I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

What I Like

I've gotten a few notes from debaters that my paradigm is mostly about what I don't want to see, rather than what I do. In an attempt to remedy that, here is what I enjoy in a debate round.

Evidence Debate - I love when debaters actually engage with the internal warrants of their opponents evidence and arguments. Point out contradictions between pieces of evidence, expose evidence that is too specific or too general to apply, call out evidence that is just claims rather than warrants. Any engagement with evidence beyond "my opponent's evidence is wrong because my evidence is right" will greatly increase your chance of winning my ballot.

Meaningful Framework Debate - I love when debaters pick and choose their battles on framework and clearly impact the results of the framework debate to how I should evaluate impacts in the round. You will not lose my ballot solely for conceding your opponent's framework. Not all rounds need to have a framework debate, even with different values/value criteria, if those frameworks evaluate impacts in roughly the same way or if both debaters have the same impacts in the round (eg, people dying). Debaters who recognize that and focus on the areas of framework that will actually change how I judge arguments, then follow up with an explanation of what I should look for in evaluating the round based on that change will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Internal Consistency - I love when debaters commit to their positions. Many arguments, especially the more unusual philosophical arguments require commitment to a whole host of concomitant beliefs and positions. Embrace that. If someone points out that utilitarianism requires defending the interests of the majority over the minority, be willing to defend that position. If someone points out that Kantianism doesn't permit you to lie to a murderer, don't backtrack - explain it. Don't be afraid to say that extinction does not outweigh everything else. Conversely, if you argue that prediction of the future is impossible in order to answer consequentialism and then cite scientific authors to support your claims, I will be much less likely to believe your position. A debater who is committed and consistent in their ethical position will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Argument by Analogy - I love when debaters use analogies to explain or clarify their own positions, or to expose inconsistencies, absurd statements or flaws in their opponents arguments. I think analogies are underutilized as a method of analytical argumentation and debaters willing to use analogies to explain or undermine arguments have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Comparative Weighing - I love when debaters specifically compare impacts when weighing in the round. Rarely does a debater win every single argument in the round and weighing significantly assists me in making a decision when there are multiple impacts for both sides. While I like weighing arguments in the vein of "This argument outweighs all others in the round" more than no weighing at all, a more specific and nuanced analysis along the lines of "this argument outweighs that argument for these reasons" (especially when it explains the weighing in the specific context of the framework) will give a debater a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card in which case I will ask to see evidence after the round.

Timing

You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no action, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate. As with other arguments, I will evaluate a LARP round but will have a low-threshold to vote on evidentiary arguments, link/brink severance, and framework exclusion.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if no argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world or in debate. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts. That said, I will vote on pre-fiat Ks - a good metric for my preference is whether your link is specific to the aff's performance in this round or if it could link to any affirmative case on the topic (or any topic). If you're calling out specific parts of the affirmative performance, that's fine.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Totally fine to run. I have a slight bias towards genericist positions over specificist ones, eg "a means any" rather than "a means one".

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA because it doesn't link to the aff.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts because performance cannot be erased.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to risk of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true and the alts are often unclear. I will vote on them but run at your own risk.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments. I don't believe that disclosure as a norm is beneficial to debate and I see it used to exclude non-circuit debaters far more often than I see debaters who are genuinely unable to engage because they could not predict their opponent's arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

balakrishnanamol@gmail.com

he/him

Completed a little more than 2 years of LD at Lassiter High School.

Mostly traditional, relatively familiar with policy args though.

Pretty unfamiliar with most Ks/dense phil/theory (sorry).

-

tech > truth

clarity > speed (I can handle a good bit of speed but please slow down for tags/signposts)

Keep your roadmaps concise.

Clash is essential.

Signposting is good.

Be respectful during CX.

Make sure to weigh and explain arguments completely.

Make sure to give clear voting issues at the end of your speeches.

-

Average speaks = 28/28.5 depending on tournament (speaks usually range from a 25-30).

Don't be discriminatory.

Show up on time.

Have fun.

Short-pre-round version: Speech and Debate coach at Calhoun High School (Georgia). I am brand new to Debate this year and am mostly drinking from the fire hose that is the world of Debate, therefore my paradigm is basic and still evolving. Even though I am willing to listen to anything, debaters must have clash and explanation (Claim, Warrant, Explanation). I flow, so I expect you to signpost, label, and explain.

My team: My team is an LD team only, but I am considering moving into other parts of Debate in the future. The team writes most of their own arguments. Understand that just because my team runs an argument doesn't mean that I like it, or that I will understand it without your thorough explanation of the argument.

Longer, working on prefs, version:If you think from visual clues that I am not getting the argument, I am probably not. I expect to receive an email chain for 1A and 1N atbennettd@calhounschools.org. I can keep up with oral delivery, however years of death metal concerts have prematurely impacted by hearing and therefore if I can not see your case, I can not flow, and if I can not flow you might not have a chance at getting the vote.

