Hi, my name is Lahari! I am a captain/varsity debater at Barrington High School. Here are some things to consider when I am your judge:

1. Connection to Framework: DON’T forget about your framework. Try to connect your impacts to your FW (and sometimes even your opponent’s). The goal is to attack their value criterion and explain why your VC upholds your value better. Why is you VC the best routes?
2. Impacting: Impacting is VERY important to me. Don’t just extend your argument. Explain to me why they matter and how they relate to your value.
3. Voter’s issues: Don’t forget to include voter issues! At the end of your speech, outline some reasons why you won the debate.
4. Be respectful!

Make sure to have fun!

My focus is on a debate where you have presented solid evidence that flows through to the end. Following structure, good sportsmanship and voting issues are helpful and considered in my decision. Most of all be respectful to each other. When you present your arguments in this way, then everyone learns more and can better clarify thier side. Including the impact summates the strength of their side and brings more clarity on the bigger picture.

Name: Emily Carroll

School Affiliation: Homewood-Flossmoor

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 6 years coaching LD & PF. . Completed in policy debate when I was in high school years ago.

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery- All debaters should be able to clearly understand each other- you can’t have clash if you don’t know what the other person is saying! I will let you know if I can’t understand you, and I expect you to be respectful of what your opponent can keep up with.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- A good summary speech presents the big picture, and then chooses just a few key arguments on the line by line to address. You do not need to answer every argument.

Extension of arguments into later speeches- Please clearly state what argument you are extending and include warrants and why it matters! Just repeating the name of a card is not an extension.

Flowing/note-taking- I flow carefully on paper. I don’t flow cross x, but I do listen closely and will add to what I have written.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I focus mainly on argumentation; that said, your style needs to be accessible to all debaters.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, and that includes warrants, addressing class on this issue in the round, and impact analysis.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? While not every argument made needs to be addressed, speakers should hit the big points of contention on both cases.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No. To be fair, issues should be brought up earlier in the round so all sides can answer. However, there is a difference between a brand new argument and simply going deeper on a point already made.

I view debate first as an educational activity. My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained. I spend most of my time in traditional LD/PF circuits.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Good luck and have fun!

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS (scroll down for PF):

First, some general thoughts: (1) the affirmative debater must defend the resolution; (2) the negative debater is not required to present a complete case and may choose solely to deconstruct the case offered by the AFF, but should provide a framework even if he/she does not run a rationale; (3) Lincoln-Douglas is the most philosophical form of academic debate, therefore the strategy and choices employed by both teams in the debate should reflect this fact; (4) I should not feel, during the debate, that I am listening to a one-on-one version of policy debate; debaters should defend the ethics of their respective positions; (5) I always prefer quality of argumentation over quantity.

Second, some thoughts on framework. I am a framework/values judge and not an "impacts" judge. In other words, at the end of the round, I do not weigh one case against the other or the AFF impacts versus the NEG impacts. I vote on which debater does the better job tying his/her contentions into his/her value criterion or criteria and how well the criterion (or criteria) is a valid measure or operationalization of the value premise presented. The framework section of your case explains: (1) the value premise (an abstract concept) and its significance; (2) why the value premise is achieved through affirming or negating the resolution; and (3) why the criterion is a means to the end of the premise, which is an end in and of itself (it is the link between a measurable statement and an abstract concept). The rationale section of your case is just a long, multipronged justification for why each argument/contention you advance ties into your value criterion. In other words, each contention should end with an impact statement that explains why the contention upholds the criterion.

Third, some thoughts on strategy: (1) the primary task of the AFF is to defend its case and this should take precedence over attacking the NEG case if time does not permit both in the same level of detail; (2) the primary task of the NEG is to attack/clash with the AFF case and this should take precedence over defending its case if time does not permit both; (3) the NEG debater should spend at least the last two minutes of the NR departing from the flow and focusing exclusively on the voting issues; and (4) the AFF debater should use the 2AR to exclusively explain the voting issues.

Fourth, on evidence: (1) I would strongly recommend that both debaters bring hard copies of their evidence into the debate as it makes exchanging them a great deal quicker and easier than passing around laptops; (2) if a debater is going to call for/request evidence, this is how it should occur - a) request the evidence in a speech as part of an attack on the opposition's argumentation; b) immediately after the speech, the requested evidence should be offered; the debater requesting the evidence either has to burn prep time to read it or read it during the next segment/action in the debate; c) the response to the request should be addressed in the very next available speech; and (3) if a challenged is issued regarding evidence (misrepresentation, out of context, fabrication, etc.), the outcome of that challenge will be THE ONLY voting issue in the debate.

