Ctrl/Cmd + F to find your event (once it's finished :0] )

Debate

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

The form of debate I have the most experience with, I consider myself a tech judge, meaning that if you can beat your opponent by tackling the most points then tada you win! Though your arguments must be understandable (believable is just a cherry on top), as a freshman college student, if not then I will not believe your points are valid.

Framework

Speech

Hello,

I am a parent judge with little experience. However, I have sat in multiple Congress sessions so I'm familiar with the flow of the round.

Judging criteria:
- Be professional, NO profanity or racial slurs
- Be respectful, don't interrupt or be rude
- Speak clearly and loudly, and deliver well
- Have your arguments structured and organized
- Arguments should be relevant to the topic, have clear logic, and have relevant, reputable research
- Be engaged with the round by refuting/including opponent's arguments
- Use CX time wisely and effectively

No spreading please.

LD is a value debate so I will be looking for the debater who best connects their contentions to the value and value criterion in their case.

I am a parent judge with limited experience, so please convince me why you win using ordinary terms. I do not understand debate jargons

*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college debate - v traditional policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I've been coaching PF for 6+ years, mostly MS/some HS.

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

To be clear: fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.

It shouldn't take you long to send cards if you were literally just reading them. Make it quick or it starts coming out of prep.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

TW/Para theory/K's - judged a couple times, but by no means an expert. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but you're better off going slower than usual and making your judge instructions very, very clear.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I am a judge with over 5 years of Speech and Debate experience.

I do not mind traditional or progressive rounds so long as the following 3 criteria are met

1. Maintain a reasonable speaking pace that develops your arguments well as opposed to spreading as a main tactic. I heavily value the strength of an individual argument you've won over how many you win on through sheer number. The quantity of arguments certainly has a place, but this is secondary to them being well developed. As such, I do value the actual presentation of the argument a little more highly, but this still remains secondary to the arguments' quality.

2. Limit use of jargon and focus more on the matter at hand. Jargon is fun, but please do remain focused.

3. Maintain a level of respect for your opponent and judge throughout. I am not necessarily going to evaluate exclusively on how nice you are, nor will one momentary point of rudeness lose you the round, but excessive rudeness will be reflected on your ballot.

Overall, focus on creating a strong argument first and foremost and make sure I can actually understand it. So long as you adhere to that, you should find success.

I will decide the winner after some thought and reflection at the end of the round, so I may not have a decision to dosclose immediately.

Hi everyone!

I'm a parent judge judging for the first time at OCSL Fall. Make sure to be organized, speak clearly, and please time yourselves. I do take notes during the debate but will likely not be familiar with any topic specific jargon you are using.

Please add me to email chain: Email: schirjeev@gmail.com

I am a lay judge. Go a little bit slower than you would usually just to make sure I get everything on the flow.