Hey, my name is Victoria! I did high school debate for about three years, and now I'm a debater at Mckendree University. In high school, I did mostly public forum, but I have also done Lincoln-Douglas. (I also did worlds and ext at nationals...)

Base Rules:

• Speak as clearly as possible. I am okay with speed as long as I can actually understand you.
• Don't be rude, or disrespectful during your debate.
• I do not flow cross, so bring it up in your speeches if you want it flowed.
• Explain every argument to its fullest extent especially at the Link level. Give me clear warrants, for your arguments, and don't leave me to fill in any blanks.
• If an argument is conceded, tell my WHY that matters. (on the flipside, try not to concede arguments. Even if you do not know what to say, make something up and we can clear it up in RFD. Being able to at least touch on all of your opponents points is good practice, even if its BS lol)
• When it comes to winning round, I will always vote based on whoever has the best and most well developed arguments. Speaking well will help you with getting speaker points, but if your arguments are not fleshed out then I will not vote for you.
• I do not flow over time. If you go over, just wrap up your last sentence.
• I like clear signposting throughout speeches.
• If you are giving an off time roadmap make sure you actually follow it.

LD:

• I do not solely vote on framework. If you collapse to your opponent's v/vc, as long as you're winning under that framework I will give you the round. (as a mainly PF debater, I am not a huge fan of wasting time on framework debate, so I like it to be resolved between both debaters early on in the round.) A clean framework debate makes it easier for me to evaluate the round.
• Any other "rule" is explained under "Base Rules"

PF:

• In PF rounds, the most important part for me is the weighing. Utilize using your magnitude, probability, and timeframe as the measures to winning the debate. Using the summary and final focus speeches to do this will help me better evaluate the round in your favor. For me, it is possible to win on one argument if your weighing is used effectively.
• Any other "rule" is explained under "Base Rules"

Lance Allen

I competed in Parli and IE’s for 4 years at Mckendree University and have now coached for 7 years.

I think this means that I have a diverse background of knowledge for most types of debate. I am comfortable in quick K debates and also comfortable in more traditional rounds. I have experience in high level college LD rounds and I also have lots of experience with first year novice rounds. While am I am competent in a K debate, I am most comfortable in a case/DA/CP debate. This means the K needs to be well explained. I tend to weigh Magnitude and Probability before timeframe until you tell me otherwise.

You should feel comfortable running any position in front of me! The most important thing is that it is well explained and well defended.

Hi all, here are my ways for viewing a debate.

1. The most important thing you should know about me is I do not care about how eloquent of a speaker you are. I focus on the facts of the debate, not the number of filler words you use. Public speaking is hard and you get better with time, so I will never hold it against anyone if they have trouble. However, please speak up so your opponents and I can hear you, but if I do not understand you I will tell you to speak up.
2. Use your prep time and ask questions to your opponents. When you ask questions, you have a chance for clarifications.
3. Be respectful to myself and your opponents. Under no circumstances will I vote for you if you make personal attacks on your opponent. Debate is a learning space and at the end of the day, it is just a game.
4. I love a good impact debate so do with that what you will.
5. Please answer as much of your opponents case as you can. I dislike debates where both sides leave a lot of points unanswered.

Please let me know if you have any questions. I will do my best to give thorough feedback on ballots.

Here are some of my general guiding principles:

1- Use your prep time to your advantage (I will not hold it against you if you use your prep time- it makes a lot more sense to use to and think of a way to logically present your case rather than information dump in a nonmethological way and waste it)

2- I am judging debate, not a speech event and will judge accordingly (your quality and ability to speak is not what I am judging- however if I can’t understand you because you are talking too quiet or fast that would make you inherently less convincing if I can’t physically hear the point you are getting across. I will not take off for verbal fillers, but do know there is an opportunity cost with verbal fillers- if you are using excessive verbal fillers you are taking time away from building your case)

3- I don’t flow cross examination. If you want me to flow something that was asked you must bring that up in your timed rebuttal speech(es).

4- Be respectful. I mean this in every facet of the debate (stay within your time limit, be professional to your opponent, be on time, and always attack the case and not your opponent).

5- As a general rule I vote for the side that makes a more developed in depth case. I would be more likely to vote for the side that has two contentions that are fully explained (what’s happening, how the plan or counter plan will fix that, and why it matters) than a case that has five contentions with no depth. As a general rule in order to do this you have to use the majority of your speaking time. Waiving the majority of your time demonstrates there isn’t much to your case and you couldn’t find anything to advocate for your case.