Fifth, and finally, on cross examination: (1) use the CX to ask and answer questions and not to make points or speechify or grandstand; I do not flow CX, so these points will not be recorded; (2) the debater conducting the CX may cut the other debater at any time when answering; this will not be construed by me as being rude; time belongs to the one asking the questions and not the one answering them; and (3) do not use the CX to ask for and exchange evidence; I have outlined my preferred manner for challenging evidence above.

For detailed thoughts on the hows and whys of framework debating, please see my professional profile on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100054643951460). You may learn something.

PUBLIC FORUM:

First, some general thoughts: (1)the affirmative/PRO team must defend the resolution; (2) public forum is the most audience friendly form of debate that exists, therefore the strategy and choices employed by both teams in the debate should reflect this fact; and (3) I always prefer quality of argumentation over quantity.

Second, some thoughts on framework. Framework exists for two purposes: (1) to clarify ambiguous or nebulous terms or phrases in the resolutions; and (2) to present a thesis that will guide the argumentation offered. Spend very little time on this aspect of the debate. When I judge PF, I weigh the impacts of the two cases against each other, unlike how I judge LD.

Third, on rationale or case: (1) in the B team's first constructive, it may choose to present an opposition case, criticize the A team's case or a mixture of both; if the B team chooses to present a case, it should structure its case for maximum clash with the A team's case (and highlight for the judge when a contention directly clashes with an A team contention; (2) in the A team's second constructive, if B team presents a case, the A team should focus on attacking that case and not attempt to extend its initial arguments beyond a simple "pull through our case as unattacked" response; if the B team does otherwise, it should attempt to address the entire flow; (3) same holds true for the B team's second constructive; it should attempt to both attack the A case and respond to the A team's attacks on the B case (this is the price paid for speaking second and deferring to this speech any response made against the A case in the first constructive); (4) the first rebuttals/summary speeches need not address point-by-point, given limited time, both teams can pick and choose what they wish to highlight as major points of clash; and (5) the second rebuttals/final focus speeches should delineate the voting issues of the debate and explain why your team wins those voting issues; the points of clash and the voting issues do not have to be the exact same things and should retain some flexibility.

Fourth, on evidence: (1) I would strongly recommend that both teams bring hard copies of their evidence into the debate as it makes exchanging them a great deal quicker and easier than passing around laptops; (2) if a team is going to call for/request evidence, this is how it should occur - a) request the evidence in a speech as part of an attack on the opposition's argumentation; b) immediately after the speech, the requested evidence should be offered; the team requesting the evidence either has to burn prep time to read it or read it during the next segment/action in the debate; c) the response to the request should be addressed in the very next available speech; and (3) if a challenged is issued regarding evidence (falsification, misrepresentation, out of context, etc.), the outcome of that challenge will be THE ONLY voting issue in the debate.

Fifth, and finally, on crossfire: (1) use the crossfire to ask and answer questions and not to make points, speechify, grandstand; questions do not begin with the phrases "Is the A/B aware of . . . " or "Does the A/B realize . . . "; I do not flow crossfire, so these points will not be recorded, they must be referenced in the very next succeeding speech; and (2) do not use the crossfire to ask for and exchange evidence, especially at the end; I have outlined my preferred manner for challenging evidence above.

DEBATE IS YOUR EVENT!!!! RUN WHAT YOU LIKE TO RUN!! Obviously as an educator I aim for fairness in a round but as long as you are being fair and honest I will not strike your argument down because it is against "norms" of debate.

Blippy arguments make the debate nearly impossible to judge:

Cards should have warrants and you should be able to access the warrant and reasoning behind the card a quote without context is not an argument. You should be using warrants not just reading a quote. If you are extending evidence you should be reading the warrant, not a paraphrase of an article and then saying the name of the author.

