SIGNPOST!!

I am a former debater, from long long ago. I am back to judge because of how much I enjoy seeing students learn, grow, and develop into passionate adults.

In round, I expect to see professionalism. I would rather see several fully fleshed points than a bunch of half-baked ones. Keep in mind, that stating sources is important.

I tend to judge on the following categories: professionalism (presentation and communication), use of sources, completeness of content, and application of content. Your job is to tell me how to vote and why. The less thinking you leave to me the better.

IEs are much the same: professionalism (presentation and communication), completeness of content or well-practiced depending on the event, and captivating.

We are all human and I expect to see you bring yourself to each round. No one is perfect, but I do expect you to try your best. If a mistake is made, that is okay, take a deep breath and move on. High School debate should be fun!!!

I consider myself a traditionalist. Lincoln-Douglas debate was created for a reason. The intent of debate is to facilitate communication, therefore use of speed should not be the emphasis in this activity. A good litmus test is the following...would Abraham Lincoln have used spread during his debate with Stephen Douglas? No? Then you probably shouldn't either. Exchange of ideas, discussion of which value is superior, respect and civility should be of paramount importance. Analysis and organization is extremely important. The debater in front of me should explain why their analysis is superior and why their value defeats the opposition.

As I noted above, the intent of debate is to facilitate communication. Speakers need to remember, and this is extremely important, that communication is not only about speaking, but it is also about listening. I have seen it happen more times than I can count, that your opponent will give you information to flip against them in the round, and that flip is not utilized. The tough part is identifying that information. Do not be constrained by what is obvious, meaning do not be afraid to ask "what if". Lateral thinking therefore, is incredibly important to consider.

Further, I consider myself a pragmatist. Originally, Lincoln-Douglas debate was designed as a values-oriented platform. This has evolved into a policy-values hybrid so while I will look at a round from a purely values perspective, the values and values criteria have become more of a means/end assertion. The use of real world links and impacts should support your decision. If you are able to demonstrate why your real world analysis/evidence supports your values/values criteria and you set that parameter up front, I will strongly consider that as a voter. I would however note the following:: the links to your impacts are absolutely critical to establish in the round. Off time roadmaps are also important. Organization is absolutely critical. It is your responsibility to tell me where you are on the flow.

Impact calculus is one of the major concepts I will weigh in your round. That is an incredibly huge point to remember where I am concerned as a judge. However, it is important to consider the nature of the impact. This is where the aforementioned links come into play. Of further note, since LD has become a hybrid, I buy off on solvency being an issue as a means to justify the resolution. Those of you who have had me before as a judge know why that statement alone can determine an entire round. In short, back to the point on the "what if" issue I broached earlier, that would be a very good place to start.

I also look at framework. If you are going to run something out of the norm...i.e. counterplan, Rights Malthus, general breakdown of society, etc., you need to make sure your links are airtight, otherwise I will not consider your impact. The two would operate separate of each other if there is no link.

I started my involvement in LD in 1982, I also debated policy from 1980 to 1982, competed in speech from 1980 to 1984, and competed at the college level in the CEDA format in 1985 and from 1988 to 1990, and have been judging since 2014 in the Spokane, WA area. I also judged policy in the Chicago, IL area in the early 1990"s.

In terms of the January/February 2024 LD topic on reducing military presence in the West Asia/North Africa region, I have very unique experience and perspective. I am retired military, retiring in 2014 and having served 4 years active duty in the Navy and 16 years in the Washington Army National Guard including a one year deployment to Iraq from 2005 to 2006 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I saw first hand the effect of what many of you may try to argue. I also attended many briefings from subject matter experts prior to going in country, including geopolitical/economic briefings, etc. I do consider myself a bit more well versed than many judges in this field based on my personal experience. In short, examine your argumentation and analysis carefully. The bigger picture is a major area of focus and as the semester progresses, you will begin to see adjustments based on the feedback you are getting.

A couple of administrative notes. Eye contact is really important if for no other reason, to see how much time you have left. One of my biggest pet peeves is cutting off your opponent during CX. I have no problem annotating that you did so on your ballot so your coach can discuss the matter with you after the tournament. Civility and decorum are important, and I can surmise several of you have had this happen to you. I also do not have a problem with you timing yourself or sharing evidence, provided it does not detract from the overall use of time in the round.