At the end of the day, this is designed to be an educational activity. I hope that everyone has fun in the process and is able to learn a thing or two. Please let me know if you have questions! I will do my best to give as thorough of detail in my feedback on everyone’s ballot.

I like neat well-structured debates, tell me where to look on my flow. Arguments need both a warrant and a claim. In the rebuttals weigh your value/value criterion and tell me how it impacts the round, otherwise I default to impact weighing. Feel free to go as fast as you would like, but if your opponent asks you to slow down, please do or it will impact your speaker points.

Hello, my name is Ari! I did LD debate my junior and senior year of high school, while competing my sophomore year in Public Forum. So, overall, I am more knowledgeable in LD. In general, please attack value criterion in rounds, if you can convince me that your value criterion takes precedence over your opponents, then you have a strong advantage in the round. Keep in mind, that timeframe, magnitude, and probability arguments help me weigh out impacts and understand the scope of the situation in the round...so it would be in your best interest in the round to emphasize this. I also enjoy strategic voter issues that help me weigh out impacts as well, so feel free to implement those into your final speeches. Finally, I do not care if you are a good speaker as much as I care about the quality of arguments being made. If you are a good speaker, but do not come in clutch with a good argument backing up your skills, then your talent does not really matter. I will always pick the speaker with the better argument that provides me with in depth statistics and evidence to back up what they are talking about, even if speaking skills are not the best. In general, I expect debates to be civil and respectful because the point of debate is not to win, it is to expand our knowledge about topics and learn how to process our thoughts adequately. Also as a general note, I do not flow during cross-x, so if there is a point that is made that would be beneficial to your argument, make sure to address it during your constructive speeches. Besides that, everything else in the round is up to you, have fun with it because the round will be what you make of it!

Advocacies: In general, I have no overwhelming preference for any particular type of advocacy. I have a slight bias towards policy discussions, but greatly appreciate kritikal discussion if teams decide to do so. When it comes to kritical literature I have a relatively good understanding of anti-blackness, Marxism, Nietzsche, and biopower. Do not worry, however, if your kritikal advocacy falls outside of those categories, however, as I am always happy to hear new perspectives and will do my best to flow and follow the debate.

Theory: Theory is fine to use in the debate, but some types of theory will have a higher threshold for acceptance than others. In general, framework, topicality, spec, and “PICs bad” are solid, but theories such as aff framework choice, or “you don’t get a criticism,” will generally need to be more specifically justified for the debate. Anything beyond these categories, will probably come down to the context of the round in which it is read. Finally, independent voting issues have a relatively high threshold; if the voting issue is not well explained or expanded upon, it will likely have less impact on my decision. Also, if there is a genuine issue in the round such that you believe it warrants some form of theory in the PMR, I will flow it and evaluate it, but I highly discourage its usage unless the other team is being truly disrespectful, ignoring your requests and questions, or acting in any significant bad faith manner.

In Round: In round, I have no limitations for speed, but will ask you to speak louder if I am not able to hear you. I ask that you respect the other side’s request for slower speed or clearer speech if requested, and I will not hesitate to deduct speaker points for a lack of decorum or blatant disregard for the other side’s requests.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at:

deleelmit@gmail.com

Current School of Affiliation: Truman State
I have formerly judged and debated HS LD and PF. I am a current competitor in NFA-LD for Truman State.

When's lunch?

1. Top Level

I have an extreme dislike for the City of Wentzville, MO.

How does your framework best serve current institutions, e.g. debate? Why does your framework best allow me as the judge to consider the issues in the round?

Speak as quick or as slow as you'd like, just make sure you're coherent. Tell me exactly where on my flow I am putting arguments, otherwise you risk me not putting something important down at the wrong place or not at all.

You can run literally any argument, I evaluate tech > truth. CX is considered binding, but I won't vote on it except if you tell me I need to.

Speaks start @28 and go up and down based on the round--you won't go below a 26.