THE DEBATER WHO HAS BETTER ARGUMENTATION WILL WIN OVER THE DEBATER WHO JUST READS AN UNWARRANTED CARD. AUTHOR NAMES MEAN NOTHING TO ME, WARRANTS ARE MORE IMPORTANT!!!

there should in general, be more engagement on the framing aspect of the debate. Tell me:

How you link into framing
Why that is good
Why your opponent doesn't
why that is bad

pick one main argument that you are winning and link to framing.

pick what offense the other team has and outweigh it

please be clear if spreading, very important that you pause and sign post during argumentation. I will defer to what I hear in speeches and use the speech doc sparingly. It is importance to change cadence when spreading in order to emphasize warrants and impacts in order to differentiate. I don’t want to have to read the cards to figure out what you are saying in your speeches, you should be clear enough so I can flow

Tricks (if you don't know what this is then don't worry you are not running tricks) are pretty annoying and don't really help people learn how to debate, It is on a case to case basis on how I will weigh tricks (long story short, id recommend NOT reading them in front of me)

The most important thing in the round is that your arguments are accessible, and inclusive to everyone. That being said, be inclusive to your opponent inside the round. If your opponent doesn't understand speed, slow down. If an argument is not clear and is hard to understand, explain it. If you don't do these things, I will have a hard time voting for these arguments. That being said, I am pretty much open to any argument (regardless of event) as long as it is warranted, and impacted (as long as it is not exclusionary or violent). This includes critical arguments in public forum. Don't lie about evidence. This is a very good way to automatically lose the round with me, and more often than not almost any other judge, or judge panel.

Decision-Making:

Framing:

If you tell me to look at a certain framework and it is fair and reasonable, then I will do so. If I don't think it is fair I probably wont evaluate under it, but I will tell you why I think it's unfair, and how to make it fair. For LD, it is more about warranted framing. I don’t like/understand phil framing when it’s spread, and I literally have no idea how to evaluate it when it’s read at 200+ wpm

K's are cool.

Decorum: You should do what makes you comfortable in round, if you want to sit down for cx cool, stand up, cool. Sit down for speech, yeee, stand on your head. Let people know if there is anything you need to make the round more accessible or more comfortable for you.

Speaker points: Being kind in round is the best way to get 30's with me. Also, if I learn something new or interesting, you will probably get good speaks

winners get probably 28-30, then the losing team .5 less

30: you were cool in round

I don't always remember to time, so please be honest and hold yourselves accountable.

Hello All,

I am a new judge.

Please take your time, speak clearly, go slow, but not too slow that you run out of time, and remember to have a good time!

For Congress

- Have a clear introduction and sign post your arguments

- For speeches early in the cycle, explain the bill and how the bill will directly affect the status quo

- Include clear transitions between contentions

- For speeches after the 4th cycle, refutation is extremely important. Failure to provide any refutation after the 4th cycle will not get you higher than a 3 or 4

- Impacts and weighing are very important if you want to be ranked highly

• I flow the round and make note of the students who are able to reference the points made by previous speakers during questioning and speeches

• FOR LD

  How to get high speaker points

  - Clear speaking

  - Quality volume

  - Fluidity when speaking

  - No speed --> I can flow speed to a certain degree but I do not prefer it. If you speak too fast I will stop flowing your arguments

  How to win the argument

  - I will be flowing so make sure to tell me what to do... Flow through, drop, extend, turn. if you don't let me know what to do, I will not flow your arguments through.

  - I like the use of logic, evidence is good but if you can answer arguments with the use of logic I do value that highly.

  (LD) - I like the use of framework, make sure to link your impacts to your framework through out the whole round.

  (PF)- Make sure you weigh your arguments throughout the debate not just at the beginning or the end. Please signpost your arguments and refutations to make sure that I can flow your arguments.

  - Make sure to have clear voter issues.

  Above all be polite to your opponents and keep decorum during the round.

I value logical reasoning over evidence, although compelling evidence cannot be ignored. I strive for impartiality and open-mindedness when evaluating arguments. Effective rebuttal strategies should encompass both offense and defense (not just defense), and I appreciate when debaters engage with each point individually rather than skirting around them. I have experience in college parli and have judged LD and public forum so I understand the importance of clear communication, although I prioritize the substance of arguments over delivery style. Fairness and equal opportunity for both sides are crucial to me. I value the ability of debaters to effectively establish and defend their chosen framework, though I also recognize the importance of flexibility and willingness to engage in a constructive exchange of ideas. While I appreciate debaters' commitment to their framework, I understand that finding common ground can be valuable in fostering meaningful discourse. While defending your framework is important, I don't necessarily expect you to outright win on it. If a framework is not provided by either side, I default to util. Professional conduct and adherence to debate etiquette are expected, and I rely on clear links to impacts to understand how arguments lead to their intended outcomes.

This is my second year as a debate judge. I request LD debaters to speak at a pace that allows me to flow. I would also encourage clear definitions be included in arguments. The Congressional debate should be evolving after each speech and you should be responding to your peers arguments. Always be respectful to your peers and enjoy the debate.