Finally, it is extremely important to remember....this activity can be fun and it will help you in ways you can't even imagine later down the road. Everyone at this tournament, whether they are coaches, judges, your peers, etc...started as a novice. Bad rounds happen. They are a part of the landscape that is debate. This teaches an important life lesson. How do you bounce back from adversity? How do you apply what you have learned to make things better next time?

Remember that the case/argumentation you start off with at the beginning of the semester, will not be what you end up with at the end, provided you do a self assessment at the end of each round. Ask yourself what was supposed to happen. What did happen? What three things went well for you. What three things happened to you that are opportunities for improvement. If you are consistently applying these criteria, and using your coaches/opponents/peers as resources, by default your weaknesses will get shored up. Incidentally, this is a really good life skill as well and can be applied in the real world. Good luck to you going forward!

I did LD for 4 years, there isn’t much that you could throw at me that I couldn’t understand.

If you spread, be clear and tag well or I won’t be able to follow along as well and that might cost you the round if I didn’t hear an argument.

Framework is as important as you make it, if both fall though I will judge based on contentions left standing and how they counter each other. Be civil and have fun. And please impact

If you spread please give me a heads up and if its of the nat quality speed I would prefer you flash me a copy before beginning so I can make sure to follow along properly :)

(I do prefer progressive debate, but debate the way you do best)

I am a 4 year debater with LD being my primary focus. I am comfortable with any argument you wish to run, but be prepared to defend it. When I look at the round I like to look at the round through the lenses of the value and value criterion and then look at the voters that may be present. Please signpost where you are in the flow, it makes it easier to follow you and if I can’t get it down or get it down in the wrong spot it doesn’t end well for you. I don’t flow crossx but if there is something in there you wish to bring up I will flow it.

im not super big on speed, but I can sorta deal with it. If something is dropped don’t just say oh it’s dropped, impact it and show me the significance of that drop.

Signpost, articulate your taglines, and everything will work out. Clash is good, T, Ks, etc. are fine. I’m not very particular on style or structure: this is your round, and I am here to occupy the position of judge according to the whims of tab.

Run whatever you want, and have fun!

1. Decision-Making Philosophy:
I value arguments that are well-supported, logically sound, and clearly communicated. While technical aspects like line-by-line refutation are important, I prioritize substantive engagement with the round's core issues. Arguments that show critical thinking, respect for diverse perspectives, and an awareness of real-world implications resonate with me.

2. Framework/Weighing Mechanisms:

• Clearly explain the framework or weighing mechanism for evaluating the round. If both sides provide competing frameworks, I will decide which is better justified and evaluate the round within that context.
• I value holistic frameworks—arguments that address underlying assumptions, systems, or ethical considerations stand out.

3. Policy/Value/Fact Debates:

• Policy: I appreciate creative counterplans and kritiks but expect clear links, impacts, and solvency. I like when debaters articulate how their plan or counterplan contributes to fairness, justice, or practical benefits.
• Value: Clearly define your values and show how your arguments uphold them. I prefer nuanced discussions over rigid dichotomies.
• Fact: Be precise and use credible evidence. I reward debaters who take time to explain how their evidence supports their claims rather than just listing sources.

4. Argumentation Style:

• Clash: I want to see meaningful engagement with opposing arguments, not just dismissals.
• Storytelling: Paint a picture with your arguments. Analogies, personal examples, or well-framed hypotheticals are persuasive tools that make your case memorable.
• Critical Thinking: I appreciate when debaters question underlying assumptions, challenge established norms, and provide innovative solutions.

5. Speed/Delivery:
I can handle moderate speed but prioritize clarity over quantity. If I can't follow your arguments due to speed or poor enunciation, they won't factor into my decision. Delivery should be confident yet approachable.

6. Points of Interest:

• Logic and Structure: I respect a well-organized speech with clear signposting and strong internal logic.
• Respect and Empathy: Debaters who engage respectfully with opponents and demonstrate a genuine effort to understand opposing perspectives earn high speaker points.
• Impact Calculus: Always explain why your impacts matter. I value impacts grounded in justice, equity, or meaningful societal benefits.

7. Things I Dislike:

• Over-reliance on jargon without explanation.
• Arguments that lack clear links to the resolution or debate round.
• Disrespectful behavior, including condescension or personal attacks.