2.Groceries

… Chicken breast (skinless, boneless)
… Chicken thighs (skinless, boneless)
… Fish filets (salmon, salmon burgers, tuna, other fish – not fish sticks/patties)
… Ground turkey or chicken (in¼ pound packages – for quick easy thawing)
… Lean ground beef (90-10% or93-7% lean ground beef in ¼pound packages)
… Veggie burgers (without added phosphorus)

Kyle A. Garrett

High School LD and PF

I am currently competing in my fourth year of national circuit parliamentary debate at McKendree University. With that being said, I am familiar with a wide variety of arguments, strategies, philosophies and styles of debate. This means that I find contemporary/experimental/unique arguments and styles to be acceptable so long as you give me a clear method of evaluation.

I believe that debate is a unique activity that is more in the hands of the debaters than it is me as a judge, with this in mind, I intend to try to adapt to the round that you all would like to have, however I will still list my thoughts that make life a little easier for me should you take them to heart.

LD:

To win my ballot, I ask that you make clear and explained extensions of arguments and relate the importance of that argument to the rest of the debate. I ask that you give and defend a clear value and criterion with reasons to prefer your method of evaluation above that of the opponents.

PF:

The typical way I've seen framework arguments deployed is not very persuasive to me. I do believe that a framework is necessary, especially in PF, yet at the same time, I believe that if you read clear and smart reasons to prefer your interpretation for how the debate ought to look in the 1AC or 1NC, then we can all have a better time having a substantive debate in the later half of the round, rather than getting bogged down and muddled with questions of framework.

If you have any questions on RFD's or debate in general, do not hesitate to contact me at my email: kyle.garrett1413@gmail.com

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.

Experience: As a “seasoned” debater and judge with 2 years of experience in High School debate at Belleville East and 2 year of college debate at Mckendree University, I bring a detailed understanding of the format, rules, and principles of debate to my judging role. I did both LD and Public Forum in high school so I have experience in both events as a competitor and as a judge.

Philosophy: I believe in evaluating debates based on the clash of ideas, logical reasoning, and persuasive argumentation rather than relying solely on technical skills or speaking prowess. I prioritize clarity, coherence, and depth of analysis in arguments. Speed is not an issue for me as long as I can understand your arguments. Argumentation is the sole purpose of debate so make sure you are addressing all of your opponents arguments and extending your own. Not only are you trying to convince me your side/argument is better, but you are also trying to prove it and that cannot happen if you are dropping arguments. Cross X is between you and your opponent so as a judge I do not flow it. You and your opponent should not be facing each other, you should be facing me but that does not mean I am actively involved. Make sure to bring up any points from Cross X that you would like me to flow in your speech.

Vibes: Overall, have a good time and argue your heart out. This is a learning experience and designed to be educational and enjoyable. Also this is a positive space so please be CIVIL with your opponent. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to ask. Good luck!

:)

I am a Debate Coach at McKendree University. We compete primarily in the NPDA, NFA-LD, and IPDA formats of debate. We also host and assist with local high school teams, who focus on NSDA-LD and PF.

Email: banicholsonATmckendreeDOTedu

I have sections dedicated to each format of debate I typically judge and you should read those if you have time. If you don’t have time, read the TLDR and ask your specific questions before the round. If you do a format of debate I don’t have a section for, read as much as you can and ask as many questions as you want before the round.

TLDR

I view debate as a game. But I believe games are an important part of our lives and they have real impacts on the people who play them and the contexts they are played in. Games also reflect our world and relationships to it. Debate is not a pro sport. It is not all about winning. Your round should be fun, educational, and equitable for everyone involved. My favorite thing to see in a debate round is people who are passionate about their positions. If you play hard and do your best, I'm going to appreciate you for that.

The quick hits of things about my judging that you might want to know before the round:Specificity wins.