Likes/dislikes: As I am new to the Debate community and am still learning, I am also learning my likes and dislikes. I try to be extremely objective and vote for teams because I think their arguments won, never because of rep or outside (or inside the round) influences. In fact, I tend to react badly if I believe a team or coach is trying to exert undue influence. Post-round I will give you as clear a critique as I possibly can and will answer respectful and honest questions from the debaters. I expect a team I drop (and their coaches) to be unhappy, but no matter what, please be nice to your opponents, your partner, your coaches, and your judge.

Delivery: I have never debated, but I have given papers and presentations in the past (to willing and unwilling, possibly captive audiences). Persuasion is key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with tags and author names. As I am a new coach and judge, spreading might not be the best approach to win me over. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Evidence: I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (1) your evidence is from a quality source, (2) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (3) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence. Please do not present evidence from biased sources which may or may not be funded by the Koch Bros. Also, I sincerely despise hyperbolic argument: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war," or "the eradication of the human race."

Weirdness:Too much to list here.

My email: bennettd@calhounschools.org

Please reduce spreading or offer at a slower pace so I can understand the information being shared

Please be respectful to each other during cross ex.

Clearly state your contentions in a bulleted or numbered sequence so I can clearly follow your contentions

Clearly summarize your contentions and why your contentions carry more weight than your opponents

Hey, I'm Plamen, a 3rd-year LD'er at Midtown

For Peach State

- I would greatly appreciate it if you shared cases. Having your case to look at makes my life a lot easier and allows me to check evidence if necessary. My email is plamenchecketts07@gmail.com; you can send me cases there.

- Remember always to extend case. Many times, novices (especially in my novice rounds) forget to do that, and then I can't evaluate the case because it wasn't extended. Please remember to devote even a tiny portion of your time to it every speech.

- I'm begging you, PLEASE CLASH AND WEIGH. I don't want to have a round where I have to act like the 3rd debater and then do all the weighing and clashing for you. I promise you, you will not only make my life easier, but you will also most likely get higher speaks and more wins if you do this.

- I would appreciate it if you came 5 min early. It gives me a chance to start the round faster (and therefore also leave faster), but it also allows you to ask me personalized questions about my judging preferences, which aren't specified here.

- I give speaks based on strategy; I won't dock you for your preferences while speaking (i.e., whether you sit or stand, and other stuff like that). Just as long as I can hear you, you're fine with however you choose to speak. On the strategy stuff, your speeches will be penalized for blatant strategic errors (i.e., dropping stuff, not extending, sending the 1NC before the AC, and other stuff I can't think of while writing this).

- Please use cut cards for evidence (like an essay is not a good format for debate). It is the only way for me to verify evidence in round, and it also makes my life so much easier since I know what your author is saying. If you by chance don't know how to, please ask me, and I will show you or give you some pretty good resources.

- On framework debates, if you and your opponent's frameworks are so similar they are functionally the same, then it is not a bad idea to concede that we should weigh the round under your opponent's framework. It doesn't put you behind in the debate and can save time. If the frameworks are so different that a good debate can be had among them, please justify precisely why I should prefer your framework over theirs. Don't just give me arbitrary reasons why your framework is good; please give me reasons why it is better in the context of the opposing framework.

All Other Thoughts

- If an argument has a warrant, I'll vote on it.

- Please don't assume I am familiar with whatever lit base or philosophy you read; ensure I can follow what you're saying. I'm familiar with most K lit, I am most comfortable with Queer lit (I am most familiar with this lit, which means that I have a higher standard for it, if you run it well then props to you but don't expect me to make up for bad explanations in the 2NR), Set Col, and Cap, but the more obscure the lit, the more work you will have to put in so that I can understand (and vote on it).

- Go for whatever argument you're most comfortable with, please don't change your debating style for my sake.

- I will also disclose your speaks If you ask me to!!!

- I will give you an automatic L25 for any Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Transphobia, etc., and then let your coach know what happened in the round.

- If you have any other questions or thoughts or questions you'd like to share, please email or talk to me before or after rounds.

- I will slightly bump your speaks up if you make a Troye Sivan or Charlie XCX reference (By like .2-.5 points, depending on the reference)

Hi, I’m a varsity debater at Collins Hill High School.

• I won’t need case drops unless the debater plans on spreading; note I will announce “clear” if I cannot understand you. After saying clear three times, points will be deducted & I will stop flowing.
• Civility is expected; debate should be a constructive activity and people should be respectful of one another regardless of sport or not.
• I can listen to theory (rules for how debate should be), but it is not a deciding factor for whether someone wins or loses. Prioritize clash, I want to see your cases communicate with each other.
• SIGNPOST.