8. Speaker Points:
Speaker points reflect your persuasiveness, clarity, and overall engagement. A compelling delivery and strong organization can elevate your score, even if your side doesn't win the debate.

9. Final Thought:
I judge debates as both an intellectual exercise and a tool for fostering empathy and understanding. Impress me by showing thoughtfulness, adaptability, and a commitment to meaningful discourse.

I did debate in high school and have been judging for a few years.

Things I like to see in a round:

Good clash--please do not just restate your evidence when it conflicts with your opponent's; tell me why your evidence is better, that is, more comprehensive, more recent, the reasoning is better or more intuitive, etc.

Aggressive CX--do not be rude and please do not talk over each other. Having said that, I like a hard line of questioning, getting to the heart of arguments, and getting an opponent to state their position and follow those positions to their natural conclusions. I do not flow CX, but there are plenty of rounds where the winning argument is developed from something that comes up in CX, if you want me to flow something that comes up, mention it in your next speech

Unique arguments/framework--I will hear out any argument you want to run if you have evidence supporting it and can make a coherent rational argument for it. I do not care if you want to run a funky framework, if your opponent runs an abusive framework, don't just tell me it's abusive, explain why and why that abuse is bad for the debate or the discussion of the issues.

Pet Peeves

Formalistic arguments about PF rules-- I am not a rule stickler, and I frankly do not care about running what might technically be considered a plan or counterplan. The point of debate is to improve rhetorical skills and learn about relevant topics. Neither of those goals is hurt by stating a specific course of action in regard to the topic or proposing an alternative answer to the one suggested by the topic. Public Forum is not Policy or LD, so I don't really care to see a formal plan, counterplan, pic, etc. run like you would in another form of debate. However, the conceptual ideas behind them absolutely belong in Public Forum debate. Giving me a general idea of how the topic would be implemented, or a mutually exclusive alternative course of action to the topic, etc. is encouraged. It makes the debate better by forcing teams to expand the scope of the arguments, be more rhetorically elastic, and make the debate more interesting generally. However, there are things that teams can do which are bad for the debate itself or do not advance an understanding of the topic. In those cases I want the opposing team to point out the abusive/unproductive tactic being used by the other team and explain why it is bad for the quality of the debate or for education of the topic. If you make that case I am happy to flow that argument as a turn for your side. Also I do reserve the right to drop the argument, whether or not the other team brings it up, if it both contradicts the overarching goals of debate and is in violation of a public forum rule.

Giving time signals--I am terrible at remembering to give time signals. This is totally my fault, but I think it is only fair to give a fair warning. If you really really need me to give time signals I will do my best, but I strongly encourage you to time yourselves.

Not Giving Voters--PLEASE GIVE VOTERS! I don't want you to cover the flow the last speech. Pick the couple of issues that win you the round and explain why these issues are the most important to the debate and why you win them.

Price: $4.99 adjusted for inflation

Thanks for debating and reading my paradigm.

4 years LD experience in HS, not real versed in progressive debate theory or format. Flow judge.

-As a judge, I want to hear everything you have to say. To weigh your arguments to the fullest, I need to be able to understand what you're saying. I have a hard time keeping up with significant speed and the resulting lack of clarity. When reading your case, you already know what it says and so it's easy to get the words out quickly. When listening to your case, it will be new to me and will take more time to digest the words you're saying and take notes. Please be aware that if you go too far past a conversational pace, I may miss important parts of your case and that could impact the round. I will say slow and clear a few times if need be. Totally understand in a 3-judge panel situation if you want to disregard to play to the other judges, but I will have a hard time. Realizing I may sound like an old fogey saying this, but personally I think some of the best rounds are the ones where a totally lay person could reasonably follow the arguments being made because they are being explained well and in an accessible way.

-I think mutual respect and good faith debating make for good rounds. It's totally cool to play to win, be direct and assertive, but no need to be impolite in the way that we go about it. We are all friends here, ideally.

-Please stay humble in cx and utilize it to the best of your ability. Pointed questions are good, but try not to force an unnecessary yes or no answer to get ammo for your argument. I never liked being told to only answer yes or no and you probably don't either. I think the main function of CX needs to be clarifying your opponent's position so you can respond accordingly and accurately. In that vein, when your opponent sufficiently answers your question, feel free to move on to the next. Feel free to ask to see your opponent's case during CX or during your prep time. Also, CX questions and answers should be directed at the judge instead of directly at/facing each other.