1. Most of the time, the debater with the more well-articulated position wins the debate. Get into the details and make comparisons.
2. I like debaters who seek out clash instead of trying to avoid it. Do the hard work and you will be rewarded.
3. I assume negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. I think conditionally is good. Anything more than two advocacies is probably too much. Two is almost always fine. One conditional advocacy is not at all objectionable to me. Format specific notes below.
4. I love topicality debates. I tend to dislike 1NC theory other than topicality and framework. 2AC theory doesn’t appeal to me most of the time, but it is an important check against negative flex, so use it as needed.
5. I don’t exclude impact weighing based on sequencing. Sequencing arguments are often a good reason to preference a type of impact, but not to exclude other impacts, so make sure to account for the impacts you attempt to frame out.
6. I will vote on presumption. Debate is an asymmetrical game, and the negative does not have to win offense to win the round. However, I want negative debaters to articulate their presumption triggers for me, not assume I will do the work for them.
7. I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts because that feels least interventionist.
8. Give your opponents’ arguments the benefit of the doubt. They’re probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning.
9. Debates should be accessible. If your opponent (or a judge) asks you to slow down, slow down. Be able to explain your arguments. Be kind. Debate should be a fun learning experience for everyone.
10. In evidence formats, you should be prepared to share that evidence with everyone during the round via speechdrop, email chain, or flash drive.
11. All debate is performative. How you choose to perform matters and is part of the arguments you make. That often doesn’t come up, but it can. Don’t say hateful things or be rude. I will dock speaker points accordingly or vote against you.

General

Everything is up for debate. For every position I hold about debate, it seems someone has found a corner case. I try to be clear and to stick to my philosophy’s guidelines as much as possible as a judge. Sometimes, a debater changes how I see debate. Those debaters get very good speaker points. (Speaking of which, my speaker points center around a 28.1 as the average, using tenth points whenever possible).

I flow on a laptop in evidence-based formats (LD, CX, PF) and on paper in extemporaneous formats (NPDA, IPDA). If I don’t ask you to slow down, you’re fine – don’t worry about it. I don’t number arguments as I flow, so don’t expect me to know what your 2b point was without briefly referencing the argument. You should be doing this as part of your extensions anyway.

One specific note about my flowing that I have found impacts my decisions compared to other judges on panels is that I do not believe the “pages” of a debate are separate. I view rounds holistically and the flow as a representation of the whole. If arguments on separate pages interact with each other, I do not need explicit cross-applications to understand that. For instance, “MAD checks” on one page of the debate answers generic nuke war on every page of the debate. That work should ideally be done by debaters, but it has come up in RFDs in the past, so I feel required to mention it.

In theory debates, I’ve noticed some judges want a counter-interpretation regardless of the rest of the answers. If the strategy in answering theory is impact turns, I do not see a need for a counter-interp most of the time. In a pure, condo bad v condo good debate, for instance, my presumption is condo, so the negative can just read impact turns and impact defense and win against a “no condo” interp. Basically, if the aff says “you can’t do that because it is bad” and the neg says “it is not bad and, in fact, is good” I do not think the neg should have to say “yes, I can do that” (because they already did it). The counter-interp can still help in these debates, as you can use it to frame out some offense, by creating a lower threshold that you still meet (think “some condo” interps instead of “all condo”).

I look to texts of interps over spirit of interps. I have rarely seen spirit of the interp clarified in the 1NC and it is often used to pivot the interp away from aff answers or to cover for a bad text. If you contextualize your interp early and then stick to that, that is fine. But don’t use spirit of the interp to dodge the 2AC answers.

I start the round with the assumption that theory is a prior question to other evaluations. I will weigh theory then substance unless someone wins an argument to the contrary. Critical affs do not preclude theory in my mind unless a debater wins a compelling reason that it should. I default to evaluating critical arguments in the same layer as the rest of the substantive debate. I am compelled by arguments that procedural issues are a question of judging process (that non-topical affs skew my evaluation of the substance debate or multi-condo skews the speech that answers it, for instance). I am unlikely to let affirmative teams weigh their aff against theory objections to that aff without some good justifications for that.

A topicality interpretation should allow some aff ground. If there is not a topical aff and the aff team points that out, I'm unlikely to vote neg on T. That means you should read a TVA if you’re neg (do this anyway). I am open to sketchier T interps if they make sense. For instance, if you say that a phrase in the res means the aff must be effectually topical, I can see myself voting for this argument. Keep in mind, however, that these arguments run the risk of your opponent answering them well and you gaining nothing.

NPDA

My philosophy has changed over time – especially in relation to NPDA as a format. I think you’d do well to read through this in detail if you feel like you already know me as a judge. I still want you to explore arguments you care about and are interested in, but there are new boundaries explained here that I feel are necessary to the maintenance and growth of this activity that I will not negotiate. Please, still advocate for your positions, but you may need to adapt your arguments to me more than you have in the past.

I’m going to start with the three biggest changes in my NPDA philosophy.

