just copy and paste random crap from the debate wiki.

3. Dropped Arguments: If an argument is dropped, it is considered true unless the opponent shows why the argument is flawed. However, a dropped argument still needs to be impacted in the round for me to weigh it.

4. Theory:I’m willing to listen to theory arguments but they need to be warranted and clearly explained. I prefer practical and educational debates, so running frivolous theory without solid justification could hurt your chances unless you demonstrate clear abuse or negative impact on the fairness or education of the round.

5. Speed (Spreading):I can handle speed to a reasonable extent, but clarity is essential. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow you.

6. Cross-Examination (CX):I view cross-examination as an opportunity to clarify arguments and expose contradictions. But CX isn't on the flow. Extend any points you bring up in CX during your speech and explain why it matters, or it won't affect my decision.

7. Speaker Points:

30 - Literally changed my life

29 - really really good

28 - pretty good

27 - meh

26 - needs work

I won't go below 26, and probably won't give a 30.

8. Weighing: I will default to my flow if you don't crystallize, but you help your chances to win if you clearly weigh impacts and explain why you won to me.

9. Framework: winning framework DOESN'T win the round for you. Whoever wins the value debate decides how I judge the round, not who wins the round. You can lose framework but win, and win framework but lose.

Specific Stuff:

• I know the NSDA rules

• Don't bull crap me on framework... I will know

• No new arguments in crystallizing speech - I won't flow them and may deduct points

• Stay in time - I won't flow anything you say outside of the time you have been given

• You can keep time, but i'll be keeping time too and my time is the official time

I won't disclose, but will try to give comments at the end of the round. I want to help you guys be better and learn. If you have any questions, you can ask me before the round.

I have competed primarily in Congress, however I do have experience in LD, WSD, and various speech events.

In LD, I believe that a competitor's framework, choice of criterion and value, and general speechwriting skills are all very important, but at the end of the day I care about the quality of the debate more than the quality of the actual argument. The winner of an LD round should typically be whoever does a better job defending their argument and putting the other argument down, regardless of what each side is arguing.

Although success in the refutation and cross-examination periods is what I value most in determining the winner of the debate, I do still think it is important to have a strong constructive case that starts your side off well.

Some of the worst mistakes that I believe a competitor can make in LD are: not addressing your opponent's points, not providing clear answers in cross-examination, not clearly defining your value and criterion, and focusing too much on either defending OR attacking (you need a balance of both).

I judge based on your arguments through the lens of the values. THE VALUES DO NOT WIN THE DEBATE. Whoever wins the values gets to decide how I judge. For example, if you win the value debate and say that I should judge based on Human Rights, that just means that all of the arguments should be based on that value. I have dealt with speed before so that's fine, but I'm not perfect, so try to make your arguments understandable and clear.

Speaker points are kind of subjective. But here's the rubric I'll be using:

If you won:

30= excellent, very persuasive, great argumentation, or if you bribe me

29= overall good job, could use some improvement with clarity, causal links need work

28= mediocre, harder to understand, argumentation is not very good

27= did you write your case yesterday? Neither side was good yet you managed to pull out the win

If you lost:

29=like the 30 above but unfortunately you ran into someone who was really good. Better luck next time

28=see 29 in the win section

27= see 28 in the win section

26= this is as low as I go. I'll try to help you as much as I can in the comments.

I am an ex-traditional policy debate coach (Stock issues judge) who has been coaching LD since 1990. I usually administrate tournaments rather than judge except when I have been at Catholic Nat's and NSDA Nat's.

Speed: Adapt to the judge who prefers a few well-developed arguments to spreading. I will flow as fast as I can, but it is up to you to communicate to me the compelling/persuasive reasons why you should earn the ballot. Speak clearly and articulate your words and you'll do fine.

Flex Prep. No. Speak within the time constraints and use prep time to see Evidence.

Evidence Challenge: If you doubt the veracity of evidence, then challenge it at the next available opportunity. Remember evidence challenges are all or none. If the evidence has been proven to be altered or conjured, then your opponent loses. If the evidence is verifiable and has NOT been materially altered, then you lose for the specious challenge.

Arguments: A few well-reasoned claims, warrants, and impacts are very persuasive as opposed to a laundry list of underdeveloped assertions/arguments.

Theory Arguments: Not a big fan of sitting in judgment of the topic and/or its framers with critiques. But I do weigh the issue of topicality as germane if made during the constructives.

Philosophy: It's been labeled Value debate for a reason. I encourage the discussion of scholarly philosophies.

Framework: There is a Value that each side is pursuing as their goal. There is a value criterion that is used to measure the accrual of the VP. The last steps include why the Value is superior and why the VC is the best way to measure that value.

Decision-Rule. While repetition often aids learning, I prefer that you tell me what the established standard for judging the round has been and why your arguments have met/exceeded the threshold. Write the ballot for me.