Nothing fancy, but feel free to ask me before a round if anything new pops up. Happy debating :)

EDUCATION

University of Southern California - B.A. Social Science / Minor Education

University of Southern California - Master of Arts in Teaching

California State University - Master's in Education Administration

EXPERIENCE

Curriculum Development Director

High School History Teacher

Instructional Coach

Public School Administrator

GENERAL DEBATE JUDGING STYLE

I lean traditional and prefer to see the "art" of debate, demonstrating great speech delivery, confidence, and strong arguments. If you must spread, please provide me and your opponent with your case before debating. I value a clear structure that consistently supports your value/criterion.

GENERAL SPEECH JUDGING STYLE

I tend to emphasize structure, guidelines, and a convincing delivery for each category. I highly encourage using Cohesive Mechanisms (connectives, transitions, signposts, etc.) to make speeches easier to follow.

The first place is reserved for speakers who demonstrate the above and can articulate deep, insightful, humorous, and beyond-the-surface ideas with strong support and an authentic voice.

I welcome and prefer speakers to keep their own time. Don't forget to SMILE!

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE (Extended Summary) 45 min

https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Lincoln-Douglas-Debate-Textbook.pdf

https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Competition-Events-Guide-LD.pdf

https://www.speechanddebate.org/learn/lessons/judging-lincoln-douglas-debate-training-video/

Structure

Framework

• Value - highest ideal you seek to achieve, directly connected to the wording of the resolution
• Criterion - explains how to achieve the value, often in verb+noun (i.e. promoting equality, respecting freedom)

Contentions/Key Points

• Claim - summary of the argument
• Warrant - reason why the argument is true (logical explanation, examples, expert quote, research)
• Impact - explanation of why the argument is important
• Link Back to Criterion

Speaker Point Guide

I will judge 25-30 speaker points in .10 increments for assigning speaker points. Points below 28 are reserved for students who do something rude or disrespectful. Please consider the Adam Smiley speaker points guide below.

30- This individual would crush the gods of Mount Olympus in every debate and North Korea would instantly give up its nuclear program if this person was sent to argue our position tomorrow. There is literally nothing that could have been done better.
29.8- This is the best speech that I expect to be made at any similar tournament this year. Based on this round, I expect this individual to win top speaker at national tournaments.
29.5- Based on this round, I expect this individual to win top speaker at this tournament.
29.0- Based on this round, I expect this person to win a speaker award at this tournament
28.6- Based on this round, I expect this person to be in the top half of speakers at the tournament but not win a speaker award.
28.4- Based on this round, I expect this person to be in the bottom half of speakers at the tournament.
28.2- This person made a legitimate effort, but is one of the bottom speakers at the tournament.
28.0- This person showed little to no effort or understanding in the round.
Below a 28- This person did something extremely rude or disrespectful.

INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES (10 min)

https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Sample-Ballot-Interp-Blank.pdf

- Characterization

o Well-developed characters

o Relatable

o Responses are believable given the situation

- Blocking

o Clear actions of what the performer is doing

o Clear characterization and who is speaking

o Motivated movements

- Cutting

o Understand what is happening

o Easy-to-follow storyline

o Sequence makes sense

- Delivery

o Convincing verbal and non-verbal actions

EXTEMP GUIDELINES (7 min)

(https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Extemporaneous-Speaking-Textbook.pdf)

- Intro

o Question/Answer to Question

o Thesis

o Preview

- Major Point 1

o Subpoint 1

o Subpoint 2

- Major Point 2

o Subpoint 1

o Subpoint 2

- Major Point 3

o Subpoint 1

o Subpoint 2

- Conclusion

o Restate the question and answer

o Review

o Closing statement

- Argumentation and Analysis – justification, impact, clear understanding

- Sources – credibility, should be citing sources and date, quality and variety of sources

- Delivery – voice, movement, expression, ethos, credibility, pitch, tone, pacing, volume

-

IMPROMPTU GUIDELINES (7 min prep and delivery)

(https://www.speechanddebate.org/how-to-judge-impromptu/)

- Organization (Structure – INTRO, BODY, CONCLUSION)

o Structure

o Transitions

o Makes sense

Analysis (Sound Argument)

o Directly addresses the prompt

o Justification

o Establishes the significance of points

- Delivery (Holds Attention)

o Voice, movement, expression

o Confidence

o Consistent eye contact

o Appropriate volume

INFORMATIVE GUIDELINES (10 min)

https://www.speechanddebate.org/how-to-judge-informative/

https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Informative-Speaking-Creating-a-Solid-Foundation.pdf

- Structure & Organization – Introduction, three main points, conclusion. Third main point should include implications (what the topic means to society as a whole). In-depth content development using credible sources.

- Delivery – effective verbal and non-verbal communication.

- Purpose – explain, define, describe, or illustrate a topic to gain understanding and knowledge.

- Relevance – thesis enables you to understand why this topic should be examined now

- Relatability – how the speaker connects the audience to the topic (inclusive rhetoric, affect, logical evidence, and education)

- Originality – inventive, unique, and exciting new approach to familiar topics

- Visual Aids – may or may not be used. Expedient setup of non-electronic or banned materials. No animals or people are allowed. Contributes to understanding, emphasize information, provide creative outlet that augments the content.