1. Debates need to slow down. To help enforce this rule, I am flowing on paper again. I will try to be proactive in calling speed issues early and often in rounds to help debaters who may be used to my previous threshold adapt to a slower speed threshold.
2. Affirmative teams must affirm the topic. If you “reject the topic” in the 1AC, I will vote negative on presumption. (This is explained in more detail below.)
3. NPDA should be a rigorous, extemporaneous debate format. I expect you to read new arguments that you wrote in prep that talk about the topic in some detail. Generics are a critical part of the prep process, but we should all be adapting our generics better to the specifics of each topic.

NPDA is a strange beast. Without carded evidence, uniqueness debates and author says X/no they say Y can be messy. That just means you need to explain a way you want me to evaluate them and, ultimately, why I should believe your interpretation of that author’s position or the argument you’ve made. In yes/no uniqueness questions, explain why you believe yes, not just that someone else does. That means explaining the study or the article reasoning that you’re leaning on and applying it to the specifics of the debate. Sometimes it just means you need an “even if” argument to hedge your bets if you lose those issues. I try to let these things be resolved in round, but sometimes I have to make a judgment call, and I’ll do my best to refer only to my flow when that happens. But remember, the evidence alone doesn’t win evidence debates – the warrants and reasoning do the heavy lifting.

Arguments in parliamentary debate require more reasoning and support because there is no printed evidence available to rely on. That means you should not just yoink the taglines out of a file someone open-sourced. You should explain the arguments as they are explained in the texts those files are cut from. Use your own words to make the novel connections to the rounds we’re in and the topics we discuss. This is a beautiful thing when it happens, and those rounds show the promise that parli has as a productive academic endeavor. We don’t just rely on someone else saying it – we can make our own arguments and apply what others have said to new scenarios. So, let’s do that!

Affirmative teams must affirm the resolution. How you do that is up to you. The resolution should be a springboard for many conversations, but criticizing the res is not a reason to vote affirmative. You can read policy affs, value affs, performance affs, critical affs, and any other aff you can think of as long as it affirms the res. Affs should include an interpretation of the resolution and a weighing mechanism to determine if you’ve met this burden. That is not often necessary in policy affs (because it happens contextually), but sometimes it helps to clarify. I am not asking the aff to roleplay as oppressors or to abdicate their power to pose questions. Instead, I want the aff team to reframe questions if necessary and to contextualize their offense to the resolution. Be creative and adapt your arguments to the topic of the debate. Do not read the same, unmodified argument in every round.

Negative teams must answer the affirmative. How you do that is up to you. You should make sure I know what your objections to the aff strategy are and why they are voting issues. That can be T, DAs, Ks, performances, whatever (except spec*). I vote on presumption more than most judges in NPDA. The aff must win offense and affs don’t always do that. I think “risk of solvency” only applies if I know what I’m risking. I must be able to understand and explain what an aff, CP, or alt does on my ballot to run that “risk” on their behalf. With all that said, articulate presumption triggers for me. When you extend defense in the MO, explain “that’s a presumption trigger because…”.

I can buy arguments that presumption flips aff in counter-advocacy debates, but I don’t see that contextualized well and is often just a “risk of solvency” type claim in the PMR. This argument is most compelling to me in PIC debates, since the aff often gets less (or none) of their 1AC offense to leverage. Absent a specific contextualization about why presumption flips aff in this round (bigger change, PIC, etc.), I tend to err neg on this question, though it rarely comes up.

*On spec: Spec shells must include a clear brightline for a ‘we meet’ – so ‘aff must specify the branch (judicial, legislative, executive)’ is fine. Spec shells often only serve to protect weak link arguments (which should be improved, rather than shielded by spec) or to create time tradeoffs. They are sometimes useful and good arguments, but that scenario is rare. In the few cases where spec is necessary, ask a question in flex. If that doesn’t work, read spec.

Condo: 1 K, 1 CP, and the squo is fine to me. Two Ks is a mess. Two CPs just muddles the case debate and is worse in NPDA because we lack backside rebuttals. Contradictory positions are fine with me (procedurally, at least). MGs should think ahead more and force bad collapses in these debates. Kicking the alt doesn’t necessarily make offense on the link/impact of a K go away (though it often does). I am open to judge kicking if the neg describes and justifies an exact set of parameters under which I judge kick. I reserve the right to not judge kick based on my own perception of these arguments. So probably don’t try to get me to judge kick, honestly.