PFD: I have coached and judged PFD since the event started.

I prefer a framework and a few well-developed arguments to the spread. Point keywords as you read your case. Be polite in C-X and ask closed-ended questions. Tell me why your arguments are better by weighing impacts.

Ryan Parimi - Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum Paradigm

Email: ryan.parimi@gmail.com

About me

• UGA law student
• I coach/teach college, high school, and middle school debate (LD, PF, WS, Parli)
• I've taught summer debate camps at Yale, Drew, U. of Washington, and even one way out in Jakarta, Indonesia

My debate philosophy

• Although I enjoy some progressive arguments, my debate philosophy still centers on clear argumentation and persuasive speech. I want you to try to win me—not only win arguments in a vacuum. I try to award speaker points accordingly. If a tournament doesn't allow low-point wins, I will say in the RFD that I would've given a low-point win with x points.
• I generally vote on the flow. Tech over truth (within reason).
• I like aspects of both traditional and progressive debate. I wish the traditional community wouldn't let its fear of everything turning into policy keep it from adopting some helpful circuit norms, and I wish the progressive community would stop trying to convince itself that a total departure from traditional debate turns the activity into anything but an esoteric, nonsensical game with no real-life application.

Speed

• Prioritize clarity. Spreading is lame, but I won't vote you down solely because you chose to spread. If you spread, please be good at it. Bad spreading will 100% tank your speaker points. Email me your case or give me a printed copy before the round if you plan on spreading.

Evidence

• I know the evidence rules, and I have no problem deciding a round on a legitimate evidence violation.

------

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

In general

• I love LD.

• Please remember that you need to make your attacks on your opponent's case in the rebuttal portion of NC (if neg) or 1AR (if aff). NR or 2AR = too late. I have to disregard those as new arguments.
• Don't forget fiat exists. Fine with you arguing to what extent.
• Counterplans are fine.

Framework

• I enjoy a good framework debate.

• Traditional and modern frameworks are fine. Just make whatever you’re using clear. I know my philosophers pretty well...don't try to BS me on Kant or Rawls or something. I will know. That being said, I believe it's on the debaters to call each other out. I'm going to flow it even if it's a little painful to listen to (unless it's crazy).

Kritiks and Theory

• A well-developed K could certainly convince me. I'm familiar with the critical theories behind most Ks.

• Theory arguments are fine when there's actual abuse--clearly explain the norm and the violation. Don't waste my time with arguments like "he didn't put his contact info on the debate wiki so drop him."
• For me, K and theory are above the plan/case level. I'm fine with you arguing about that though, and you're especially welcome to argue whether K > theory.
• I hate disclo and will not vote on it with one exception: if you didn't disclose and you're spreading so fast that flowing is nearly impossible, I will give you the L if your opponent runs disclo (unless they're also spreading and didn't disclose).
• Condos are a little sus but I don't have a strong view on them.

Examples of cases that would be great for my taste

• Traditional case that demonstrates a deep understanding of the philosophy behind its framework
• Cap K that links reasonably to the resolution, argued in a more traditional style
• Tech case that restores my faith in humanity by making semi-reasonable arguments and doesn't force me to flow 10 subpoints of copy-paste garbage from the debate wiki

------

PUBLIC FORUM:

In general

• Did you know that PF is the only debate event that explicitly mentions lay judges in its description? Indeed, "Students who do Public Forum must be prepared to debate in front of judges without any formal debate training. Being able to persuade a range of judges is a central component to this event."

• ^That means I prefer you lean more traditional in this event. I will not, however, vote you down solely because you went more progressive.

Kritiks and Theory

• In general, I'm skeptical of Ks and theory in PF.
• Still open to theory when there's actual abuse--clearly explain the norm and the violation.

Plans/Advocacy

• Just going to remind you of the rule: "In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions."
• I'm really not in the mood to hear a CX round given this rule + time limits that don't work.
• I'll assume basic fiat for pro.

Weighing

• Please give a clear metric(s) to weigh arguments with AND weigh your arguments against your opponents'. Don't expect me to weigh for you.

Evidence

• Not sure what it is about PF, but it seems to have uniquely bad evidence in terms of source quality and questionable cutting. If you did good research and cut cards ethically, you're already making me happy.
• I don't want us to spend more time asking for cards than actually debating. I know most of you have never judged, but trust me, it's mind-numbing to sit for 5 minutes after every single speech and watch you drag your feet pulling up 10 cards when only one card is relevant. Please call for cards sparingly.

------

OTHER STUFF:

• Chinese rap enjoyer. Flip phone believer. Manual transmission user.

• I follow NSDA rules whenever questions that the rules address come up. I follow tradition for pretty much anything else. If you have questions about specific preferences, just ask before the round.

This I am most experienced judging LD. I want to be as fair as absolutely possible and I will judge using values a the lense to view arguements