I'm an NPDA debater of 3 years and I debated for 5 generally.

all I ask is that you speak slowly enough for me to flow easily and have good clash with counterarguments.

guess the secret phrase of the day and get 5 speaker points

Hello, I am a new judge, though I have extensive debate experience as both a law student, a lawyer, and a business executive.

I like to keep things simple so here’s what I like to see:

1) Speed: I will do my best to accommodate faster speeds, but if you talk too fast I will stop taking notes and look up.

2) Framework: Please clearly state your value and value criterion and reference it throughout.
3) Signposting: I appreciate you stating exactly where you are in the flow and tell me what to drop/flow through.

4) Timing: I will cut you off as soon as time expires.

5) Flowing: I am a flow judge. I will be taking notes throughout, with the exception of cross examination.
6) Off time roadmaps: I welcome them.

Be respectful. Take everything you learn from this experience to make your next round even better.

And, always wear sunscreen.

Hello, debaters! Wishing you the best for today's debate; here are some guidelines I follow to determine who wins!

Basic guidelines:

-Maintain eye contact during speeches; I dislike spread

-How you throw/conviction is important to me and will be reflected in your speaker points.

-Be clear when speaking; I need to understand it to flow it.

-Timing is important, I'll stop writing if you go over your limit by 10 seconds or more

Overall have fun during the round! Every round is a learning experience so don't be deterred by individual losses :)

Hey guys, this is my second year judging, and I really love a good debate! During rounds I want to see good clash in your speeches and crossfire. But, I also value respect a lot, so I will be vocal if I do not see it.

PF/LD:

1st SPEAKER:

I want to see a range in your voice and be loud with your speech, so that I can hear every detail about your case! I want 1st speakers to weigh during their summary and please use voter's issues! Please organize your speeches as well, so that I can have a good flow! SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST!!!!

2ND SPEAKER:

For 2nd Speakers I want to see aggression and passion in your speech because at the end of the day you are arguing (again not too much aggression). I would like to see ORGANIZATION and for you to SIGNPOST as well! Please don't have your speeches only be evidence, explain your cards and how those connect to your opponent's statements. I want to see a clear connection between arguments and their value to your overall rebuttal. I would also like to see voter's issues to be incorporated and it should be relatively the same with your partner's.

Hello Debaters, when I am judging a round I look for a few things:

• Be respectful to your opponents, this is a debate there is no need to disrespect anyone in a round. This will impact my decision heavily since debate revolves around respect.
• Have good impacts and make sure your value and value criterion flow through your debate.
• Make sure you have a voter issue, and state why YOU won the debate over your opponent.
• Speak clearly and at a reasonable pace, if your opponent or I cannot make sense of what you are saying then I can't effectively judge the round.

I am a former LD debater (trad, not prog) in my third year of coaching, appreciating the ability to return to a sport and circuit that is very near and dear to me.

The bulk of my decisions will come down to a round’s voting issues. I will likely not vote for you if you don’t provide me any—even if you otherwise would have won the round. Your voters should not come out of nowhere; I should be able to check my flows and very clearly identify their origins in the debate, as well as track their development over the course of the round. Additionally, there should be no doubt in my mind that you did, in fact, win the debate based on the voting issues that you choose – no hotly contested points as voters!

Overall, I frown upon fear-mongering and I favor realistic impacts above all else. If you are claiming that to affirm/negate will directly lead to something as serious as the breakdown of society or the end of the world, I’d better be able to poke no holes in your reasoning. I value skills over tricks any day of the week.

Debaters able to maintain a cool and level head even while in the middle of an intense round of debate capture my interest. I often look for a debater's ability to conduct themselves in a composed manner, especially if the round isn’t going their way. Additionally, I greatly appreciate debaters who are able to balance concise evidence with clear logic. Leave few gaps in your argumentation and linkchain, and you will win me over.

I will admit, I am a little old-fashioned; I look more favorably towards debaters who can make strong and consistent links between their contentions, their impacts, and their framework. I do not see the point in neglecting framework debate in the slightest; I will weigh your arguments more strongly if you can explain how your contentions uphold the values you’ve chosen, or prove how your opponent’s contradict each other.

I appreciate well-stated, unique arguments with logical support to back them up. When I can follow your line of thought clearly through signposting, it can only reap dividends.

Let's have some great rounds!

As I am judge for the first time, pretty excited to learn and understand the rebate. My focus as a judge would be how respectful the debaters are to each other, value to the topic and its broader impact overall.

Hi! I’m Shreya, a Fremd Varsity LD debater.

In LD rounds, I expect that both sides treat each other with respect. Failing to do so will result in a dock in speaking points. With that said, I am a flow judge.

