Joe Blasdel

McKendree University / Belleville East High School

Updated: 11/14/2024

I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree in 2003 (mostly NPDA, some LD and IEs) and have been doing so ever since. I have also coached debate at Belleville East (mostly LD, some PF) for the last two years.

This is broken into four sections: #1 PF Specifics, #2 HS LD specifics, #3 NFA LD specifics, #4 NPDA / general thoughts.

#1 PF Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS PF (in no particular order):

1. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponents' arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will also flow the debate on three 'sheets' - the PRO case/answers, the CON case/answers, and the rebuttals (summaries/final foci).

2. I will not flow crossfire but I will still pay careful attention and view it as an important part of the debate.

3. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

4. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#2 HS LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS LD (in no particular order):

1. I have researched and coached students on the current NSDA topic and am broadly familiar with the issue.

2. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponent's arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will flow the debate on three 'sheets' - framework, AFF case/answers, NEG case/answers.

3. I view the value/value criterion portion of the debate as framing the rest of the debate. When the framing part of the debate is not clear, I generally default to a cost/benefit analysis in evaluating the substance part of the debate.

4. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

5. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#3 NFA LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging NFA LD (in no particular order):

1. During the debate, I will flow what's being said rather than read the speech docs. I will review speech docs between speeches and after the round.

2. While carded evidence is obviously important in this format, I also appreciate warranted analytic arguments - probably more than the average NFA LD judge.

3. Having not judged a lot of LD of recent, I'm unsure if I can flow the fastest of debates. If I cannot flow due to clarity or speed, I will indicate that's the case.

4. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

#4 NPDA / General thoughts

Section 1: General Information

In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.

On trichotomy, I tend to think the affirmative has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I don’t see a lot of good fact/value debates, I am open to people choosing to do so. I’m also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.

If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If you’re calling multiple irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.

I’m not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then explaining/warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ‘new’ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ‘new’ PMR arguments.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).

Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I’m open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than the average NPDA judge. I approach the K as a sort of ideological counterplan. As a result, it’s important to me that you have a clear, competitive, and solvent alternative. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, it’s likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.

Performance based arguments…

Same as above.

Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position that’s run; it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework – I’m not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an ‘average’ threshold. I don’t vote on RVIs. On spec/non-T theory, I have a ‘high’ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, I’m probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.

Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?

All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I don’t have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?

All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighing claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?

I tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.

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

-Be respectful to your opponent, I know in a debate things can get heated but we should always be respectful and have fun

-Signposting which is basically telling me where you are in your speech. This will help me flow your case better and help me organize your points Bette as well.

-speak clearly what I mean with this is you do not need to speech crazy fast because 9/10 I wouldnt understand what your saying. Also speech loud I need to be able to understand what your saying and that difficult to do when your like whispering so pleaseeeee speak really loud.

- Clashing is always appreciated I love to see a good clash in values, criterion's etc keeps the debate fun.

• Prefer traditional LD style of debate. I do not prefer policy style debate OR new progressive styles of debate.
• Clarity over spreading of arguments.
• Not interested in policy debate style (Avoid spreading, avoid cases that are non-topical (structural violence can work as aVC, but make sure it fits into the resolution
• Especially in your opening arguments, make sure that I know exactly what your contentions are, values, etc. Clear quality of evidence over the quantity of evidence. ,so long as you are clear.
• Stress impact, impact, impact: Make sure you stress how the claims you are making affect people, the country, etc. Tell me what's at stake, what the consequences are of each argument.
• WEIGH your impacts! As a judge I am looking for weighted impacts throughout your case, and especially in your voters issues. What is the scope, the magnitude, the urgency...of your claims. etc
• .Sign Posting: This is an essential tool for me as a judge to follow your case. It doesn't matter how good your arguments are if I can't follow along.
• Framework important to me, but not critical (and totally accept conceding a framework if it is not crucial). Just make sure your VC has a lear link to topic.

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!

Dr. Samantha Dolen, Coach, Palatine High School

LD Judging and Coaching: 3 years

Teaching areas: biology, chemistry and physics. I'm a scientist, I will be skeptical of the information presented if you don't provide quality evidence to back it up.

Speed of Delivery: I prefer a moderately paced speech. If you speak faster, then it is your responsibility to make sure that your speech is easy to follow. When speaking quickly, there is a greater chance that I won't be able to flow all of your contentions. I will also not view your attempt to spread your case using a fast pace of delivery. Presenting a litany of contentions or sub-points with the hope that your opponent will not have time to address them all is not the goal. Quality over Quantity is where my vote will land.

Framework: I place more consideration on your value criterion than your value. You have selected this VC as the way to measure your V because the value is a broad concept that is difficult to measure. If I am to make a decision based upon that VC, you need to clearly and substantially tie your impacts back to that VC. You need to articulate this; don't leave it to me to try and find the connection. I want to know specifically why one VC is more aligned with the resolution; if you collapse, then make sure you begin tying to the agreed upon framework and not the original one you presented. I want you as the debater to identify the clash between the AFF and NEG; how are these two worlds different and how is that important to the resolution.

Contentions & Impacts: Don't spread. Your contentions are your opportunity to make your case; they should be clearly articulated, well reasoned, and well supported. If they are unique, then even better! As a coach, I have researched, read and judged this resolution dozens of times before I hear you debate so unique and interesting is best if you want to keep my attention and my vote. Impacts are where you are going to win with me. You can present dozens of cards, but if they all amount to very small impact on a very small group of people, then you will have a hard time winning. I want you to provide strong contention tag lines, indications of separate sub-points, etc. If you are just reading a laundry list of cards, then I will eventually lose track and wonder how all of these points are related. Minor points are just that minor; if you have an insignificant point left un-attacked at the end of the round, that doesn't necessarily give you the win. Remember, it is about showing how your contentions support your framework and why that view of our moral obligation outweighs your opponents.