- Quotations – not more than 150 words of the speech may be a direct quotation and must be identified orally and in print.

DECLAMATION GUIDELINES (10 min)

https://www.speechanddebate.org/how-to-judge-declamation/

https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Declamation-Starter-Kit.pdf

- Cutting – a speech or excerpt delivered in public may be cut and moved around to make a 10-minute speech to convey a story the speaker wishes to tell.

a. Do you understand what is happening?

b. Does the speech flow effectively?

c. Does the sequence of ideas make sense?

- Structure

d. Teaser (30-34 seconds) short portion of the speech before the intro)

e. Intro (20-30 seconds) includes title of the speech, author, when it was delivered) gives context and a solid foundation to evaluate the speech that fits within the flow.

f. Main Body of Speech (7-8 minutes) delivery of the main points. Use credible evidence and anecdotes to sound less rigid.

g. Conclusion (30-45 seconds) wraps up the speech

- Delivery

h. Is the speech appropriate for the situation?

i. Does the student use voice, posture, and gestures that enhance the message?

j. Is the speech personalized to convey the speaker’s unique message?

k. Enunciation, pacing, intonation, facial expressions and bodily gestures, eye contact

- Context

l. Does the performer engage the audience?

m. Does the performance appropriately capture the context of the speech?

ORIGINAL ORATORY GUIDELINES (Extended Textbook Summary) 10 min

(https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Original-Oratory-Textbook.pdf)

- Importance

o Significant topic

o Clear thesis

o Delivery assists the importance of the topic

- Relatability

o Audience relatability

o Personable delivery

o Impact

o Inclusive rhetoric

- Originality

o Addresses topic in a unique and creative way

o Supporting examples are new and interesting

- Delivery

o Convincing verbal and non-verbal cues

- Appeal to Your Audience

o Ethos – credibility and moral competency of the speaker

o Logos – logical appeal

o Pathos – use of emotional appeals

o Audience analysis, audience adaptation

- Speech Development

o Establishes immediate emotional NEED for change

o Conceptual social problems, NOT specific issues

o No topic is original – spin it, flip it, wrap it, put it in context

o Topic Quality Standards: Validity, Relevance, Depth, and Digestibility

o Purpose statement and thesis

- Researching Your Topic

o Types of Evidence: statistics, examples, analogy, testimony

§ Examples: factual, hypothetical, case study, narratives

§ Statistics: descriptive, inferential

§ Analogy: literal, figurative

§ Testimony: authoritative, nominal

o 4 R’s of Successful Sourcing

§ Relevant – makes sense and connected

§ Recent – quotations timeless, articles 2 years, studies & stats relevant and uncontested

§ Reliable – double-confirmed

§ Re-usable – doesn’t have to fit exactly but proves argument or sub-point

o Sources of Research

§ Newspapers, periodicals, & magazines

§ Library

§ Online, Google, Google Book Search, Google Scholar, Online Newspapers

- Argumentation

o Toulmin’s Model – when any one is missing, unlikely people will be persuaded

§ Claim – position advocated in an argument

§ Grounds – evidence supporting the claim of an argument

§ Warrant – principle, provision, or chain of reasoning that connects grounds to the claim. Types: causality, sign, generalization, analogy, authority, principle

§ Backing

§ Qualifier

§ Rebuttal

o Logical Fallacies – arguments rely on false or invalid premises or inferences

§ Hasty generalizations

§ Ad-hominem (name-calling)

§ Strawman fallacy

§ Appeal to ignorance

§ Bandwagon fallacy

§ Genetic fallacy

§ Appeal to authority – because they’re an expert, popular but is not an expert

§ Sequential fallacy

§ Begging the question

§ Persuasive definition fallacy

§ Ambiguity fallacy

§ Composition fallacy

- Organization

o A good persuader unifies individuals who lack commonality

o System of persuasion for the greatest number: structure, sub-structure, articulation of the problem, clear organization

o Persuasion is rooted in the identification of the problem

§ 1. What impact is the action having on the greater population

§ 2. Reasons/causes for why the action is taking place

§ 3. Ways that the audience can combat the social problem

o Introductions and Conclusions

§ Primacy effect – what we hear or are introduced to first needs to be accurate, engaging, and clear (higher retention)

§ Recency effect – what we hear last is stored in short-term memory and more likely to be recalled

§ Introductions highlight the problem and give sense of where you are going

§ Conclusions digest and review main points and provide closing statements providing lasting impressions

o Introduction

§ Attention-Getting Device (AGD)

· Personal story

· Illustration

· Short examples

· Startling statement

· Poem

· Lyric

· Humorous hypothetical

· Rhetorical question

· Clever device (foreign language, mime, pretend

· Engaging with the audience

· Indirection (misleading audience with a purpose)