1) Framework: In LD, framework debate is essential. Use your framework as a tool throughout your speeches, especially during rebuttals.

2) Signpost in your speeches so I know where you are! Tell me exactly which contentions you are addressing and where you are on the flow.

3) Do not go over your speech time. I will stop the timer and stop flowing/listening 10+ secs after the speech time limit. Use your prep time efficiently and really take the time to respond to your opponents arguments.

If you make me laugh, I’ll give you 30 speaks. Have fun! This is all a learning experience.

I know this is long, and hypocritically so since I ask you to be concise in-round. This just grew over several years because I judge a bunch of different events. Instead of paring it down, I've decided to leave it but point you to what actually needs your attention. For an overview, read the TLDR paragraph. Key words are bolded in the middle section to help with skimming (I know you don't have a ton of time between rounds). Then look for your event in bold at the bottom. Feel free to skip what's not relevant to you. If you have questions about what happened after receiving your ballot, coming back here and reading more thoroughly will likely answer your question(s). If it doesn't, feel free to talk to me about it when you see me next.

TLDR: Focus on value and criterion in LD, don't misuse evidence in PF, and speak extemporaneously in Congress. Always warrant your arguments in every event. Don't be too tricky. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. Thou shalt not go off-topic by using abusive "progressive debate" tactics such as kritiks, counterplans, or meta-analysis of debate. I am a traditional judge who flows and is tech over truth.

In a debate round, most of all I'm looking for a clear, concise, and robust exchange of ideas. Some ways to work on this are to make sure you're signposting in all of your speeches, planning ahead to ensure that you're fitting the most important contentions and objections into the allotted time, and responding directly to the arguments and objections your opponents put forth in their own speeches. Do all of this without strawmanning your opponents (or committing any other major logical fallacies).

Most importantly, warrant: Don't take it for granted that your judges can see why your opponents are wrong, or that your contentions speak for themselves in response to challenges. Even if I do see these things, I can't score you well unless you are doing this work yourselves in the debate. Don't let any of your opponents' objections make it through the flow uncontested. Always warrant your claims. Cross-apply your contentions liberally in rebuttals so that I don't think you've dropped any of your own arguments.

I'm not a fan of most forms of "progressive debate," as I want you to make accessible arguments relevant to the resolution, not signal your position on whatever is currently in vogue. For example, if the resolution is about whether the United States should raise taxes on the wealthy, and you're arguing in favor of doing so, it is 100% okay (and probably a great idea) to give arguments about how capitalism can leave certain groups behind and how trickle-down economics only exacerbates wealth inequality and thus eliminates equality of opportunity. It is not germane to the resolution, however, to make all of your arguments about how capitalism is nothing but a tool of oppression and we need to abolish it, as this is not what is at question in the resolution. Similarly, I find meta-analysis of debate as an activity in-round to be grating. I will always favor the person/team using their speaking time to discuss the issue at hand in the resolution.

I'm also not a fan of counterplans because they shift the burden of proof in the round to the NEG/CON. The burden of proof belongs on the AFF/PRO. If you don't want to defend the status quo, I think you need to ask yourself why you're spending your free time doing this activity. As a coach and an instructor, the greatest value I see in debate is that it teaches students to charitably look at and adopt perspectives that are fundamentally different from their own. Using abusive tactics to get around doing this robs you of the greatest benefit of doing debate, and robs your opponent of the opportunity to engage in a robust exchange of ideas about the actual topic of the round. Here I'll provide the analogy of papers: if a student handed me a paper that was well-written, but never actually addressed the topic they were supposed to write about (or worse, questioned the process of writing the paper in the first place), they would fail because they did not actually complete the assignment. The same is true in a debate round.

This doesn't mean I just want to seestock cases. Unusual and inventive arguments are often a major plus. Traditional judges don't want to see the same round over and over again, either. Just make sure you're warranting these arguments and that they're topical.

A note on speed: I don't mind spreading and can keep up with it as long as you don't talk like you have marbles in your mouth. But before you spread, consider that you will have many lay judges in this circuit who are unfamiliar with this speed or even hostile to it. Proceed at your own peril. Additionally, I often see debaters spread to try and overwhelm their opponents with cards to respond to without ever substantially developing or warranting their arguments. When I read student philosophy papers, I look for two things before anything else: clarity and concision. The lesson from this is that sometimes less is more because it forces you to focus on what really matters in the round, and as such you develop your arguments around key voting issues far more than you would if you were just hammering your opponent with as much evidence as possible.