Format of Rebuttals: If you provide a roadmap, then follow it. I track attacks made on concepts and not individual cards. I would rather see you recognize the commonality of cards presented and attack the main idea. I like it when opponents are able to understand and attack big ideas instead of the individual cards as it demonstrates a level of complexity of thought during the debate. I want rebuttals to prioritize which contentions are most important. Provide analysis of why your framework and contentions are better aligned with the resolution; do not simply tell me to disregard your opponent's contentions, this must be articulated to win points on the that argument. When disputing your opponent's case, be respectful and disparage the contentions or framework and not the person.

Flowing: I will flow everything except for the cross. I tend to flow main ideas and not each individual card you present. I do consider your ability to ask and answer questions when determining speaker points.

Voter Issues:When providing voter issues, don't just restate why your framework is better or how your contentions have gone un-attacked. Voter issues are about WHY your remaining arguments are more important. How odes your side realize a better outcome for the society in question? Are you winning on scope, magnitude, reversibility, probability? This is your opportunity to make the case for why the issues you have presented are more important to meeting the moral imperative of the resolution.

A few other things: Overall, I work very hard to leave my own ideas, biases and knowledge out of the debate. If something isn't true, is an exaggeration, or is actually supporting the other side, I expect the opponent to point this out. If it isn't acknowledged as false in the round, I try to vote on it. But I can only suspend reality so far...if what you are saying isn't plausible, then I can only ignore that for so long. So, if your opponent is saying weird stuff, acknowledge that so I know that you also see that an argument is faulty. If you don't say it, I might have to let it flow through.

In my debate rounds I’m heavy on framework and facts because debate is about facts and not our personal opinion so let’s keep it real—stick to the facts, no made-up stuff. We’re here to learn and challenge each other, but that doesn’t mean being rude. Keep it chill. Remember a good debate is about respect and understanding. So, let’s keep it simple, stay cool, and make these debates a place where we all grow and learn together!

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 voters 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!

Make sure to connect everything back to your framework. You should state how your arguments lead to the fw. Voting issues is a big focus point for me, so make sure you tell me why you won the round. Also, make sure to signpost at all times and state everything you want me to do on the flow. I will not drop or turn or flow things through by myself unless you actually tell me to.

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.

Marybeth Sanchez

I appreciate clear communication. Off time roadmaps are appreciated. If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you. Communication is crucial. Always be respectful. I appreciate when debaters actually engage with the internal warrants of their opponents evidence and arguments, point out contradictions between pieces of evidence, expose evidence that is too specific or too general to apply, or call out evidence that is just claims rather than warrants. Any engagement with evidence beyond "my opponent's evidence is wrong because my evidence is right" will greatly increase your chance of winning my ballot.

Lincoln-Douglas

Name: Lisa Savage

School Affiliation: Benet Academy

Were you previously affiliated with any other school? No

Number of years and/or tournaments judging the event you are registered in: 1 year; 4 tournaments

Have you judged in other debate events? Please describe if so. No

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

Speed of delivery preference (slow, conversational, brisk conversational, etc.): I prefer conversational because it makes it easier for me to follow along; that said, speed of delivery does not factor into my decision making.

How important is the value criterion in making your decision? Very important- I prefer the VC to be explicitly stated in the constructive speeches, and the criterion should be a guiding principle that the argument always comes back to and explains.

Do you have any specific expectations for the format of the 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal and 2 Negative Rebuttal (i.e. line by line/ direct refutation and/or big picture?)- No, but I do prefer a road map to be offered before they begin. I then expect the road map to be followed.

Are voting issues necessary for your decision? Yes- I prefer debaters to explicitly state their voting issues. It shows me that the debaters are able to crystallize both their and their opponent’s argument.

How critical are ”extensions” of arguments into later speeches- Not overly critical; I am judging more based on their value, value criterion, contentions, refutations, and voter’s issues more so than their ability to extend.

Flowing/note-taking- I take notes on everything, including cross examination. That said, the cross examination itself doesn’t weigh heavily in my decision making- I use it more as a way to give feedback to the debaters.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I value argument over style, but style still factors into my decision making. A crisp, clear, confident, and educated speaker makes a difference.

In order to win a debate round, does the debater need to win their framework or can they win using their opponent’s framework? I suppose it depends, as sometimes debaters end up agreeing on their values.

How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (analytical and/or empirical) is in the round? Very important. A debater can have great values, criterion, and contentions, but without the evidence, it’s all for naught, in my opinion.

Any other relevant information (optional)? None.

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.

Paradigms

I am a flow judge that uses old style pencil and paper.

1) Signpost (tell me what argument in your opponent’s case your talking about)

2) Prioritize clash and contention-level debate

3) Provide me clear voter issues (why should you win the round)

4) Please DO NOT speak too fast (so that I can’t write down your arguments) or too slow (so that I’m waiting for your arguments) – try to maintain a comfortable pacing with your case

5) I do not consider any arguments brought up in Cross-X – use the Cross-X questioning to your advantage during your rebuttals (which I will write down on my flow)

6) Most importantly, be respectful and have fun. This is all a learning experience!

My name is Aiden Stahl, I am a Lay Judge. I attend the communications department at Carthage College and have some knowledge of public speaking.

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