§ Link to Topic

· Link AGD to the action you are arguing is the problem

§ Thesis

· State your argument and what you are trying to persuade the audience to do

§ Statement of Significance

· Why is this topic important? Why should the audience listen? State facts or statistics that prove this is a real problem, and give it immediacy

§ Roadmap

· Sentence that explains where you will take us in your speech

§ Optional Conclusive Statement

· Clever punchline or clincher to finish off the intro

§ Optional Concession

· Predict questions judges might ask. Answer it or concede to it, offering an explanation as to why you’re still correct.

o Conclusion

§ Bring it back full circle, AGD

§ Restate thesis

§ Restate main points

§ Encourage the audience to act, inspire, and end creatively

o Persuasive Organizational Patterns (Structure and Sub-Structure)

§ Problem/Cause/Solution (PCS) – most popular and clear. Used when the problem is not easily definable or identifiable.

· Introduction

o Attention Getting Device (AGD)

o Link to Topic

o Thesis

o Statement of Significance

o Roadmap

· Problem

o Transition

o Internal preview

o Problem 1 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Problem 2 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Conclude point/impact statement

· Cause

o Transition

o Internal preview

o Cause 1 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Cause 2 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Conclude point

· Solution

o Transition

o Internal preview

o Solution 1 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Solution 2 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Conclude point/impact statement

· Conclusion

o Transition

o Review min body points

o Conclusive statements

§ Cause/Effect/Solution (CES) – often used when the problem is easily definable

· Introduction

o Attention Getting Device (AGD)

o Link to Topic

o Thesis

o Statement of Significance

o Roadmap

· Cause

o Transition

o Internal preview

o Cause 1 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Cause 2 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Conclude point/impact statement

· Effect

o Transition

o Internal preview

o Effect 1 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Effect 2 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Conclude point/impact statement

· Solution

o Transition

o Internal Preview

o Solution One (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Solution Two (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Conclude Point/impact statement

· Conclusion

o Transition

o Review main body points

o Conclusive statements

§ Two Prong – offers ways in which the problem plays out or two causes for a problem

· Introduction

o Attention Getting Device (AGD)

o Link to Topic

o Thesis

o Statement of Significance

o Roadmap

· Prong 1

o Transition

o Main idea or thesis of prong

o Explain it (examples)

o Prove it (statistics)

o Impact it (explain, story)

o Restate main idea and impact connecting it to thesis

· Prong 2

o Transition

o Main idea or thesis of prong

o Explain it (examples)

o Prove it (statistics)

o Impact it (explain, story)

o Restate main idea and impact connecting it to thesis

· Implications

o What are the implications of all this?

o What does it say about society? Impact on us? What does it all mean?

· Solutions

o Transition

o Solution 1

o Solution 2

· Conclusion

o Transition

o Review main body points

o Conclusive statements

- Writing Your Speech

o Language Development

§ Simplicity & clarity

§ Use inviting language, not attacking language

§ 70-30 Rule (70% thoughts, 30% facts)

§ Avoid absolutes

§ Rule of Three – grouping concepts, adj., examples, etc. in 3s is more effective than 2 or 4 or more

§ Be appropriate – slang or profanity

§ Make powerful word choices – don’t repeat the same words

§ Use language strategies

· Alliteration

· Consonance

· Assonance

· Onomatopoeia

· Personification

· Visualization

· Metaphor

o Cohesive Mechanisms

§ Connectives/Transitions – i.e. “Now that I’ve discussed…”

§ Sign-posts – internal signs signaling switching of gear or moving to another point - “First,” “Moreover,” Additionally”

§ Catch-phrases

§ Extended metaphors – non-literal object/action extended throughout the speech

§ Vehicles – AGD, transitions, and conclusion

o Humor

§ Self-deprecation

§ Analogies

§ Puns

§ Indirection

§ Irony

§ Twisted quotations

§ Humorous quotations

§ Jabs at current events

§ Allusions

§ Understatement

§ Cliches

§ Overstatement

§ Portmanteau words

§ Alliteration

- Delivery

o Expression of meaning – synthesis of content and outward expression

o Character perception plays a role in the audience’s likelihood to accept or reject the speaker’s message – what you’re selling is YOU – be trustworthy, competent, natural

o Methos – appeal based on the authenticity or realness of your character. Unlike persona which is a social façade, nor is it a “speech voice.”

o Verbal Delivery

§ Pitch (high or low voice)

§ Tone (quality of voice)

§ Breathe through your diaphragm

§ Adjust head and neck position

§ Pace and pause

§ Volume and breathing

§ Articulation and Enunciation

o Non-Verbal Delivery

§ Facial expressions

§ Eye contact

§ Hand gestures

§ Posture/Stance

§ Movement

I am a lay judge; use of technical language is likely just to throw me off of your argument. Adjust your speeches accordingly, speak loud, and be civil and we should be fine. I will likely "weigh" your argument based off of a combination of your oratory and your impact.