A couple of notes on questioning: I'm not a fan of debaters interrupting or steamrolling their opponents. Be courteous and give the other team/person a chance to respond and to ask their own questions during grand cross while still using your own speaking time well. Being the loudest person in the room is not synonymous with being the best debater. I do not flow questioning, either. If you want something that came up in questioning to factor into my decision, you need to bring it back up in one of your speeches.

A final note on my ballots: I try to write pretty detailed ballots because I know how frustrating it is to lose a round and then not understand why, or to be told something vague or even get a blank ballot. I try to make up for this all-too-pervasive problem with debate judging by providing you with detailed feedback. However, I want you to understand that only the comments in my RFD directly factored into my decision. I'm writing comments throughout the round to you individually to try and provide feedback on your cases (especially because I know some of you may not have coaches), as well as your argumentation and speaking styles. Sometimes I will write things in the individual comments section that are my personal opinion on what makes a good case, or whether something is a convincing argument. As a tabula rasa judge, this kind of thing does not factor into my decision unless the other debater(s) call(s) you on anything I mention in one of their speeches. I provide this individualized feedback not to explain my decision, but to potentially help you grow as a debater. The RFD is the real explanation of my decision.

For Lincoln-Douglas: If you're using a moral or political theory from analytic philosophy (i.e. utilitarianism/consequentialism, deontology/rights-based, virtue ethics, Rawlsian distributive justice/justice as fairness, any kind of social contract theory, principles from medical ethics, etc.) please make sure you know what you're talking about. I have way too many rounds where a utilitarian or consequentialist framework devolves into deontology or rights-based theory, and vice versa. Or worse, where a debater uses a contradictory value and criterion, such as pairing autonomy with consequentialism. And these are the simplest moral theories; the bar will be even higher if you choose Rawls or something more obscure. I'm not against you using these theories (in fact, as a philosophy teacher I want you to do so), I just want you to use them well and appropriately. I highly recommend that all LD debaters read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy extensively in order to better prepare for using and coming up against philosophical concepts in rounds. Theories from continental philosophy will be a tougher sell for me in general because they're even more difficult to use appropriately.

No matter what value and criterion you choose, make sure you're linking all of your impacts back to your framework throughout the round. A brief mention at the top of each speech is not nearly enough attention to framework in LD. Also, please don't make your value "morality." That's redundant. All of these resolutions have the word "ought" in them; morality is implicitly valued in the round. You're not actually giving me any real information here about how you're using a theory of value to evaluate the resolution at hand.

For Public Forum: Evidence matters here even more than in the other debate events. Make sure you're reading all of your sources in their entirety before cutting cards. I'm always paying attention, and so are most of the other debaters: if you're using something out of context, you will get called on it eventually by one of your opponents or judges. I will call for evidence in close rounds, so be prepared to hand over your cards. Making empirical assertions without providing empirical evidence will make it very hard for me to vote for you, and misusing evidence will make it nearly impossible. Additionally, spitting out cards and contentions you're hoping your opponent will drop is not the path to my ballot. Well-reasoned and charitable argument is.

For Congress: It is to the whole chamber's disservice to get stuck on one bill or one series of bills. Even if your favorite bill is being discussed and you haven't gotten a chance to speak yet, it's in your best interest not to extend a tired debate. I would rather see fresh debate on a bill that is less familiar to you than continue to see the same arguments recycled over and over again.

Congress is meant to be an extemporaneous event. I don't want your speeches to be pretty and polished like a speech event, or even like a constructive speech in PF or LD. I want you to show me that you have a range of knowledge and interest in an even wider range of topics in current events, and can speak extemporaneously on these topics in the chamber. There's little I dislike more in debate than for a Congress chamber to take a recess so everyone can "write their speeches." This fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of Congress. The best advice I can give Congressional debaters for prep isn't to write polished speeches, but to regularly read (not watch) reputable news sources like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and The Economist. If you must watch your news, go with the PBS News Hour or something international (i.e. the BBC), not partisan entertainment-oriented channels like CNN, FOX, or MSNBC. Podcasts are fun, but not a substitute for reputable news organizations with full-time fact checkers.

For Extemporaneous Debate, most of the above goes in various degrees. If one person runs a framework in this event, I'll weigh it against whatever framework is the best fit for the other debater's arguments (usually cost-benefit analysis, occasionally a rights-based theory). I won't just default to the person who has an explicit framework since it is not a norm to always have one in this event. Other than that, this is a rapid-fire version of the other events. The most important thing is to warrant, warrant, warrant, whether we're talking about arguments, evidence, tangible impacts, or a framework. Like with PF, spitting out cards and contentions you're hoping your opponent will drop is not the path to my ballot.