I don't think reasonability (as it is frequently explained) is a good weighing mechanism for parli debates. It seems absurd that I should be concerned about the outcomes of future debates with this topic when there will be none or very few and far between. At topic area tournaments, I am more likely to vote on specific topicality. That does not mean that that I’ll intervene on T if you’ve attempted to affirm the topic; it just means you need better T answers if topics are released in advance of the tournament. Reasonability makes more sense to me at a tournament that repeats resolutions (like NPTE).

NFA-LD

I tend to think disclosure of affs (once you’ve read them) is good and almost necessary and that disclosure of negs is very kind, but not necessary. The more generic a neg position is, the more likely I am to want it disclosed, but I’ll never expect it to be disclosed. I won’t take a strong position on any of this – disclose what you want to disclose (or don’t disclose at all) and defend that practice if necessary.

Affirmatives should stake out specific ground in the 1AC and defend it throughout the round. I don’t care how you do this, whether it is a plan, an advocacy, a performance is up to you. I think that topical plan debate is often the easiest to access, but I don’t believe that makes it the only accessible form of debate or the only good form of debate. So, read the aff you want to read, but be prepared to defend it. Affirmative debaters can (and sometimes should) kick their advantage offense to go for offense on a neg position. I don’t see this enough, and I really wish it was more common in plan debates, especially.

Negatives should answer the aff. How you answer the aff is your business, but I like specific links for negative arguments. On case, I love a good impact turn, but I’ll settle for any offense. In terms of DA choice, I think you benefit from reading high magnitude impacts most of the time, because the aff likely outweighs systemic DAs or has systemic impacts of its own.

For criticisms, I just want to understand what is happening. Most of the time that’s not a problem, but don’t assume I’ve read your lit or understand the jargon. I would prefer if you can articulate your criticism in accessible language in CX. I tend to prefer a K with a material impact, but I can vote for impacts that are less material if they’re explained well and interact with the aff impact in a meaningful way.

Negative procedurals should be limited to topicality if possible. T isn’t a voting issue because of “rules”. It’s a voting issue because of how it impacts debates. I default to competing interps and don’t usually hear a good justification (or even definition) for reasonability. I will still weigh based on reasonability if it is explained and won.

Spec, speed bad, and norm-setting arguments (like disclosure) generally don’t appeal to me. I understand their importance in some strategies and sometimes they are required. If someone refuses to slow down, I understand the need to say speed is bad. But I don’t care about rules, I care about how people are being treated – so make speed debates be about that. Spec and norm-setting arguments should be about the impact on research practices, education, and fairness in rounds.

2AC/1AR theory is not my favorite. I want debates to be about the aff case and when the affirmative debater decides to introduce additional issues, that often takes away from discussion of the aff itself. I know sometimes people go too far, and you have to read condo or delay bad or whatever. That’s fine. But use your best judgement to avoid reading theory in unnecessary situations and when you do have to read theory, keep the debate about the aff if possible.

I expect clear interpretations and voting issues for theory shells. I’ve noticed that this is not always the case in the NFA-LD theory debates I’ve seen, and teams would benefit from a specific statement of what should and/or should not be allowed.

Negative debaters should prioritize impact framing and delineate a path to the ballot for themselves. I have seen quite a few debates where the NR gets bogged down in the line-by-line and the aff wins by virtue of contextualizing arguments just a bit. In your NRs and 2ARs, I’d like to see more comparative analysis and focus on what my ballot should say, rather than exclusively line-by-line. You still need to answer and account for arguments in the line-by-line, but absent a clear “mission statement” for your speech paired with necessary analysis, it is hard to vote for you. Aff debaters can’t go all big picture in the 2AR. You have to deal with the line-by-line. I can’t ignore the NR and let you give a 3-minute overview. Get short and sweet with your overview. Clarify your path to ballot and then execute that strategy on the flow.

IPDA

Most of the NPDA notes will tell you how I feel about extemporaneous debate formats. Here are some quick hits from my experiences with IPDA that might influence your decision-making.

1. If you read a value, you need a criterion. (The NSDA-LD section has more on this subject.)

2. I prefer more academically, and policy slanted topics, strike down accordingly.

3. Make a clear statement of why you should win. I prefer overviews to underviews and one or two sentence I win statements to a list of disconnected voting issues.