I used to compete in Congressional debate, HI, DI, Informative, Extemp, Impromptu, and BQD back in high school for four years. I have been judging PF for 5 years now. keep up with prep time

• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.

• Speed - I like speed but not spreading. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. If you spread I will just stop listening. If the only way I can understand your case is to read it, you have already lost. If I have to read your case then what do I need you in the room for? Email it to me and I can judge the round at home in my jammies - if you are PRESENTING and ARGUING and PERSUADING then I need to understand the words coming out of your mouth!

• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card and please actually connect it to the case.

• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.

• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules.

• Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.

• Immediate losers for me - be disparaging to the other team or make racist, homophobic, sexist arguments or comments. Essentially, be kind.

• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

• I don’t judge based on the cross

I am a traditional judge.

Do not spread.

Civility is essential.

I value clear communication. Sign posts and voters are excellent tools.

I value clash. So listen to your opponent and tell me why they are wrong and your side is better.

Give weight to the most important arguments and tell me why they are the most important.

Write the reason for decision for me.

Greetings,

I am a lay judge (parent) and this is my second year judging LD. I am affiliated with Landmark Christian School where my daughter attends high school. I was not involved in debate when I was in high school. Therefore, although I have a working knowledge of debate jargon, please do not assume that I am well-versed in all debate terminology.

I do not encourage or support spreading. If you spread, you may inadvertently hurt your performance as I cannot judge what I cannot understand. My preference is for students to articulate and respond to arguments using a normal rate, tone and prosody of speech. I will not cue you if you are speaking too fast. I value the quality of key arguments over the sheer quantity of arguments. Therefore, students should not feel compelled to spread. Finally, my preference is for students to clearly explain their value and value criterion, including the terminology (e.g., deontology, utilitarianism, etc.).

Email: cmlollis603@gmail.com

poole.ronald344@gmail.com I may not look at your speech doc at all, as I rarely do, but I still want it.

TL; DR.

Debate is a game. After this round, the world will keep turning. I vote solely based on evidentiary clash and technical debating. I will not consider pre-round interpersonal conflict in my decision.

General Thoughts - Policy & Lincoln Douglas (mostly)

Everyone has equal access to competing interpretations. This is an important note on FW, T, the K... all of it. Participants should be prepared to defend their model of debate in the context of the opposing model presented by the opposing team. While I'm confident in my ability to judge ANY round, you can prefer me for pretty much all K & Theory debates (so long as you are sure you can out-tech your opponents). These debates-- K v. T, K v. K, (some) performative debates, debates about debate-- have the potential to be super interesting and enriching for the game. However, they most often are not. Since I don't know that this can be helped entirely, my suggestion to you is to be clear and to make it make sense-- defend your assumptions to get access to your impacts. Given today's average K-team, that's the very least you could do for me to be engaged. Ultimately, I'll only consider smart, thorough offense on the flow. High theory stuff (à la Baudrillard, D&G, Bataille, Kant, Heidegger, Lacan, and their others) is cool, but I tend to vote based on advocacy, i.e., through some definitive method that expands the (educator) framework I'm inclined to default to, not how well you can explain the ineffable in a 3 or 4-minute 2NR overview. I'll be honest in saying I'm not a fan of all-out policy showdowns since [1] I think a bad policy round is worse than a bad K round, and [2] because of 1, I (regrettably) end up sifting through massive speech docs, checking cards in the post-round. But I've found myself defaulting to stock issues in a lot of the rounds I've judged recently. All to say, I can keep up... Just make sure you can.

General Thoughts - Public Forum

Public Forum is not Policy debate. If you read a K in front of me or any manner of policy arguments, I will most certainly laugh. Coaches and Judges on national circuits spend so much time confused about how to stop Public Forum from becoming exclusionary and violent. I do not share in their confusion. Ballots are how this problem started, and ballots are how I intend to solve the problem from my small corner of the world. I'm not so sanctimonious that I won't consider well-developed (and sustained) arguments, but just know that teams that run Policy arguments in front of me in a Public Forum round are starting from behind.

RAP Paradigm:

Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are counterproductive. It's much more helpful to pay attention, and react, to your opponent's arguments than to be writing your next speech during the round.

Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence. Please do not present evidence from biased sources, e.g., don't quote from Osama bin Laden or Fox "News."

Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate public-policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.

Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points because this is not only easier to follow but also better for you. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track. When refuting an argument, don't waste time by repeating it extensively and thereby reinforcing it.

Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.

Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).

Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, not using all of your time (particularly during speeches but also during questioning) answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time (or after the round has ended), or asserting without specificity that "We won everything" or "They dropped everything," etc. Also, avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.

Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.

Questioning. If you want to improve as a debater--at any level--the biggest bang for your buck is to prepare effective questions. Yes, that means having a list of sequential questions prepared in advance, based on anticipated arguments; you can clash by selecting from among these as well as developing additional questions in round.