For Big Questions, the NSDA briefs are usually weird and unhelpful. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is your friend. Think very carefully about what makes a good argument, and nuance is most often the key with these kinds of resolutions. Trying to do something tricky or gimmicky (such as saying that objective morality is real because of natural selection instead of arguing in favor of actual normative moral truth) is usually going to work less well than offering a substantive, multi-faceted account of the issue at hand. However, I'm not totally opposed to these kinds of arguments and have voted for them in the past. Just tread carefully as the bar will be higher for them.

This event (usually) isn't about the empirical, but the metaphysical, and you should approach it as such. This means that looking for "evidence" from science instead of philosophy is often the wrong tactic. Reasoning and logic is evidence, as shown by the entire history of thought. Think about it this way: you can't find numbers in the natural world, but rockets still wouldn't work without mathematics. The same goes for logic, which is just verbal mathematics.

Add me to email chains: sharpedebate@gmail.com

Short Verison:

*I specialized in LD in high school and moonlighted in PF when someone needed a partner. PF paradigm - Flow is the most important thing in the round, please be clear; I'll be deciding on the flow. I'm not new to debate, so I won't be voting off the last speech but the big picture of the round, who has the most positive impacts in the round. I'm a progressive judge so do whatever you want, just be respectful of your competitors.

Tho I prefer that folx don't run bad geopolitical link chains leading to nuclear war - if the links don't make sense I won't care.

TLDR:

* I really don't like racism, sexism...etc. I won't vote for hateful arguments.

* Warrant your arguments! Names of authors mean nothing to me. I won't vote for you if you just read cards.

*Weighing is very important (especially with a Value/VC/Roll of the ballot)

*Prioritize impacts, the strategy is important

*If you are going to value Morality, please explain it. What moral framework are we working under

*Be Clear

Former Debater at Homewood-Flossmoor

Lincoln Douglas was the debate-style of my high school career so I am very familiar. I started in traditional Lincoln Douglas and ended my career running Kritiks so I am comfortable with both styles of LD. I can understand most spread, but make sure your opponent is comfortable with the speed and be clear. If you are not clear, I am not flowing. You can go as fast as your mouth and lungs will let you, but if you are not clear it will most likely be detrimental to you. I will say clear twice. If you don't adjust I will probably stop flowing. Refrain from bringing your opponent's identity into the debate space, especially when it comes to sexuality, race and/or disability. I have seen and experienced many rounds where people assume wrong about someone's identity, and it becomes offensive. With that being said, if you are non-black running arguments about anti-blackness (or in general), make sure it's for the right reasons, and don't use authors that write for the black population.

Plans: Call me old-fashioned but I don't think that Affirmative needs to provide a plan in any LD debate topic. But I am not against plans in LD.

Theory: 80% of the time I do not like theory debates because it can get very messy. While I view theory to be a necessary part of debate I hate frivolous theory. To be honest, I don't care if someone's case isn't on a debate wiki, I am not 100% against voting for stuff like that but the reason why its imperative for people to explain the need to disclose.

Kritiks: I think they make debate interesting and sparks great dialogue. But please run a meaningful Kritik don't slap one together before a round that isn't well thought out. I tend to like Kritiks that challenge the topic/arguments, just because there tends to be more clash, but Kritiks about the debate space is fine. I haven't had the time to read a ton of literature in college, so don't assume I know an author.

Evaluation Criteria:

1. Clarity of Arguments:

• Clear, well-structured arguments are essential. Avoid jargon unless well-explained.

2. Impact and Relevance:

• Focus on the significance of arguments. I prioritize impacts that affect real-world outcomes over theoretical debates.

3. Framework:

• Establish a clear framework early in the round. I appreciate when individuals/teams articulate their criteria for evaluating the debate.

4. Evidence and Credibility:

• Use credible sources to back up claims. Anecdotal evidence is less persuasive unless it has strong emotional appeal.

5. Engagement and Responsiveness:

• Engage with opponents' arguments directly. I value individuals/teams that effectively respond to each other's points rather than simply reading prepared cases.

6. Delivery and Style:

• While content is king, delivery matters. Speak clearly and confidently, and maintain eye contact.

I believe debate is an educational experience. I want to see individuals/teams learn from each other throughout the round. Be respectful and maintain a good spirit of competition. Sportsmanship and respect matters.

I am a flow judge.

1) Signpost & provide an Off-time roadmap. Very important!

