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

• 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.

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.

I value a good framework backed by logical reasoning and evidence or examples. I also value thorough and effective rebuttal. Prefer appropriately emphasized, none-rush communication style.

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!

Elise Meintanis (Harmening)

About me:

I have over 20 (yikes!) years of experience with debate and was the IHSA State Champion in Public Forum my senior year. Now I own my own law firm and work as an Adjunct Professor at UIC Law. I also work with Homewood-Flossmoor and attended Carl Sandburg.

About the round:

I am strict about timing in the round - if the timer goes off I do not want you to finish your sentence. I know it seems harsh but it helps me keep everything fair throughout the round! If I cut you off, I'm not mad, just keeping everything consistent :)

Tell me who wins at the end--I care about voting issues. Understand what the round comes down to and tell me why you won. I really mean it when I say I care about voting issues too - number them, line them up for me, make it super easy!

I also care about civility. That really hasn't been a big issue lately (which is amazing) but just keep that in mind too.

Name: Karla Nunez

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: Public Forum Since Fall of 2016 - approx. 7 years | Lincoln-Douglass since Fall 2019 - approx. 4 years

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

Before answering these questions I'd like to express that normally when asked if i have a Paradigm I'd answer along the lines of "I trust that you know what you are doing, so give me what you've got and I'll do my best to fill you in on what you need to improve". I other words, You, your coach, and teammates are expected to work together to ensure you've got what it takes to win the round, and I ensure that i asses and provide you with tools that can help you improve and succeed in the future. If you take anything away from this is that I'd like for you to GIVE ME WHAT YOU GOT! I want you to show me what 100% of you looks like in that moment. and just trust that your 100% now will change with time and effort.

Speed of delivery- During your constructive any speed as long as you are clear and enunciate properly. If it were a range of 1-5, (1 being slow with heavy pauses and 5 being the fastest ever I could call you McQueen and exclaim "Ka-Chow!") I find students do best at about a 3-4, I would be more concerned with your opponent’s preference.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- If your opponent said something that changes the game then address that, but i like big picture stuff.

Flowing/note-taking- You should definitely be flowing 1000000%, and I'll flow your speeches as much as possible, I'll lend an ear to cross incase any of my questions are answered, but none of it will flow through.

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 believe that if you state "I win on so and so because my opponent is just wrong", you have plenty of work to do.

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? makes sense to me.

It has been over 30 years since I did LD debate. More importantly, my career has been professional advocacy in various contexts.

If a resolution should be affirmed or negated, an effective debater should be able to persuasively explain why to a jury, a legislative body, a board of directors, or to colleagues at a professional conference. If the way that you debate would seem out of place in those contexts, then you may not succeed with me as a judge. If your argument depends on someone being familiar with flows, spreading, dropping contentions, frameworks, cards, counterplans, voters or other weird jargon that is not used in normal or professional conversations, then you may not succeed with me as a judge. You can use those concepts but do so in a way that would make sense in a normal conversation. Lastly, the pace at which you speak and the style in which you speak should also be a pace and style that would make sense in normal conversational contexts.

Here's the bottom line: Make strong arguments, offer relevant rebuttals and do so in a manner that is persuasive and respectful to your opponent. This is "values" debate so let's discuss values - what they are, why they're important, and why your position enhances them. Don't "lose the forest for the trees" -- i.e., get so caught up in various details and technicalities that you neglect the essence of whether a resolution should be affirmed or negated. Do not expect me to keep a "scorecard" or "check boxes." Convince me that youe position is superior to the position of your opponent.

Hi, my name is Mahi! I am a varsity debater from Barrington High School. Here are my paradigms:

1: Connect back to your framework! Don't forget to connect your impacts back to your FW. Show why your VC upholds your Value better than the opponent.

2: Voter's Issues. At the end of your speech tell me the most important reasons as to why you won the round.

3: Impacts. Impacting shows that you're not just reading a card, but you actually understand what the outcome is.

Also, just make sure to have a good time!

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.

Experience:

I was a policy debater in WI for 3 years and a PF debater for one, as well as a coach for a handful of years.

Speed:

Speed is fine with me as long as you slow down for tags, analytics, role of the ballots and plan texts (I like to understand what I'm voting for and why) and make it clear when you're moving onto a different card. I prefer to not have evidence flashed to me so I can judge based on how good a job you do of debating as opposed to how good I am at reading. On that note, if you really want me to have it in front of me you are welcome to flash to me as well.

Kritical Arguments: Having been a policy debater, I am okay with anything progressive in LD. However if you are going to run anything beyond a typical cap k, etc. I prefer to have them clearly explained to me instead of being spread (even if this means you just take a couple seconds after each card to put it in your own words).

Theory: I am also okay with any theory arguments. If you want me to vote on this however I will need very clear and convincing standards and voters.

Framework: Quite honestly, the easiest way to win my ballot is to present me with a clear framework/role of the ballot, explain it, and don't let me forget it. Tell me clearly why you win the round under this and why your opponent doesn't. If your opponent reads framework and you don't explain to me why you fit into it. If you both read competing frameworks and nobody tells me why to prefer theirs I will revert to a simple cost-benefit analysis mindset.

CPs: I am not a fan of CPs on their own. I do like them run in conjunction with something, such as a K with a CP alt or a CP with a DA.

Speaking Preferences: This all having been said, I am perfectly happy judging an entirely traditional debate round as well. Sometimes it's even refreshing to see. I do appreciate debaters who don't spread and make an effort to speak eloquently and fully understand every card they read. I'm not a fan of rude debaters but a little bit of sass will probably make me smile. In crossfire, don't dance around your opponent's questions. If you answer them in a straight forward manner I'll understand your arguments more which is better for you in the long run.

I try to remain as much of a tabs judge as possible, but nobody's perfect.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

I am a flow judge.

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

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

3) Connect contentions & impacts to the framework.

4) Outweigh on voters.

5) Extend arguments

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

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

8) All arguments are welcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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