My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF primarily and judge L-D predominantly. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor AP courses such as History and ELA as well as SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.

The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. (I try not to judge Policy because I still value persuasive delivery; exchanging cases is no substitute for that.) Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:

PF—

--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s three-minute speech.

--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.

--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.

--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

--Do not waste my time, and try to extend yours, by overindulging in asking for evidence.

--I'm not a fan of "frontloading," and it makes no sense whatsoever to do so in the 2AC when your side is the first to speak.

--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.

--I flow crossfire and highly value pointed, yes/no-type questions; if your opponent is giving a speech rather than asking a question, you may politely interrupt.

L-D—

--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum. The trite pain/pleasure quote is seldom on point and time better spent elsewhere.

--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions. In fact, quite the contrary.

--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).

--Leave plenty of time (e.g., 2 1/2 minutes or more) in the Neg Constructive for refutation; not doing this is the biggest reason why Negs lose in L-D. Likewise, I'm not a fan of "frontloading" in the 1AR anyway, and do so at your peril unless you leave plenty of time (e.g., 2 1/2 minutes or more) in that speech for refutation.

--I flow crossfire and highly value pointed, yes/no-type questions; if your opponent is giving a speech rather than asking a question, you may politely interrupt.

--Even though you are not required to present a formal, detailed plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

Congress--

--I worked on Capitol Hill for two summers, once for a Senator and once for a Congressman, when oratorical skills were valued. Please treat the event with respect.

--A good Congress speech is like a mini-Extemp speech: hook; organize and number your reasons; use qualified evidence (quotes, data) in support; circle back to hook.

--Clash is critical, as in any form of debate; unless yours is the sponsorship speech, refer to previous speakers.

--I keep track not only of speeches but also of questions, especially strong ones.

--Do not try to curtail debate prematurely; give others the opportunity to speak.

Updated for 2024 season. Yay debate! :)

If you’re at a local tournament/traditional LDer/PFer, please scroll to the bottom

Email: joeytarnowski [at] gmail [dot] com

he/him

I did policy at Samford (class of 2024), qualified 4 times to the NDT, and did 4 years of LD in high school.

I was coached by Lee Quinn, and some other judges/debaters who have influenced how I think about debate throughout college (non-exhaustively) include Brett Bricker, Erik Mathis, Ana Bittner, Ari Davidson, and Bennett Dombcik.

Debate is confrontational in nature so things sometimes getting heated is inevitable, but I really strongly dislike when teams make it a major point of their in-round ethos to be unnecessarily mean/hostile/condescending. We're all just here trying our best at a very hard activity we all (hopefully) enjoy.

General

Line-by-line, impact calculus, and evidence quality and comparison all matter a great deal to me. Well-researched and prepared strategies (regardless of ideological content) will almost always be a better choice in front of me than generic or poorly researched strategies. I think the aff should say some implementation of the resolution is a good idea, and the neg should say that the aff is a bad idea.

I generally consider myself tech over truth, but I also strongly believe that arguments start off only as strong as their initial warrants. I'm generally predisposed against arguments that are reliant on extremely sketchy/pseudoscientific evidence (i.e. climate change good), but if there's an argument you're confident you've got the goods on, go for it.

I think debate is first and foremost a game and believe in rewarding people who play that game strategically. I really enjoy when teams commit to bold strategic choices, whether that's the 1NR spending 6 minutes impact turning a 2AC add-on, a 1AR going all in on a straight turn/impact turn, or other similar things.

I will not vote on egregiously unethical impact turns like racism/sexism/other forms of bigotry good. Any other position is fair game (assuming it's well-researched and executed).

I flow on Excel, and I will generally follow along with the doc in the 1AC/1NC to ensure no clipping is taking place, and after the 1NC usually have the doc open but generally only look over at it because I like to have author names spelled correctly on my flow. I generally don't have a preference one way or another for analytics being included in the doc, but it's probably to your benefit to at least have CP/permutation texts in the doc and to slow down on analytics (maybe 80% speed).

**I have some minor issues with auditory processing, so I would recommend starting off your speech at like 75-80% speed to give me a second to adjust before you build up to full speed. Clear differentiation between tags and the card body is also greatly appreciated.

Specifics

I will preface all of this by saying that virtually any preference I hold can always be overcome with sufficiently solid debating, but I also would rather be up front with my predispositions.

I tend to lean neg on most counterplan theory debates and usually default to reasonability and judge kick. I'm pretty unlikely to vote aff on condo bad unless something egregious happens (i.e. an extremely excessive amount of 1NC options, lots of condo planks, blatantly contradictory options, or 2NC CPs out of straight turns), or it is severely mishandled by the neg. I generally think most other theory debates are better leveraged as offense to help win the competition debate and likely a reason to drop the argument.