2) Prioritize clash, both contention-level and framework-level (or collapse/concede fw if necessary)

3) Connect contentions & impacts to the framework.

4) Outweigh on voters.

5) Extend arguments

6) I can somewhat handle speed, but don't spread (it will tank your speakers)

7) While I won't flow CX, make sure your questioning leads you somewhere. Try to poke holes and stump your opponent's case, rather than asking worthless questions to fill time.

8) All arguments are welcome.

8) Be respectful and have fun. This is all a learning experience! If you make me laugh or if I learn something new – easy 30 speaker points :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPEAKERS
30: I wish I could frame your speeches – hard to imagine a better speaker.
29.0-29.5: You left no doubt about who won and are an excellent speaker.
28.0-28.5: You were effective and strategic, and made only minor mistakes.
27.5: You hit all the right notes, but could improve (e.g. depth or efficiency).
27.0: You mainly did the right thing, but left something to be desired. No Signposting.
26.5: You missed major things and were hard to follow;
26.0: You advanced little in the debate or the round was messy; Spreading.
25.0-25.5: You are not ready for this division/tournament.
Below 25: You were offensive, ignorant, rude, or tried to cheat (Report to tabroom).

As a Lincoln-Douglas Debate judge, I have two primary jobs: to vote for the winner of the round and assign speaking points to both debaters. When deciding a winner, I must evaluate the arguments made during the round and vote for the debater who presents the better case for their side of the resolution. To conduct this evaluation, I look to the flow. The outcome of the framework debate provides the standards I use to weigh the substantive contentions that have survived the round (e.g. if a debater makes an argument in their constructive but drops that argument in their rebuttal, I will not weigh that argument when voting). The winning debater is the one whose arguments best achieve the standards established in the round.

Debaters who wish to present "critiques" or "theory" as reasons they should win the round should proceed with caution. As a matter of fairness and respect for the activity, I cannot vote for a debater who does not advance arguments related to affirming or negating the resolution. Framework/observation/definition/etc. debate is healthy and encouraged, but ultimately the point of such debate is to define parameters for evaluating arguments for or against the resolution.

When deciding speaker points, I look at both the quality of the oral presentation and effective use of time. I can flow speed, but I think excessive speed is unnecessary and often counter-productive. I also encourage all debaters to enunciate clearly.

I am a fairly new judge and debate coach, so I prefer it when you talk more slowly and concisely. Even though this is a competitive activity, be respectful of time limits. I appreciate organization. Highlight signposts as you go through the contentions of your case so I know where to flow your arguments.

Build your case in a linear way that clearly supports your framework and provides sufficient evidence to assist me in determining a winner. Don’t spread; I don’t want to hear that your opponent did not attack your contentions if you give a laundry list of items that is so long no one would have time to attack them all.

Give me a brief off-time roadmap before each argument. As far as framework is concerned, I see it as a tool through which to weigh the round, so you need to defend your framework. If you happen to lose your framework or it collapses, extend your arguments and tell me why that extension is vital.

I want to hear specific examples, evidence and statistics, not just generalized statements that yours is more important or better. I enjoy a debate that utilizes less common examples of how the resolution impacts society. I take notes regarding your contentions and cards, and my decision will be based on how clearly this information actually supports your framework as well as how it is presented and organized. When disputing your opponent’s case, be respectful and disparage the contentions or framework and not the person.

Focus on voter issues as you summarize your case and be sure to tie your voter issues back to your framework. I want you as the debater to identify the clash between the AFF and NEG. Your voter issues NEED to represent the MOST IMPORTANT clash in the debate and convince me why I should vote for you!! In summary, be clear, be concise and be convincing.

Name: Melissa Whitaker

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 2

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery- I prefer a moderately paced speech. If you speak faster, it will most likely be harder for a judge to follow your speech.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- I prefer a brief off time road map as it helps me to organize my flowing more easily. However, if you provide that roadmap, please stick to it.

Extension of arguments into later speeches- If you continue to extend your argument and your opponent has not attacked it, I will likely flow it through.

Flowing/note-taking- I flow everything except cross-examination.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I value argument over style

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? I think it should be extended into the rebuttal.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No

Hi guys!

During the debate, I really value good clashes in ideas; rebuttal is super important there. However, be careful not to get too caught up in an opponent's case that you neglect to extend your contentions throughout the round. Making sure to signpost arguments is also helpful, as it allows for general clarity and more organization in my flowing.

When it comes to speaking, I can tolerate most speeds, but enunciation is key when you're speaking faster.

Good luck everyone!