-*Signposting as you go*, roadmaps, down the flow/ line by line speeches, anything to keep the debate flow organized is much appreciated. It helps so much when you are very clear about which side of the flow you're on and which numbered point you're responding to. This will really help me stay with you and flow all your arguments into the places you want them. At the end of most rounds I look at my flow, prioritize the framework arguments, and then apply those frameworks to the contention level debate. If impact calculus wasn't already provided or is contested, I'll look to see which points I felt went to each side and do my best to weigh them up on the whole.

-If you want an argument cross applied or it addresses multiple parts of a case and the way it does so isn't immediately apparent, please explain.

-If your opponents drops/doesn't sufficiently respond to a significant point, feel free to argue that it's conceded in the round and apply that argument/ impacts to the debate. That said, there are instances where it wouldn't be fair to vote on or heavily weigh some tiny argument that wasn't directly addressed. If a case is structured well imo, there's a few main points to focus on and not a laundry list. No hate on the homies running 15 contentions but it's tough to flow and time runs short.

-Progressive arguments are cool, but please accommodate both me and your opponent in terms of speed and accessibility. Please know that I don't have a solid knowledge of specific progressive structure or lingo. That said, outside the box cases which aren't built on speed/jargon but rather view the resolution or the debate in a different light are v fun as long as they can interact with the opposing case in a meaningful way.

-I love a nice synergy between the value and criterion. Especially where the value is the goal or moral standard and the criterion is the lens for how we know we're achieving that goal. Please note: it is difficult to evaluate a framework argument such as "justice is needed for safety", because the same could be said in reverse. Please explain how or why you believe that the frameworks differ (if they do) and why one is better/ more useful/ of higher moral quality than the other.

-All your time is your time, so please don't feel bad if you want to use it to collect your thoughts, breathe, consult your flow, make notes, etc. Taking a few seconds to collect your thoughts and think it out if you need to usually doesn't hurt. I believe it's in your interest to take advantage of all your prep time, and any down time in cx even if you don't have more questions. However you feel comfortable presenting is good, I don't bother too much with needing to stand for speeches or how much eye contact you have (even though at least some is nice :D). You won't get less than 25 speaks unless there are major issues or inappropriate behavior.

-Impacts: a good impact has clear evidence showing how and why it happens, the scale and time frame of the impact, etc. I know you know this but claiming something will or won't happen is not the same as providing evidence to demonstrate.

Thanks for reading, and feel free to ask me any more questions you have before the round. Good luck and have fun!

I've done both PF and LD at the state and local levels respectively to address questions/fears about my competence or debate experience. Unfortunately did it for 4 years in high school. Tried it in college. Have gone to nationals many times.

Now that that's over, anything flys. I'm cool with speed if you enunciate clearly. Whether or not the debate is allowed to be progressive or traditional lies in how both debaters frame the round, but I do appreciate at least attempting to recognize the value and value criterion in your arguments. I don't care about what happens in cross x. Don't drop arguments, make sure there is lots of clash, and prioritize voters. Emphasize arguments/points important to the round (don't say it just once) or I might not write it down. I won't make arguments for either debater so make sure to fill in the gaps. Let me know how you want time signals and prep. Otherwise, I keep official time with time signals at 1 min remaining, 30, 15, etc, and prep will be given with verbal prompts in 30 second intervals. Have fun.

My experience is primarily in LD, and I would consider myself to be more of a traditional, framework-focused judge, although I find myself drawn to arguments that provide real-world impacts. While I prefer traditional strategies, I can follow progressive debates, you just have to be really clear with me. Organization is key, please make your arguments flow in an orderly fashion and always signpost; if you're going to say "my opponent said this..." it needs to be followed by "in response to my second contention..." or something like that. Please provide a link between your claim and your impacts, if something is going to lead to nuclear war, you need to provide a logical argument for how we're getting there. If you drop framework or certain arguments, you do not automatically lose in my book. The opponent HAS to bring up drops for it to score them any points, if they drop the drop, then I don't care about it. You also need to tell me why it matters that they dropped the argument and how that impacts the flow.