I would say I'm better for T debates than most and think they can be very strategically valuable. Evidence comparison is very more important to me in these kinds of debates, and I generally find specific visions of what the topic looks like under your interp (i.e. a well fleshed-out caselist) to be very helpful. Impact calculus is also important.

I generally am of the fairly strong predisposition that the aff should defend some material implementation of the resolution. The specifics of what that means can be debated out, but I'm usually not a huge fan of strategies that just choose to ignore the resolution altogether or don't have an explanation of what their model of debate looks like and how research/competitive incentives look like under that model. Fairness is an impact, but impacts still need warrants and impact calc.

Indicts to utilitarianism/consequentialism/cost-benefit analysis should also be coupled with an explanation of how I should evaluate impacts absent that framing.

---LD---

For the most part, all the thoughts expressed above should reflect most of my argumentative preferences, but I wanted to add a few LD-specific things.

I think my belief that arguments start off at the strength of their initial warrants is probably a bit more relevant in LD, as it means I’m generally less predisposed to voting on tricks/cheap one-shots/theory than most judges. Pointing out that an argument does not have a complete warrant is good and reasonability gets a LOT more compelling against theory arguments that rely hard on very marginal risks of offense/are just generally silly. I’m not afraid to vote down an argument because I didn’t think it had a warrant. Topicality has to actually define words in the resolution. I’m extraordinarily unlikely to vote on an RVI unless it's completely dropped or massively mishandled, and even then I will be very unhappy.

I would consider myself at least somewhat familiar with most philosophy read in LD (Kant, Levinas, etc.) but don’t have a deep understanding of more niche philosophies. I would greatly prefer positions to have a couple fleshed out warrants than reading a billion one sentence arguments and hoping one is dropped. Blippy arguments sounds to me like you’re not confident in the positions you’re reading. I know some nuance getting lost is inevitable given time constraints, but that’s also why I’d rather debaters pick a smaller number of positions and flesh them out. However, I really love when debaters actually flesh out their position and explain the nuances of how it interacts with other things.

---Traditional Debate---

This is what I spent most of high school doing, and I really appreciate good traditional debate. You should do what you’re most confident in rather than trying to read something you think I’d “like more” because I did policy (I promise you, I’d rather a great lay debate than a bad policy debate).

How I evaluate these debates is fundamentally the same as how I would evaluate any other debate, a piece of evidence or explanation doesn’t suddenly become good or bad depending on the speed at which it’s delivered. However, I think a lot of traditional debate can get caught up in what you’re “supposed” to do at the expense of substance. For example, I generally think reading definitions in the first speech is unnecessary, and often framework debates do very little and could be conceded as early as the 1NC. For the most part, the more time you're spending actually talking about the resolution, the better.

Evidence comparison is fantastic and you should do it. I would strongly prefer that you are reading cards/direct quotes from the original source and have the original source available. I also would appreciate an email chain being set up (be confident enough in your arguments that you don’t try to hide them!), but if you choose not to, you should have your evidence ready for your opponent or me to read.

Collapsing down to your best advantage/disadvantage/contention in the last speech is much appreciated, as is spending a lot of time on the aff case. A 1NC that concedes framework, reads one disadvantage they’re confident in, and spends 5 minutes reading good, case specific evidence against the aff’s contentions would make me very happy.

Jud Turner

judsonturner@jtcounsel.com

I am a practicing attorney by trade and have been around policy/CX debate for about 6 or more years. While I have been around debate for a bit, I may not be your typical debate coach/experienced judge. While I know some of the debate jargon, do not assume that I do. Moreover, while I know it is tempting to use debate terminology and jargon to save time, you may lose me on the strength of your argument in doing so. Assume that I don't have any subject matter expertise. Tell me what is important and why, use evidence to support your position and to counter your opponent and do not play fast and lose with evidence in terms of what it actually says.

I know that many progressive debaters want to spread in CX debates and use that tactic to gain an advantage relative to dropped arguments, etc... I will not decide a debate round on the basis of a dropped argument that may have been a mentioned in rapid fire/auctioneer style spreading. CX is a great debate format that certainly places important emphasis on research and preparation; however, that does not mean that the debate round should be 75% completed based on elaborate constructive speeches only one quarter of which can be presented a speed that one can comprehend.

A large part of the value of debate in general and CX in particular surrounds competitors being able to think on their feet, determine what are the most important arguments that one's opponent is putting forth, responding to those and/or offering a better plan to solve the harms at issue. A large part of the value of debate is determining which arguments are more important than others and responding to those. A great debate round, in my view, happens with both sides respond pointedly (and in a manner and speed that I can understand) to each other and see the clash on the salient arguments through to the end, while using cross examination effectively to undermine the arguments by the other side and to position yourself for your speeches to follow.

My judging paradigm:

STRONG Preferences:

--standing to speak

--look at judge during cross - x

--time your opponent

--spreading is fine

-clearly sign-post your constructions! V and VC must be clearly indicated, as well as contentions and subpoints

--CLASH is KING