NSDA General

I’ve heard many things referred to as “cards” that are not cards. A card needs to be a direct quotation, read in part (marked by underlining and highlighting) with a citation and a tagline that explains that argument. Present it in this order: Tagline, Author/Year, Evidence. Referencing a study or article is not a “card.”

You should be reading cards in debates. And you should be prepared to share those cards with your opponents. If you’d like help learning how to cut evidence into cards and how to share those cards quickly with your opponents and judges, I’ll gladly walk you through the process – but there are many resources available to you outside of me so seek them out.

Seek out clash. Don’t say “my partner will present that later” or dodge questions. Find the debate and go to it. We’re here to answer each other’s arguments and learn from the process, so let’s do that.

Time yourselves and each other – you should keep track of your prep time and your opponent’s prep time and time every speech in the debate. This is a good habit that you need to build.

NSDA-LD

Values and value criteria are a weighing mechanism for evaluation of arguments. Winning the value debate matters because it changes how I view impacts in the round and prioritize them. I understand the idea of “upholding a value” as the end goal of an LD round, and I can buy into that as a way to win a round, too. However, if that’s what you do, I probably won’t vote for impacts outside of that framework. You should choose between (1) upholding a value as a virtue or good in itself or (2) winning impacts that you will frame using your value/criterion. Both are valid, but I am inclined toward the impact style (option 2) by default.

I tend to think of LD debates in four parts: Definitions, Value, Aff Contentions, and Neg Contentions. I think it makes sense to flow LD on three sheets: One for definitions and values, one for aff contentions, and one for neg contentions. That makes the clash in definitions and aff/neg value easier to isolate and prevents a lot of strange and usually unnecessary cross-applications. Thinking of negative values as “Counter Values” that answer the aff value makes a lot more sense to me. You don’t have to do this in your round or on your flow, but it should help you conceptualize how I think about these debates.

I have not judged many plan-focused rounds in NSDA-LD, but I’m open to that if that is your style or you want to experiment. If you do this, I’ll flow top of aff, advantages, and neg positions on separate sheets like I would in a policy debate, and you can ignore the stuff about values above.

I am open to the less traditional arguments available to you. I love to see the unique ways you can affirm or negate using different literature bases than just the core social contract and ethics grab-bag.

Public Forum

I don’t have a ton of specific notes for PF. Check out the general section for NSDA and feel free to ask questions.

I like when the aff team speaks first. It makes debates cleaner and encourages negative responsiveness to the aff. You don’t have to choose first if you’re aff and like speaking second. But keep it in mind and do what you will with that information.

I don’t flow crossfires. I pay attention, but you need to bring up relevant crossfire moments in your speech and explain why they matter for me vote for them or include them in my decisions.

About me:

Hi! I’m a former four-year debater (fall ‘19-spring ’23). I competed in PF, LD, and Congress (as well as the local speech circuit). PF was my primary focus in high school, but these days I tend to see more of LD. If you have any questions for me, please feel free to ask before the round starts.

General paradigm:

I’m all good with spreading (speed-reading). No matter how quick, I’ve probably heard worse before. Keep in mind that this is not necessarily the same for your partner or opponent. Make sure that everyone in the room is comfortable with it, otherwise you run the risk of losing the clash.

I love to see a framework argument in both LD and PF. In LD, having a value and criterion is a must. In PF, a framework is optional, but if one is provided it will factor into my decision. If the opponent does not attack its inclusion or suggest an alternate framework, then the provided one is implemented. Make sure these frameworks are not dropped. They must be mentioned in EVERY speech.

Similarly, I’m fine with a definition debate, as long as there is clash.

Jargon and technical language are allowed, but they will not win you the debate. At most, they may affect speaker points. The debate is about the holistic argument and not individual word choice.

I weigh the debate based on what arguments are flowed through each speech most effectively (in relation to a framework, if provided). I will not jump from one point to the next on my own. Please lay it out clearly and in an organized manner for every speech, or else I will not be able to justify carrying it through the round. Strong clash (particularly on frameworks) is preferred, but, in the end, the debate is what you make it.

Also, I will not flow CX. Please include in your speech any points that you would like to be on the flow.

Voter issues are a MUST in PF. In LD, I am more lenient. If you carry your framework throughout the round, it is fine to suggest that I weigh the argument on it, rather than the opponent’s voter issues.

The use of ad hominem and/or being disrespectful to other individuals (opponents, judges, etc.) will weigh heavily in my decision. I strongly discourage it. Debate has nothing to do with attacking individuals and everything to do with attacking arguments.

Overall, just be respectful and have fun!

I am a second year debater, so I can keep pace with your talking speed. Just try your best not to spread; the faster speaker does not always win debates! The most important thing to me, as it separates LD from other debate types, is the framework clash. I would love to see a good framework clash from both sides, but I do respect collapsing onto your opponents framework if it benefits you! I want to hear WHY you win, instead of leaving me to pick up the pieces of why you should win. I believe voters is one of the most important parts of the debate for that reason. A off time road map is very helpful for pretty much everyone in the debate, and I urge you to use one. Above all, have fun, be respectful to your opponent, and good luck!

--

Connor Pearce

Hello! I am Rebecca! I graduated from McKendree University (2017-2021) and debated all four years, mostly in Parliamentary Debate however I also did NFA-LD for two years on and off and have some limited speech experience (mostly extemp). As a debater I solely ran policy based arguments on the affirmative however I was more varied on the negative in terms of critical arguments however my experience is limited to mostly Marx, Nietzsche, Biopower, and some Thacker.

Advantages/Disadvantages: I love case debate, this was my bread and butter as a debater and am more than comfortable judging policy based rounds. I prefer these arguments to be set up as uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact however you do you in terms of how you want to set these arguments up. I am totally down for politics disads and love hyperspecific advantages and disadvantages to the topic.

Ks: I will be upfront and say I am not as comfortable in a critical debate as a policy debate, however I do not want to use this to discourage your teams from running these arguments, however I do need some top level thesis explanation of what the world of the K looks like versus the world of the affirmative (or if it is a K AFF what the world post-aff looks like) these will help me to better contextualize your arguments and how they interact with the rest of the debate. I am very comfortable with Marx or any critiques of capitalism but beyond this I am not aware of the literature.

Theory: In terms of topicality please run it, I need a clear interpretation, a violation, standards, and voters at the end of the debate in order to vote for it. Beyond that I am not a huge fan of spec but run it if you must, however be warned that I will not be happy if you go for it.

Framework: As it is my first year out I am not 100% sure on how I vote on framework vs K AFFs, however as I debater this is an argument I ran frequently and am familiar with the argument broadly. However the direction I vote in these debates varies debating on the strategy teams deploy and comes to a question of what the world looks like depending on if I vote for Framework or the AFF.

Speaker Points: 27-30, obviously don't be mean and do not say anything offensive.

Overall do you have fun, again this is slowly evolving and will likely change as the season goes on and I gain more experience judging.

I currently compete on the Mckendree University's Debate team, I do IPDA and NPDA. When it comes to debate I know a fair good amount. Therefore, when it comes to judging I look for the cleanest way to vote. However, there are multiple things to know when I am judging your debate:

1. When there is a voting criteria I always look for which team mets that best.
2. I come into debate with a clear mind, so I expect you to explain your arguments fully.
3. A story line that makes me feel like I have to vote for you. Story lines allow for a clear way to get your point across while proving your point matters.
4. This also goes with impact arguments. Tell me I need to vote this way because if I don't this will happen.
5. I will vote on presumption if need be.
6. I prefer when arguments are clear, make sure your argument makes sense.
7. I don't flow CX so don't assume I do, or that I will know what you are talking about in the debate if you bring it up without explaining.
8. Be nice throughout the whole debate. I understand that debate can be stressful but there is no reason to be rude.

I do debate at Mckendree, as a junior International Relations major.

1. Be respectful at all times, kindness is key
2. The eloquence of your speaking (though important in the long run) is not as important as the overall argument and points.
3. Use your time wisely.
4. I vote more on impacts, the quality of the argument is most important along with how it is all tied together.

I value solid support for any points you make as one of the most integral parts of a debate. Strong arguments are important but there need to be facts to back them up. I am far more willing to consider an unconventional or not as strong argument if the data and research that backs it are strong and reflective of the point being made.
Make sure you are respectful to your opponents and any groups of people you may refer to during your speeches. The people discussed and affected by the issues at hand are real and important and the way they are spoken about should reflect that.

Please take your prep time, it is there for you to use and all you have to do is ask!